Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
***NEXT GEN AFFIRMATIVE***
***NEXT GEN AFFIRMATIVE*** ..........................................................................................................................................1
1AC Advantage-Econ ..................................................................................................................................................................3
1AC Advantage-Aerospace .........................................................................................................................................................8
1AC Advantage-UAV ................................................................................................................................................................ 15
1AC Solvency ............................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Solvency Contention-Status Quo Bad........................................................................................................................................ 25
Solvency Contention-Implementation ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Solvency Contention-Implementation ....................................................................................................................................... 27
Solvency Contention-Will Succeed ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Solvency Contention-Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................ 29
Solvency Contention-Airport Capacity ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Solvency Contention-A2: Won’t Work ..................................................................................................................................... 31
Solvency Contention-A2: No Air Integration ............................................................................................................................ 32
Solvency-A2: No Testing .......................................................................................................................................................... 33
Solvency-A2: No Testing .......................................................................................................................................................... 34
Solvency-A2: Delay Works ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
Solvency-A2: Delay Works ....................................................................................................................................................... 36
Aerospace Advantage-Uniqueness ............................................................................................................................................ 37
Aerospace Advantage-Uniqueness ............................................................................................................................................ 38
Aerospace Advantage-Uniqueness ............................................................................................................................................ 39
Aerospace Advantage-Industry Strength ................................................................................................................................... 40
Aerospace Advantage-Competitiveness Internals ...................................................................................................................... 42
Aerospace Advantage-Key to Hege ........................................................................................................................................... 43
Aerospace Advantage-Key to Hege ........................................................................................................................................... 44
Heg Impact-Hegemony Good .................................................................................................................................................... 45
Heg Impact-Balancing 2AC ....................................................................................................................................................... 49
Heg Impact-Hegemony Sustainable ........................................................................................................................................... 50
Heg Impact-A2: Economic Crisis .............................................................................................................................................. 51
Heg Impact-A2: Dollar Shift...................................................................................................................................................... 52
Heg Impact-A2: Iraq .................................................................................................................................................................. 53
Heg Impact-A2: Overstretch ...................................................................................................................................................... 54
Heg Impact-A2: Obama ............................................................................................................................................................. 55
Heg Impact-A2: Bad Alliances .................................................................................................................................................. 56
Heg Impact-A2: Multilaterialism Good ..................................................................................................................................... 57
Heg Impact-A2: Soft Power Good ............................................................................................................................................. 58
Heg Impact-A2: Anti-Americanism Turn .................................................................................................................................. 59
Air Power Impact-Readiness Scenario ...................................................................................................................................... 61
Air Power Impact-Readiness Scenario ...................................................................................................................................... 62
Air Power Impact-Deterrence Scenario ..................................................................................................................................... 64
Air Power Impact-ME Scenario ................................................................................................................................................. 65
Air Power-China Scenario ......................................................................................................................................................... 66
Air Power-China Scenario ......................................................................................................................................................... 68
Air Power-NoKo Scenario ......................................................................................................................................................... 69
Economy Advantage-Uniqueness .............................................................................................................................................. 70
Economy Advantage-Uniqueness .............................................................................................................................................. 71
Economy Advantage-Uniqueness .............................................................................................................................................. 72
Economy Advantage-Uniqueness .............................................................................................................................................. 73
Economy Advantage-General Internals ..................................................................................................................................... 74
Economy Advantage-General Internals ..................................................................................................................................... 75
Economy Advantage-General Internals ..................................................................................................................................... 76
Economy Advantage-General Internals ..................................................................................................................................... 77
Economy Advantage-General Internals ..................................................................................................................................... 78
Economy Advantage-General Internals ..................................................................................................................................... 79
Economy Advantage-Multiper Internals .................................................................................................................................... 80
Economy Advantage-Congestion Internals ................................................................................................................................ 82
1
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-A2: Fed Solves ........................................................................................................................................ 83
Economy Advantage-2AC War Impact ..................................................................................................................................... 84
Economy Advantage-2AC War Impact ..................................................................................................................................... 85
Economy Advantage-Hege Impact ............................................................................................................................................ 87
UAV Advantage-Internals ......................................................................................................................................................... 90
UAV Advantage-Mexico Scenario ............................................................................................................................................ 91
UAV Advantage-Mexico Scenario ............................................................................................................................................ 92
Add On-Warming 2AC .............................................................................................................................................................. 93
Add On-Warming 2AC .............................................................................................................................................................. 94
Add On-Warming Internals ....................................................................................................................................................... 95
Add On-Harmonization 2AC ..................................................................................................................................................... 96
A2: Politics-Defense .................................................................................................................................................................. 97
A2: Politics-Thumpers ............................................................................................................................................................... 98
A2: Politics-Thumpers ............................................................................................................................................................. 100
A2: Politics-Turns .................................................................................................................................................................... 101
A2: Politics-Turns .................................................................................................................................................................... 102
A2: Politics-Turns .................................................................................................................................................................... 103
A2: Politics-Winners Win ........................................................................................................................................................ 104
A2: Elections............................................................................................................................................................................ 106
A2: Elections............................................................................................................................................................................ 107
A2: Spending DA..................................................................................................................................................................... 108
A2: Spending DA..................................................................................................................................................................... 109
A2: General CPs-Fed Funding Key ......................................................................................................................................... 110
A2: General CPs-Fed Funding Key ......................................................................................................................................... 111
A2: States CP-Solvency ........................................................................................................................................................... 112
A2: States CP-Solvency ........................................................................................................................................................... 113
A2: States CP-Solvency ........................................................................................................................................................... 114
A2: States CP-Keynes DA ....................................................................................................................................................... 115
A2: States CP-Keynes DA ....................................................................................................................................................... 116
A2: States CP-California DA ................................................................................................................................................... 117
A2: States CP- California DA Extensions ............................................................................................................................... 118
A2: States CP- California DA Extensions ............................................................................................................................... 119
A2: States CP-Can’t Deficit Spend .......................................................................................................................................... 120
A2: PPP CP .............................................................................................................................................................................. 122
A2: PPP CP .............................................................................................................................................................................. 123
A2: PPP CP .............................................................................................................................................................................. 125
A2: PPP CP .............................................................................................................................................................................. 126
A2: PPP CP .............................................................................................................................................................................. 128
A2: PPP CP-Monopolization Turn .......................................................................................................................................... 129
A2: PPP CP-Links to Net Benefit ............................................................................................................................................ 131
2
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
1AC Advantage-Econ
First note that a confluence of factors makes US economic decline certain-poor jobs growth is
crushing prior gains
Bloomberg BusinessWeek 6/5 (US economic outlook worsens after jobs report;
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-06/D9V6OHEO1.htm)
The faltering U.S. job market has prompted economists to take a much dimmer view of the country's growth prospects. That's
a shift from just a few weeks ago, when many were upgrading their forecasts. Friday's surprisingly bleak jobs report for May
followed a spate of disappointing data. Manufacturing activity slowed, an index of home sales fell and consumer confidence
tumbled. Mounting troubles in Europe and elsewhere have heightened economists' concerns. "The latest economic data have
been decisively disappointing," Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan Chase, wrote in a client note. JPMorgan Chase
sharply reduced its growth forecast for the July-September quarter to a 2 percent annual rate, down from 3 percent. It cited
the weaker U.S. hiring and a likely drop in U.S. exports related to slower growth overseas. And JPMorgan Chase now
forecasts growth of 2.1 percent for 2012, down from 2.3 percent. Julia Coronado, an economist at BNP Paribas in New
York, said she now expects growth of 2.2 percent this year, down from her previous forecast of 2.4 percent. She also revised
down her estimate of growth in the April-June quarter to a 2.2 percent annual rate, from a 2.5 percent rate. "We keep hoping
that we're going to turn a corner and move into a stronger phase of recovery, and the door keeps getting slammed shut,"
Coronado said. Forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers and Swiss bank UBS have also marked down their expectations
since Friday's jobs report. As a general rule, it takes about 2.5 percent growth to generate enough hiring to keep up with
population growth and prevent the unemployment rate from rising. The reduced forecasts suggest that hiring may not
strengthen much this year. After months of fitful expansion since the recession ended three years ago, many analysts had
expected the economy to begin strengthening steadily. Last month, the National Association for Business Economics said its
latest survey of economists found rising expectations for job gains and housing construction. And in April, the Federal
Reserve raised its forecast for growth this year to nearly 2.7 percent, from a January estimate of 2.5 percent. Now, it looks as
if the recovery is stumbling again. The biggest blow was Friday's jobs report. It said employers added only 69,000 jobs in
May, the fewest in a year. The government also said far fewer jobs were added in the previous two months than first thought
-- 11,000 fewer in March and 38,000 fewer in April. And the unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent, the
first increase since last June. Less hiring means fewer Americans have money to spend. That holds down consumer
spending, which drives about 70 percent of the economy and helps fuel job growth. And a rising unemployment rate tends to
reduce confidence. That can further shrink spending. Even at stronger levels of hiring, Americans' incomes had been already
growing only weakly. They increased 0.2 percent in April, the government said last week, the slowest pace in five months.
Other reports last week showed that more people sought unemployment benefits, a sign that hiring could remain sluggish.
Construction spending rose, but by less than many economists had forecast. And the government said the economy expanded
at an anemic 1.9 percent annual rate in the first three months of 2012. That's down from 3 percent in the fourth quarter. The
run of bleak reports extended into Monday. Companies cut their orders to factories for a second straight month, the
government said. And a gauge of business investment plans fell. On top of that, Europe's financial crisis is worsening.
Worries are growing that in elections later this month, Greek voters will reject the terms of a bailout and lead the country to
drop the euro. That could ignite financial chaos and perhaps force larger economies among the 17 countries that use the euro,
such as Spain and Italy, to abandon the currency, too. The resulting crisis would slow U.S. exports, about 20 percent of
which go to Europe. Fear about a collapse of the euro has contributed to a nearly 10 percent drop in the S&P 500 stock index
since April 2. Falling stock prices tend to damage consumer confidence and reduce spending. Key developing countries,
such as China, India and Brazil, are also reporting weaker growth. Those countries are big markets for U.S. heavy machinery.
U.S. farmers also export corn, soybeans and other grains to China. "You've got deterioration on all fronts at this point," said
Scott Anderson, an economist at Wells Fargo Securities. Anderson said Wells Fargo will likely reduce its forecasts for U.S.
growth.
And the U.S. economy is key to the global economy
Mathew Harris, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor of the U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC), and
Burrows, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit, 2009 (“Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the
Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf)
Such was the world the NIC foresaw as the crisis unfolded. Now, emerging markets the world over have lost more than half
of their value since September 2008 alone. Banks that have never reported a net loss earnings quarter were dissolved in a
matter of days. Even with the one year anniversary of the Bear Stearns collapse approaching in March, markets may have yet
to find a floor. The proportions of the current crisis hardly need familiarizing. As the panic has not yet given way to a lucid
picture of the impacts, most economists and political forecasters are smart enough to shy away from sweeping predictions
amid the fog of crisis. Yet, in the post-crisis world, it seems conceivable that global growth will most likely be muted,
3
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
deflation will remain a risk while any decoupling of the industrialized from developing countries is unlikely, the state will be
the relative winner while authoritarianism may not, and U.S. consumption as the engine for global growth will slowly fade.
Whether U.S. political and market clout will follow, and whether U.S. political leadership will come equipped with
knowledge of the strategic forces affecting the United States remains to be seen. How Much of a Geopolitical ‘‘Game
Changer’’ is the Financial Crisis? Mapping the NIC’s predictions against early facts, one of the most interesting
observations is less about any particular shock generated by the financial crisis and more about its global reach. If anything,
the crisis has underscored the importance of globalization as the overriding force or ‘‘mega-driver’’ as it was characterized
in both the NIC’s 2020 and 2025 Global Trends works. Developing countries have been hurt as decoupling theories,
assertions that the emerging markets have appreciably weaned themselves from the U.S. economy, have been dispelled.
This second epicenter of the crisis in emerging markets could also continue to exacerbate and prolong the crisis. Alongside
foreseeable exposures, such as Pakistan with its large current account deficit, are less predictable panics like Dubai, whose
debt was financed on suddenly expensive dollars. Even those with cash reserves, such as Russia and South Korea, have been
severely buffeted.
Economic collapse precipitates great power wars
Walter Mead, CFR, 4 February 2009 (Only Makes you stronger: Why the recession bolstered America,
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2169866/posts)
History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less
reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist
system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the
Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is
almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in
1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns
into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The
United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
Global economic crisis causes war---strong statistical support proves, and their defense doesn’t
account for global crises
Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010 (“Economic Integration,
Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political
Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature
has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of
interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on
leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent
power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic
crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances,
increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead
to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999).
Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the
likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between
global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000)
theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectations of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic
conditions and security behavior of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade
so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline,
particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be
inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations
either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link
between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation
between international conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, the
linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to
spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to
which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002, p. 89). Economic decline has
also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, and Weerapana, 2004), which has the
capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting
government. 'Diversionary theory' suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting
4
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang
(1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline
and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest
that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that
democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen
(2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak
Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship
positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science
scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.
These wars go nuclear
Friedberg & Schoenfeld 2008 [Aaron, professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's
Woodrow Wilson School, Gabriel, Visiting Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, The Dangers of a Diminished America, WSJ,
10/21, Proquest]
Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. Even before our current woes,
calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many Democrats and some Republicans. In a
prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow. Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential
collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center
of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us
to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe
haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from
al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose
paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's
seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a
dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our
position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a
scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies
failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster
exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear
toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our
principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has
demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global
slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to
foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where
political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of
these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.
We’ll isolate two internal links—
First Congestion:
Congestion is pervasive now-affects all major airports
Barkowski 2012- Pepperdine Law Review, J.D. Candidate, Pepperdine University, 2010; B.A. in Economics, University
of California, Berkeley, 2007; Instrument-Rated Private Pilot Certificate, 2008. (Justin B. 2/2/2012 ""Managing Air Traffic
Congestion Through the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Satellite- Based Technology, Trajectories, and Privatization?"" Volume 37 | Issue 1 Article 3 ) PHS
On a late Friday afternoon, daily commuters face unbearable traffic congestion on the nation's highways trying to get home
for the weekend. In recent decades, a very similar congestion effect has developed at nearly every major airport in the
country, especially the nation's busiest.' During my own personal flight training, I had the unpleasant experience of
witnessing this problem firsthand. Indeed, what originally seemed like a relatively simple task-communicating with an air
traffic control tower and landing the aircraft-turned into a time consuming and costly adventure. I quickly discovered that the
controllers will divert any aircraft away from the runway and put it behind a long line of planes trying to arrive home,
meaning that every plane remains in the air far longer and expends far more fuel. This added fuel expense was relatively
minimal for me, especially in comparison to the extravagant costs for major airlines, which are forced into these diversions
even more frequently.2 This begs the question: With the number of aircraft in the airspace growing rapidly, how do we
efficiently manage the demand for open skies?
5
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
And next gen is key to solve congestion-status quo levels cripple the economy
Barkowski 2012 “Congestion: How Bad is the Problem?”
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=plr
Flight problems, including cancellations, misconnections, and delays, were the number one complaint from
consumers in 2007.68 Twenty-four percent of all flights were delayed and two percent canceled -the second worst
year on record for airlines' on-time performance. The current U.S. air transportation system currently has 50,000
flights in a twenty-four hour period, but by 2025, this number is projected to reach 100,000 to 150,000 flights each
day. The projected demand increases on the system make changes necessary and inevitable. From 1998 to 2007, the
average length of a flight delay has increased from 49 to 56 minutes, while the average length of trip delays expected
by passengers increased from 90 minutes to 114 minutes during 2007.73 Despite the various debates and models to
measure the effects of delays on passengers, analysts have agreed the costs are significant, with one estimating the cost
on the economy at approximately $40.7 billion. Despite the fact that the terms are often used synonymously, there is an
important distinction between flight delays and airport congestion. Flight delays include delays, cancellations,
oversold and diverted flights, and are attributable largely to congestion in the airspace system. In comparison, airport
congestion occurs when the volume of aircraft exceed the capacity constraints of any given airport.n Airport
congestion is such a powerful cause of flight delays because of its impact on the nation. For instance, researchers
estimate that forty percent of flight delays in the entire system "are from delays that originate in the New York
metropolitan area." The NewYork region alone had one-third of all its flights delayed or canceled in 2007.79
Naturally, most policy efforts have been aimed at providing relief to this region and ensuring the most efficient use of
those resources.
Second the Air Economy:
Airports are key to the US economy-next gen is key to revive the sector for multiple reasons
JPDO, 2007 (“Next Generation Air Transportation System”, August 24, 2007,
http://www.jpdo.gov/library/nextgen_business_case_ver_1.pdf, accessed 7/17/12)
The Aviation Industry is Critical to the U.S. Economy: The aviation industry contributes approximately $640 billion to the
U.S. economy—or 5.4 percent of the U.S. gross domestic produce (GDP)— and accounts for more than 9 million jobs1 and
about $314 billion in wages.2 The industry is one of the strongest contributors to the U.S. trade balance, as represented by net
aerospace exports that totaled more than $36 billion in 2005. Aerospace is also the third largest U.S. export category and one
of the few in which the U.S. has a trade surplus.3 Air Traffic Control Problems Becoming Acute: The current air traffic
system was built on technology that has reached the limits of its ability to handle more traffic. The current system is based on
a foundation of technologies developed as far back as the 1940s and 1950s, and many of these systems have far exceeded
their original life expectancy. Fundamental Change in Air Traffic Control is Needed: While the current national airspace
system (NAS) is safe and resilient, demand is now exceeding capacity in several areas of the country and forecasts indicate a
doubling to tripling of demand by 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has implemented a spectrum of
technology upgrades and procedural and airspace changes to maximize the use of available capacity. However,
modernization programs that are primarily intended for “technology refresh” have reached the point of diminishing returns. A
continued proliferation of patchwork upgrades to an already fragmented system simply cannot accommodate the exponential
growth in air travel expected over the next 20 years—nor can it accommodate the evolving safety, security, environmental,
and national defense objectives. For example, congestion already exacts a toll of $9.4 billion per year due to passenger
delays4, and that number could grow to $20 billion by 2025. For airlines, we estimate a $2 billion profit loss—funds that
could otherwise be used for future fleet modernization andexpansion. A complete transformation of our nation’s air
transportation system is needed to facilitate the expected growth of the aviation transportation market and accommodate
emerging industry trends and business models that are so vital to the U.S. economy. The Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NextGen) will establish a scalable, flexible air transportation system that can adapt to market demands and provide
an evolutionary pathway to a revolutionary future.
And investment in next gen spills over and creates positive multiplier effects across sectors
RAA, 2012 (“Equipping Aircraft Will Create Jobs and Achieve Environmental & Safety Benefits Now”,
http://www.raa.org/Portals/0/News/equipaircrafttoreduceco2andcreatejobs010709_.pdf, accessed 7/17/12)
NextGen (Next Generation Air Transportation System) is the FAA’s plan for the complete transformation of today’s
antiquated ground-based air traffic system to a more efficient system based on advanced technologies that enable air traffic
control to utilize shared precision information between controllers and pilots. Unfortunately, the FAA’s current plan doesn’t
achieve significant investment return for the aviation transportation system until 2025. This is due, in large part, to the
6
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
challenge of aligning investments in air and ground infrastructure and across the stakeholders – the “chicken and egg”
syndrome. An infusion of stimulus funding would jumpstart this process, dramatically advancing the schedule and resulting
in job creation, a reduction in carbon emissions, and an air transportation system supporting economic growth. Significant
benefits that FAA and Congress believe will be realized over the next 17 years could actually happen in President-elect
Obama's first term. Justification Benefits: Combining FAA’s infrastructure modernization with enhanced aircraft equipage
and new procedures offers significant benefits: job creation, improved airline environmental performance and reduced CO2,
enhanced safety and security capabilities, enhanced system capacity/operational performance, leading to reduced delays for
consumers, reduced FAA operating costs, establish all-weather access to general aviation airports, NextGen Stimulus
7
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
1AC Advantage-Aerospace
The collapse of the US aerospace industry is inevitable now-multiple factors conspire to doom the
sector
Montgomery 2008 (David, writer for the Seattle Times, Ph.D. from U. California, Berkeley. “Retiree flood waits in
aerospace wings” http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2004174511_jobsage10.html )
With thousands of aerospace workers soon to retire, the industry is facing a huge loss of skills and wisdom as business
continues to grow. WASHINGTON — Roughly a quarter of the nation's 637,000 aerospace workers could be eligible for
retirement this year, raising fears that America could face a serious skills shortage in the factories that churn out commercial
and military aircraft. "It's a looming issue that's getting more serious year by year," said Marion Blakey, chief executive of
the Aerospace Industries Association. "These are real veterans. It's a hard work force to replace." The association, which
represents aircraft manufacturers and suppliers, has designated the potential skills drain as one of its top 10 priorities in this
year's presidential race. One of the major aerospace unions is embracing the issue in a rare alliance between labor and
management. "It's not a problem that's coming. It's here," said Frank Larkin, spokesman for the 720,000-member
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The issue particularly resonates in aircraft-manufacturing
centers such as the Puget Sound region, the Dallas-Fort Worth area, St. Louis and Wichita, Kan., which bills itself as the "Air
Capital of the World." "Obviously, we are concerned that we have a large portion of our work force that in five years, 10
years, will pick up and go," said Marivel Neeley, the senior manager of equal-opportunity programs at Lockheed Martin's
plant in Fort Worth. Fort Worth is headquarters for Lockheed Martin, which has nearly 25,000 workers in seven cities,
including big plants in Fort Worth; Marietta, Ga.; and Palmdale, Calif. Of the companywide work force, 27 percent, or more
than 6,000 employees, would be eligible to retire this year, Neeley said. In Wichita, which has five major aircraft plants and
hundreds of suppliers and vendors, community leaders are working to offset the potential loss of more than 40 percent of the
aeronautics work force during the next five years. One initiative calls for the creation of a world-class aviation training center
to help meet the need for 12,000 more aerospace workers by 2018. The Seattle-Tacoma area appears to be bucking the trend
through a production surge at Boeing plants that's expanded the work force with new hires, including a growing number of
workers between 18 and 29. But nationally, the work force is graying as baby boomers prepare to retire. Ten years ago, the
industry's largest age group was 35 to 44. In 2007, nearly 60 percent of the work force was 45 or older. At least 20 percent
were between the ages of 55 to 64, and many, if not most, were already eligible for retirement. The problem is essentially one
of supply and demand. Both the commercial and military segments of the industry are enjoying robust growth, with sales
expected to increase by $12 billion this year. The demand for aerospace, electrical, mechanical and computer engineering
disciplines is expected to be double what it was 10 years ago. But analysts and corporate bosses say higher education is
turning out far too few engineering and aeronautical graduates to fill future vacancies. Public schools' poor record in teaching
math and science is another worry. Harry Holzer, a Georgetown University professor who served as the chief economist for
the Labor Department, said market forces ultimately may solve the problem. But for the moment, he said, "it won't be
painless, and some real adjustments may have to occur." Although production workers in aerospace earn more than those in
most other manufacturing industries — an average of $1,153 a week, according to the Department of Labor — Holzer said
the industry doesn't have the recruitment appeal that it did decades ago. Many younger workers, he said, regard aerospace
plants as "old-fashioned industries." A mass exodus of older workers also means the loss of a vast reservoir of knowledge,
skills and institutional memory dating back to the early years of the Vietnam War. Atlee Cunningham Jr., an engineer at
Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant, calls it a "gut feel" that can't be learned in books or training manuals. Cunningham, 69,
has been at the plant for 42 years and predates the computer-driven technological revolution that has accompanied the growth
of the aerospace industry over the past four-plus decades. Mindful of the ominous demographic trends, industry, labor and
community leaders are teaming to cultivate the next generation of workers. At Lockheed Martin, said Neeley, the leadership
is aggressively pursuing a strategy to attract workers and retain veterans who can mentor younger colleagues. The initiatives
include internships, aggressive recruitment in colleges and universities and an outreach into public schools to get students
interested in math and sciences. Preserving and bolstering the aerospace work force also is a major objective in the Seattle
area. "We've postured ourselves to manage this," said Dianna Peterson, Boeing's director of strategic work force planning.
Edmonds Community College and the University of Washington offer advanced education in composites and other aircraft
materials. Boeing also is working with labor to reinvigorate apprenticeships and other programs that pass aerospace knowhow from one generation to another.
That collapse destroys US military leadership
National Aerospace 2011 (Nationalaerospaceweek.org, 7-19-11, “AIA President Blakely: Is US Aerospace Leadership
a thing of the past or Key to Our Future?” http://nationalaerospaceweek.org/aia-president-blakey-is-u-s-aerospace-leadershipa-thing-of-the-past-or-the-key-to-our-future/ )
8
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Aerospace Industries Association President and CEO Marion C. Blakey told a packed house of aviation enthusiasts and
industry leaders that proposals to radically slash the aerospace and defense budget would threaten our national security, put
the economic recovery at risk, and risk America’s status as a global leader.
Blakey described how thoughtless across-the-board cuts in the past had left the U.S. with a “hollow Army” and an inventory
of aging and worn down military equipment and urged Congress not to repeat the mistakes of the past.“We simply can’t
afford to take that approach again,” she warned. “Today we face stark choices that boil down to one big question : Will we
give America a future filled with promise by continuing to invest in U.S. leadership in global aerospace, or will we consign
aerospace to the list of great industries that America once led?” .
That spills over to a broader collapse of hegemony
Walker et al 2002 (The Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, “Final Report of the
Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry” http://history.nasa.gov/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf
)
Aerospace will be at the core of America’s leadership and strength in the 21st century . The role of aerospace in establishing
America’s global leadership was incontrovertibly proved in the last century. This industry opened up new frontiers to the
world, such as freedom of flight and access to space. It provided products that defended our nation, sustained our economic
prosperity and safeguarded the very freedoms we commonly enjoy as Americans. It has helped forge new inroads in medicine
and science, and fathered the development of commercial products that have improved our quality of life. Given a continued
commitment to pushing the edge of man’s engineering, scientific and manufacturing expertise, there is the promise of still
more innovations and new frontiers yet to be discovered. It is imperative that the U.S. aerospace industry remains healthy to
preserve the balance of our leadership today and to ensure our continued leadership tomorrow .
That sparks global nuclear war
Robert Kagan, Senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Senior transatlantic fellow at the
German Marshall Fund, August and September 2007 (End of Dreams, Return of History, Policy Review,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.htm)
This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively
benign international configuration of power. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant power is
unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. It inspires fears and jealousies. The United States is not immune to error,
like all other nations, and because of its size and importance in the international system those errors are magnified and take
on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations. Compared to the ideal Kantian international order, in which
all the world 's powers would be peace-loving equals, conducting themselves wisely, prudently, and in strict obeisance to
international law, the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. Compared to any plausible alternative in the real world,
however, it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between great powers. It is also comparatively
benevolent, from a liberal perspective, for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that
Americans and many others value. American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world,
therefore. It stands in the way of regression toward a more dangerous world. The choice is not between an Americandominated order and a world that looks like the European Union. The future international order will be shaped by those who
have the power to shape it. The leaders of a post-American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and
Washington. The return of great powers and great games If the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity, it is
nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human
affairs from time immemorial. During the Cold War, this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for
status and influence as well as for wealth and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar
order. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not been powerful enough, and probably could never be powerful
enough, to suppress by itself the normal ambitions of nations. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity,
since none of the large powers is in range of competing with the superpower for global influence. Nevertheless, several large
powers are now competing for regional predominance, both with the United States and with each other. National ambition
drives China's foreign policy today, and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to appear as unthreatening as
possible to the rest of the world, the Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their nation to what they regard as its
traditional position as the preeminent power in East Asia. They do not share a European, postmodern view that power is
passé; hence their now two-decades-long military buildup and modernization. Like the Americans, they believe power,
including military power, is a good thing to have and that it is better to have more of it than less. Perhaps more significant is
the Chinese perception, also shared by Americans, that status and honor, and not just wealth and security, are important for a
nation. Japan, meanwhile, which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring postmodern power -- with its pacifist
constitution and low defense spending -- now appears embarked on a more traditional national course. Partly this is in
9
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
reaction to the rising power of China and concerns about North Korea 's nuclear weapons. But it is also driven by Japan's own
national ambition to be a leader in East Asia or at least not to play second fiddle or "little brother" to China. China and Japan
are now in a competitive quest with each trying to augment its own status and power and to prevent the other 's rise to
predominance, and this competition has a military and strategic as well as an economic and political component. Their
competition is such that a nation like South Korea, with a long unhappy history as a pawn between the two powers, is once
again worrying both about a "greater China" and about the return of Japanese nationalism. As Aaron Friedberg commented,
the East Asian future looks more like Europe's past than its present. But it also looks like Asia's past. Russian foreign policy,
too, looks more like something from the nineteenth century. It is being driven by a typical, and typically Russian, blend of
national resentment and ambition. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration into the new European order, the Russia
of Andrei Kozyrev, would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO, would not insist on
predominant influence over its "near abroad," and would not use its natural resources as means of gaining geopolitical
leverage and enhancing Russia 's international status in an attempt to regain the lost glories of the Soviet empire and Peter the
Great. But Russia, like China and Japan, is moved by more traditional great-power considerations, including the pursuit of
those valuable if intangible national interests: honor and respect. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their
security from NATO and the United States, the Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and national
identity than with plausible external military threats. 16 Russia's complaint today is not with this or that weapons system. It is
the entire post-Cold War settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and wants to revise. But that does not make insecurity
less a factor in Russia 's relations with the world; indeed, it makes finding compromise with the Russians all the more
difficult. One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. India 's regional
ambitions are more muted, or are focused most intently on Pakistan, but it is clearly engaged in competition with China for
dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees itself, correctly, as an emerging great power on the world scene. In the Middle East
there is Iran, which mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership in its region. 17 Its nuclear
program is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian territory from attack by the United
States. Even the European Union, in its way, expresses a pan-European national ambition to play a significant role in the
world, and it has become the vehicle for channeling German, French, and British ambitions in what Europeans regard as a
safe supranational direction. Europeans seek honor and respect, too, but of a postmodern variety. The honor they seek is to
occupy the moral high ground in the world, to exercise moral authority, to wield political and economic influence as an
antidote to militarism, to be the keeper of the global conscience, and to be recognized and admired by others for playing this
role. Islam is not a nation, but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism, and the leaders of radical Islam,
including al Qaeda, do seek to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass a wide swath of
the Middle East and beyond. Like national movements elsewhere, Islamists have a yearning for respect, including selfrespect, and a desire for honor. Their national identity has been molded in defiance against stronger and often oppressive
outside powers, and also by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers. China had its "century of humiliation."
Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on, a humiliation of which Israel has become the living
symbol, which is partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even their
support to violent extremists who can turn the tables on the dominant liberal West, and particularly on a dominant America
which implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in their midst. Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of
national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative,
Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until
recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the
Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not
retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as
it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with
China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central
Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are
loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as "No. 1" and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having
entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe
they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to
be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and
influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War
international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power,
influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying -- its regional as well as its
global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest
power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy
and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel
aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars
between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the
role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the
10
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home
waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and
trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war,
it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations
would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would
involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major
conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the
goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical
miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt
secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe ’s stability depends on
the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous
development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of
world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance
often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American
power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like
would remain in place. But that ’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped
by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since
World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which
the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules
and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order
be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of
enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also
offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world ’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional
conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United
States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide
whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible,
as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers,
including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they
are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is
especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on
the region. That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the
United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an
ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it
remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing
and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that
the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and
therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are
possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a
strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near
neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to
imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore”
role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in
keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back
and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel,
which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to
Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic
oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and
on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the
equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at
least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn ’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening
dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an
immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not
balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of
American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper
involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful
states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would
voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The
world hasn ’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of
11
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to
American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning
nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it
may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a
retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.
Fortunately the plan solves
Boosting next gen funding saves the aerospace industry
Stewart 2010 (D.R., World Staff Writer for the Tulsa World. 6/27, “NextGeneration air traffic system holds new promise
for airways” http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=45&articleid=20100627_45_e1_thenex600201 )
Federal authorities and the U.S. aerospace industry are taking significant steps toward implementing the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen). A $40 billion-plus air traffic management system based on satellite navigation
technologies, NextGen has been in the talking stages for a generation. But in recent months, two airlines and the Federal
Aviation Administration have performed demonstration flights and tests of the new technologies that prove their
groundbreaking capabilities, airline and government executives said. In Philadelphia, federal air traffic controllers using
satellite-based Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology are more precisely tracking aircraft,
separating them in the sky and on the runways, producing greater efficiencies and increased margins of safety. "This new
technology is a tremendous leap forward in transforming the current air traffic control system," said FAA Administrator
Randy Babbitt in April at the conclusion of ADS-B tests. "The operational benefits in Philadelphia extend as far as
Washington, D.C., and New York, which has some of the most congested airspace in the world."
And that is the case for multiple reasons
Stewart 2010 [Dr. Todd Stewart, Air Force Institute of Technology Director and Chancellor, Major General United States
Air Force, “NextGeneration air traffic system holds new promise for airways” June 27, 2010,
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=45&articleid=20100627_45_e1_thenex600201]
Federal authorities and the U.S. aerospace industry are taking significant steps toward implementing the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen). A $40 billion-plus air traffic management system based on satellite navigation
technologies, NextGen has been in the talking stages for a generation. But in recent months, two airlines and the Federal
Aviation Administration have performed demonstration flights and tests of the new technologies that prove their
groundbreaking capabilities, airline and government executives said. In Philadelphia, federal air traffic controllers using
satellite-based Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology are more precisely tracking aircraft,
separating them in the sky and on the runways, producing greater efficiencies and increased margins of safety. "This new
technology is a tremendous leap forward in transforming the current air traffic control system," said FAA Administrator
Randy Babbitt in April at the conclusion of ADS-B tests. "The operational benefits in Philadelphia extend as far as
Washington, D.C., and New York, which has some of the most congested airspace in the world." In Miami, Fla., American
Airlines and Air France flights originating in Paris in April used NextGen technologies to shorten routes and flight times,
reduce fuel consumption and carbon emissions, while lowering aircraft noise levels on final approach and landing. American
Flight 63 on a Boeing 767-300 aircraft from Paris Charles De Gaulle Airport to Miami International Airport demonstrated
several fuel conservation measures, including single-engine taxi on departure and arrival, continuous climb and descent
profiles, optimized routing over water and a "tailored" arrival, American executives said. "It is critical that the aviation
industry work with our air traffic control partners to demonstrate the benefits of NextGen technology today," said Bob
Reding, American's executive vice president of operations. "Utilizing NextGen technology is also a crucial part of
American's overall environmental and fuel savings efforts, which have already yielded annual fuel savings of more than 110
million gallons and a reduction of 2.2 billion pounds of carbon emissions." American Airlines has been a pioneer in the use
of NextGen or global positioning satellite navigation systems. In 1990, American published the first area navigation flight
procedures for approaches and landings at mountain-ringed Eagle-Vail (Colo.) Airport. "Before NextGen had a name,
American Airlines was using similar techniques in Colorado," said Brian Will, a 22-year American pilot who heads the
airline's NextGen program. "We were taking delivery of (Boeing) 757 aircraft, which have a great combination of high thrust
and dual flight management computers. We looked at some airports that had operational challenges — mostly at high altitude
mountain airports. "It started a movement of using on-board avionics to fly these airplanes. American Airlines and other big
airlines have been prepared to move forward with NextGen for quite a while." Traditional air navigation systems are based on
World War II-era ground-based radar. Radar signals cannot penetrate mountains, bad weather or reach across oceans, so
coverage in some instances is limited, industry officials say. ADS-B and other NextGen technologies use global positioning
satellite signals along with aircraft cockpit avionics to transmit the aircraft's location to ground receivers. The ground
receivers then transmit the information to controller screens and cockpit displays on aircraft equipped with ADS-B avionics.
ADS-B allows pilots to see for the first time other aircraft in the sky around them, increasing the margin for safety. It allows
12
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
air traffic controllers to more precisely identify aircraft locations and their proximity to other aircraft. Aircraft separation
distances can be reduced with the use of more accurate NextGen technologies, industry officials say. The U.S. air-traffic
system handles 35,000 to 37,000 commercial aircraft flights a day. At any one moment, 5,000 aircraft are in the sky over the
United States, said FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto. "With the development of the new technology, we are given a
significant amount of new information," Will said. "When all of this technology is working well, it is very very beneficial.
"Number one, we will be able to fly more precise routings into airports — keeping aircraft from inhabited areas at night or on
weekends, with fewer carbon emissions, and the number of delays will be reduced. We can fit a bunch more aircraft into the
airspace using NextGen technologies. "NextGen promises significant increases in our abilities to reduce delays, shorten
flight times and use less fuel. Hopefully, we will be able to pass on those benefits in terms of lower fares." The FAA is
installing the ground infrastructure for ADS-B. The agency has proposed that airlines and private aircraft install ADS-B
avionics by 2020. ADS-B is expected to be available nationwide by 2013, FAA officials said.
And aerospace recovery buttresses overall US competitiveness
Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Robert E. Mansfield, Jr. July 21, 2011. The Competitive Advantage of Analytics in the Aerospace
Industry. Aerospace Executive in Residence in the Department of Business Administration, Center for Aviation and
Aerospace Leadership at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Worldwide. He has served as Director of Supply for the
U.S. Air Force at the Pentagon and has had numerous assignments both at home and abroad leading major Air Force logistics
and management operations. http://thecaalblog.com/uncategorized/the-competitive-advantage-of-analytics-in-the-aerospaceindustry.html
Whether in sports or in business, serious competitors are constantly seeking an advantage. In business, this often leads to
process improvements, innovative practices, and the application of new technologies. Finding new areas of competitive
advantage takes time but can make all the difference in performance and outcome. However, in the information age,
breakthrough changes are rarely secret for long. And in a world where the numbers of competitors are growing and many
products are similar; staying at the top becomes more challenging. Four years ago I began thinking quite a bit about how and
in what ways the U.S. could remain the leader in the aerospace industry, particularly in aerospace manufacturing. A number
of the more traditional (and important) ideas came to mind: new machine technology, the use of modeling and simulation,
education and workforce training, and government policy and law. Then a thought came from my professional training as a
logistician—data/information analysis. Logistics is in many ways the premier user of the science of analysis. I began to look
into this approach and in the course of doing the research found Tom Davenport and Jeanne Harris’ book,Competing on
Analytics: The New Science of Winning. In a nut shell, Davenport and Harris illustrate how to use “data, statistical and
quantitative analysis, explanatory and predictive models, and fact-based management to drive decisions and actions.” There
is a vast quantity of data, which the aerospace industry can use to understand the nature of competition and where to look for
insights. Good insight can lead to better business decisions and better utilization of resources. One of the insights we’ve had
at CAAL since we started our Aerospace Manufacturing Initiative has come from looking at the content of export sales. What
we’ve found is that while aerospace products and parts continue to have a large trade surplus, the value of the content of U.S.
manufacturers has been decreasing. This points to an erosion of the domestic aerospace supply base. This is not necessarily a
new revelation, but if this trend is not checked, it could threaten the innovative capabilities and competitiveness of the U.S.
aerospace industry.
Air power uniquely preserves hegemony-it’s the biggest internal link because it assures US
presence at flashpoint conflicts
Schwartz, USAF General (4-Star), 2012 (Norty, “Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium: “Sustaining Readiness
with Constrained Budgets”, February 23, 2012, http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120223-024.pdf, accessed
7/17/12)
Consider that, one year ago, at this time, the U.S. Air Force and Armed Forces were mere weeks away from conducting our
own version of “March Madness.” But instead of college hoops, tournament brackets, and office pools, we participated in
full-spectrum operations spanning intercontinental distances, from humanitarian and disaster relief in East Asia, to
Presidential mobility and logistics support in South America, to combat operations in North Africa. Airmen did not hesitate
when the clarion call to duty sounded—Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, and Active Duty Airmen. As an Air Force—
one Air Force—we were prepared.And, by the way, we executed these pop-up taskings, all the while still remaining fully
engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. By my reading of the new Defense Strategic Guidance, the Air Force capabilities that were
demonstrated during our “March Madness”—the full-spectrum airpower that was pivotal to our Nation’s success—will play
an increasingly important role in the future.Indeed, a year ago at this time, we still could not appreciate the full extent and
significance of what has become popularly known as the “Arab Spring.” Today, we are watching Syria very closely. The
Nation’s strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific, while maintaining our presence in the greater Middle East and South Asia, has us
monitoring additional global situations, from a new North Korean leader with unknown intentions, to an entrenched Iranian
regime with a tendency toward consistent misbehavior.In all of these potential flashpoints, we know that airpower will play a
13
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
prominent role. And regardless of the eventual balance between land-based and sea-based forces, we all know that what
covers one-hundred percent of both land and sea is air and space. That is the “ground truth”—an ironic expression, in this
instance, to articulate the undeniable need for airpower in the 21st century.
14
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
1AC Advantage-UAV
Status quo UAS integration is terrible-next gen integration is key to avert a catastrophic failure
Toner 4/18 (Dr. Karlin Toner, Director of the Joint Production and Development Office, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) in a NextGen Environment” http://www.jpdo.gov/library/2012_0409_Dayton_UAS_Speech_v5.pdf )
This is a new frontier for aviation—uncharted territory. There are new flight paradigms for small, medium, and large UAS of
varying performance. Pilot and controller roles for 15this widely mixed fleet of remotely piloted and autonomous vehicles
must be defined. Can UAS operate efficiently in the National Airspace System under the existing airspace policies? NextGen
must be scalable and flexible to account for the projected growth in UAS operations. While public agencies support the
principles of “safety first,” many are also very anxious to routinely operate UAS missions: hurricane tracking, military
operations, border patrol, wildlife monitoring, and more. It sounds to me like a lot of different operations, with flight plans
that don’t look like direct city-pairs, and remote pilots who need certification. Indeed, forecasts project significant numbers of
UAS operations. The current National Airspace System was developed to accommodate the capabilities of manned aircraft.
While many procedures and principles used for manned aircraft apply to UAS, there are significant differences in
technological maturity, perception and acceptance, and operational experience that remain. NextGen must deal with these
differences now so that the Air Traffic Management system has the technologies, policies, standards, and procedures it needs.
Fortunately next gen implementation is key to UAV effectiveness-many reasons
AIAA 2012 Information Paper (No Author 2012 "Developing a Robust Next Generation Air Transportation System"
)PHS
In 2012, Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, P.L. 112-95, the “FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012.” In the
conference report, Congress again stated that the modernization of the ATM system should ensure “that NextGen
implementation activities are planned in such a manner as to require that system architecture is designed to allow for the
incorporation of novel and currently unknown technologies into NextGen in the future and that current decisions do not bias
future decisions unfairly in favor of existing technology at the expense of innovation.” Section 332 of P.L. 112-95
specifically addresses the need to incorporate unmanned aerial systems (UAS) into the NAS. UAS represent a very highprofile classification of new aircraft platforms that do not currently have normalized access into the spectrum. Unmanned
systems have a long track record of success in military missions, as well as serving in natural disasters such as providing
damage assessment data along the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. However, due to restrictions on access to the airspace
system, UAS remain underutilized. With modernization of the system, UAS could provide several domestic civil capabilities
such as enhanced border security, disaster assessment, polar monitoring, marine fisheries monitoring, and fire and weather
monitoring, as well as providing a unique data set for tropical weather forecasting, all of which meet another
recommendation from the Walker Commission of “(p)ropagating defense technology into the commercial sector, particularly
in communication, navigation and surveillance.”
Next gen will be quickly integrated into existing UAS systems providing massive UAV efficiency
boosts
Joint Planning and Development Office 2011, January 4,2011 http://www.jpdo.gov/newsarticle.asp?id=146
The integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS) is an integral part of the
planning and implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), the multi-disciplinary effort that
will offer a host of air transportation operational, technical, economic, and environmental advantages. Ultimately, NextGen
will help the US achieve gains in efficiency and capacity for all users of the NAS. UAS is generally defined as a system
whose components include the necessary equipment, communication links, and personnel to control and employ an
unmanned aircraft. The UAS is composed of six elements: the UA element, communications element, control element,
support element, human element, and payload element. UAS already play a unique role in the safety and security of many US
military and civil missions, such as border surveillance, monitoring oil pipelines, and local law enforcement. They have
evolved from simple drones and basic models to large sophisticated aircraft. In 2010, UAS access to the NAS, especially for
commercial operations, remains restricted due to a lack of appropriate operational procedures, standards, and policies,
because the NAS is tailored to accommodate manned aircraft. UAS operate solely under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and in
segregated airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) allows UAS operations on a case-by-case basis. They are
treated as aircraft and are required to comply with current Part 91 aircraft operating rules. Due to the diverse utility that UAS
offer, their use will increase exponentially in a variety of key military and civil areas. Industry projections for 2018 forecast
more than 15,000 UAS in service in the U.S., with a total of almost 30,000 deployed worldwide [World Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle Systems, Market Profile and Forecast 2009-2010; The Teal Group]. From an operational, infrastructure, and safety
perspective, this presents a number of challenges, the solutions to which will involve and impact all NAS constituencies, but
ultimately enable a seamless integration of UAS into the NAS. In designing NextGen and planning for a substantial increase
15
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
in the use of UAS, the FAA considers the most important technical challenge to be developing a safe and efficient way that
they can operate in the same airspace as crewed aircraft without creating a hazard either to other aircraft or other objects on
the ground. UAS also may not have the ability to respond to Air Traffic Control (ATC)-issued instructions as quickly as
manned aircraft. In addition to communications latency, there is the possibility of a total loss of communications. Although
current FAA plans for the mid-term dictate that UAS will operate under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) in Class A, B, and E
airspace, plans for the long-term -- beyond 2018 -- specify that they will operate in the NAS using "electronic" IFR. Role of
the JPDO In 2003, Congress established the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) under the VISION 100 –
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Public Law 108-176) to plan and develop NextGen in collaboration with its
government partners, which include the Departments of Transportation, Defense, Homeland Security, and Commerce, as well
as the FAA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP), and industry. Research and Development Workshop As part of this initiative, and because UAS will continue
to play an increasingly significant role in the future NAS, the JPDO and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) recently
sponsored a UAS research and development (R&D) workshop in Dayton, Ohio. The workshop brought together government
subject matter experts and executives to focus on critical and cross-cutting long-term research and development issues. These
include air vehicle technologies, human factors, ground-control stations, communications, and sense and avoid—all
associated with UAS flying with manned aircraft in a future NextGen trajectory-based operations (TBO) airspace. The
workshop explored the potential of the UAS mission, together with the R&D capabilities and plans of the organizations
involved in NextGen. In addition, the JPDO Director Dr. Karlin Toner in her keynote address stated that the JPDO remains
committed to developing the requisite strategy for joint coordination, collaboration, and execution of the long-term R&D
activities in support of UAS integration into the NAS as part of NextGen, based on current and future opportunities. JPDO
and AFRL established three objectives for the workshop. The first was to identify the set of technical issues that must be
resolved in order to ensure safe and consistent UAS operations in NextGen airspace. The second objective was to catalog
current R&D activities by each represented government agency and identify gaps not currently being addressed. The third
objective was to identify areas where joint demonstrations can advance progress toward UAS integration more effectively
than single-agency efforts. The workshop was divided into three technical tracks: Air Vehicles; Sense and Avoid and
Communications; and Human Factors and Ground Control Station. The track teams focused their efforts on supporting R&D
requirements for 2018 and beyond in order to achieve UAS integration and operations into NextGen airspace. Air Vehicles
The Air Vehicles track focused on developing the on-board technology R&D needed to enable semi-autonomous UAS to
operate safely in controlled airspace and populated areas. The Air Vehicles participants identified several long-term
priorities: UAS Self-Situational Awareness. The ability to self-determine key aspects of guidance, navigation, control,
external hazards, environmental effects, and health for automated UAS, especially in consideration of communications and/or
Global Positioning System (GPS) loss or denial. UAS Design and Certification. The ability to affordably design, verify,
validate, and certify UAS platforms and certification as a complete system. UAS Integrity and Fault Tolerance. The ability to
maintain safety and be tolerant to component failures without applying manned systems levels of redundancy. Cross-cutting
Priorities: Trust in UAS and Systems-of-Systems. A definition of trust needs to be established that not only includes
traditional aspects of reliability and availability, but also confidence as viewed by humans. The group asked the question,
"How will systems-of-systems be assessed for trust?" Additional discussions produced priorities to better identify which
agency is working which problem and where there may be gaps in R&D. These included self-situational awareness and
environmental effects; UAS design, certification and incremental certification; and integrity and fault tolerance, including
realtime re-planning.The Air Vehicles track identified potential collaboration opportunities for certain areas, such as vehicle
health (status condition, reporting, and operational capability) and certification of avionics and control (predictive systems).
Sense and Avoid Communications The essential focus of the Sense and Avoid/Communications track was the requirement to
construct a framework that can bridge the current practice of see and avoid to NextGen-appropriate paradigms that reflect and
leverage the operational differences between a manned and a remotely operated aircraft. Some of the key gaps identified
include the sense and avoid safety case—the need for flight-test data, airspace encounter modeling and simulation, and a
definition of the criteria for safety—ATC command and control (C2) communications, and NextGen data communications.
Human Factors and Ground Control Station The Human Factors and Ground Control Station track concentrated on
developing pilot qualifications, levels of automation, communication latency, contingency management, ground control
station information display, navigation system compatibility, and the fact that the pilot is spatially separated from the UAS.
All of these will need to be enhanced for improved safety and affordability. Specific issues identified included: Levels of
automation, such as mode awareness, transparency, bias, and trust; Human awareness and interaction with sense and avoid;
Traffic—knowledge of equipage—weather and airspace information in the Ground Control System; Assured predictable
behavior; Lack of standards for interface design by category, class and type of display and automation; Contingency
management for loss-link; Crew and ATC skills, training, and certification; Human-automation interface; Recognition of new
system faults and proper response in NextGen; Accident and incident analysis followed by risk-mitigation analysis, including
proactive recording requirements; Compatibility of the navigation system, specifically latitude and longitude as opposed to
airways and navigation aids; Multi-UAS control by a single control station with the role of the UAS pilot moving toward that
of a controller; Enabling and monitoring Ground Control System NextGen TBO; Communications and situational awareness.
16
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Cross-cutting Long Term Issues Each of the groups identified long-term R&D priorities—key questions that need to be
answered—for effective UAS integration into the NAS. What are some alternatives that can safely mitigate the lack of see
and avoid? What are the appropriate standardized procedures for loss-link and other flight contingencies and how can their
safety effectiveness be demonstrated? What are the implications for ATM procedures? How should procedures for UAS losslink differ from a loss of ATC communications? What are the requirements—range, integrity, availability, latency, and
security—of the C2 link? What are the airspace security implications of the UAS? Are there new technologies to enhance the
situational awareness of controllers and other pilots as to the intent of the UAS? Participants in the workshop also raised the
issue of FAA UAS certification standards. The primary customer for UAS in the U.S. is currently the Department of Defense
(DOD), which does not require FAA certification prior to deployment of a UAS. There are presently two acceptable means of
operating UAS in the NAS outside of restricted airspace: a Special Airworthiness Certificate – Experimental Category, or a
Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). However, as more UAS applications are established, certification standards
will need to be more fully developed. Developing and implementing new UAS standards and guidance is a necessary effort
for getting the UAS certified to operate in the NAS. An additional challenge was the need to create sufficient situational
awareness so that the UAS, pilots, other aircraft, and ATC know where UAS are at all times. The FAA has already
established air traffic procedures for UAS operations in the airspace surrounding the southern U.S. border, under control of
the Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). As UAS are granted increased access to the NAS, these
procedures will continue to evolve. Conclusion Full integration of UAS into NextGen where "file and fly"— the ability to fly
in four- dimensional trajectory-based airspace and predict the aircraft’s flight path in terms of spatial position and times along
points in its path—remains a long-term goal of the JPDO. However, the technologies, procedures, standards, and policies
must be in place to ensure safe and consistent UAS operations throughout the NAS.
There are two impact scenarios—
First Nuclear Terrorism:
UAV effectiveness is key to monitor transfer of people and goods at the US-Mexico border
Miller and Engelhardt 2012 [Todd Miller, author and researcher on border wars, Tom Engelhardt, an author and
Teaching Fellow at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. “Bringing the Battlefield to
the Border The Wild World of Border Security and Boundary Building in Arizona”, June 7, 2012,
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/arizona-border-drones-technology-and-social-strategy]
Drones are nothing new. The first of them took to America’s skies before the Wright Brothers plane lifted off at Kitty Hawk
in 1903. In the years since, “unmanned air systems” (UAS) have played a relatively minor role in domestic aviation. All that,
however, is about to change in a major way. “UAS have evolved from simple radio controlled model airplanes to
sophisticated aircraft that today play a unique role in many public missions such as border surveillance, weather monitoring,
military training, wildlife surveys and local law enforcement, and have the potential to do so for many civil missions as
well.” So reads part of a research and development “roadmap” put out earlier this year by the U.S. Joint Planning and
Development Office (a multiagency initiative that includes the Department of Transportation, Department of Defense,
Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Aviation Administration, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy). “According to industry forecasts,” the
report notes, “UAS operations will increase exponentially in a variety of key military and civil areas. About 50 U.S.
companies, universities, and government organizations… are developing over 150 different unmanned aircraft designs.
Projections for 2010 to 2019 predict more than 20,000 UAS produced in the U.S.” In the process, count on one thing:
increasing numbers of those drones will be patrolling U.S. borders. It was only in the 1990s that the U.S. Border Patrol first
began considering the use of remotely piloted aircraft. After the attacks of 9/11, the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), and the funding bonanza that followed, the DHS’s Customs and Border Protection Office began
experimenting with unmanned planes. In 2005, it settled on using General Atomics’ Reaper and today a fleet of nine of these
drones patrol the northern and southern U.S. borders. Their brethren in America’s war zones have tended to crash at an
alarming rate due to weather, mechanical failures, and computer glitches, have proven vulnerable compared to manned jets,
and are susceptible to all manner of electronic attack. The domestic drones, too, have failed to impress. As a recent Los
Angeles Times article noted: “The border drones require an hour of maintenance for every hour they fly, cost more to operate
than anticipated, and are frequently grounded by rain or other bad weather, according to a draft audit of the program last
month by the Homeland Security Department's inspector general.” But don’t expect such hard truths to have much impact.
After all, as Todd Miller demonstrates in his inaugural TomDispatch post, border security is an arena for true believers. And
despite every indication of their crash-and-burn future, expect ever more overhead, up north and down south and in-between,
in the years ahead. Nick Turse Bringing the Battlefield to the Border The Wild World of Border Security and Boundary
Building in Arizona By Todd Miller William “Drew” Dodds, the salesperson for StrongWatch, a Tucson-based company,
is at the top of his game when he describes developments on the southern border of the United States in football terms. In his
17
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
telling, that boundary is the line of scrimmage, and the technology his company is trying to sell -- a mobile surveillance
system named Freedom-On-The-Move, a camera set atop a retractable mast outfitted in the bed of a truck and maneuvered
with an Xbox controller -- acts like a “roving linebacker.” As Dodds describes it, unauthorized migrants and drug traffickers
often cross the line of scrimmage undetected. At best, they are seldom caught until the “last mile,” far from the boundary
line. His surveillance system, he claims, will cover a lot more of that ground in very little time and from multiple angles. It
will become the border-enforcement equivalent of New York Giants’ linebacking great, Lawrence Taylor. To listen to Dodds,
an ex-Marine -- Afghanistan and Iraq, 2001-2004 -- with the hulking physique of a linebacker himself, is to experience a new
worldview being constructed on the run. Even a decade or so ago, it might have seemed like a mad dream from the American
fringe. These days, his all-the-world’s-a-football-field vision seemed perfectly mainstream inside the brightly-lit convention
hall in Phoenix, Arizona, where the seventh annual Border Security Expo took place this March. Dodds was just one of
hundreds of salespeople peddling their border-enforcement products and national security wares, and StrongWatch but one of
more than 100 companies scrambling for a profitable edge in an exploding market. Vivid as he is, Dodds is speaking a new
corporate language embedded in an ever-more powerful universe in which the need to build up “boundary enforcement” is
accepted, even celebrated, rather than debated. It’s a world where billions of dollars are potentially at stake, and one in which
nothing is more important than creating, testing, and even flaunting increasingly sophisticated and expensive technologies
meant for border patrol and social control, without serious thought as to what they might really portend. The War on Terror
on the Border Phoenix was an especially appropriate place for Border Security Expo. After all, the Arizona-Mexico border
region is Ground Zero for the development of an immigration enforcement apparatus which soon enough may travel from the
southern border to a neighborhood near you. The sold-out convention hall was abuzz with energy befitting an industry whose
time has come. Wandering its aisles, you could sense the excitement, the sound of money being spent, the cacophony of
hundreds of voices boosting product, the synergy of a burgeoning marketplace of ideas and dreams. General Dynamics, FLIR
thermal imaging, and Raytheon banners hung from the vast ceiling, competing for eyeballs with the latest in minisurveillance blimps. NEANY Inc.’s unmanned aerial drones and their water-borne equivalents sat on a thick red carpet next
to desert-camouflaged trailer headquarters. At various exhibits, mannequins dressed in camo and sporting guns with
surveillance gizmos hanging off their helmets seemed as if they might walk right out of the exhibition hall and take over the
sprawling city of Phoenix with brute force. Little imaginable for your futuristic fortressed border was missing from the
hall. There were even ready-to-eat pocket sandwiches (with a three-year shelf life), and Brief Relief plastic urine bags. A
stream of uniformed Border Patrol, military, and police officials moved from booth to booth alongside men in suits in what
the sole protester outside the convention center called a “mall of death.” If there was anything that caught the control mania
at the heart of this expo, it was a sign behind the DRS Technologies booth, which offered this promise: “You Draw the Line
and We’ll Help You Secure It.” And what better place to express such a sentiment than Phoenix, the seat of Maricopa
County, where “America’s toughest sheriff,” Joe Arpaio (now being sued by the Justice Department), regularly swept
through neighborhoods on a search for poor people of color who looked like they might have just slipped across the line
dividing the United States from Mexico. Dodds and I stood a little more than 100 miles from that border, which has seen a
staggering enforcement build-up over the last 20 years. It’s distinctly a seller's market. StrongWatch is typical. The
company, Dodds told me, was hoping for a fat contract for its border technology. After all, everyone knew that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was about to issue a new request for proposals to build its latest version of a
“virtual wall” along that border -- not actual fencing, but a barrier made up of the latest in surveillance technology, including
towers, cameras, sensors, and radar. In January 2011, DHS had cancelled its previous attempt, known as SBInet, and the
multi-billion dollar contract to the Boeing Company that went with it. Complaints were that the costly and often-delayed
technological barrier was not properly tailored to the rugged terrain of the borderlands, and that it had trouble distinguishing
animals from humans. But the continued fortification of the border (and the profits that accompany it) caught only one aspect
of the convention’s reality. After all, the Arizona portion of the U.S.-Mexican border has not only become Ground Zero for
every experiment in immigration enforcement and drug interdiction, but also the incubator, testing site, showcase, and
staging ground for ever newer versions of border-enforcement technology that, sooner or later, are sure to be applied
globally. As that buzzing convention floor made clear, the anything-goes approach to immigration enforcement found in
Arizona -- home to SB1070, the infamous anti-immigrant law now before the Supreme Court -- has generated interest from
boundary-militarizers elsewhere in the country and the world. An urge for zero-tolerance-style Arizona borders is spreading
fast, as evidenced by the convention’s clientele. In addition to U.S. Border Patrol types, attendees came from law
enforcement outfits and agencies nationwide, and from 18 countries around the world, including Israel and Russia. In theory,
the Expo had nothing to do with SB1070, but the organizers' choice of controversial Arizona governor Jan Brewer as keynote
speaker could be seen as an endorsement of the laissez-faire climate in the state. It is, in other words, the perfect place to
develop and even test future technology on real people. Brewer first assured convention-goers that the “immigration issue
isn’t about hate or skin color… it’s about securing the border and keeping Americans safe.” That out of the way, she
promptly launched into one of her usual tirades, blasting the federal government for not securing the border. "America's
failure to understand this problem at a national level and to deal with it,” she insisted, “has haunted borders like mine for
decades." In fact, as Brewer well knows, the very opposite is the case. Arizona’s rise to immigration importance has gone
hand in hand with the creation of a border version of the very homeland security state she criticizes. In reality, federal
18
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
resources and Department of Homeland Security dollars have been pouring into Arizona as part of a tripartite war on
“illegals,” drugs, and terrorism. Her continual complaints about a “porous border,” enhanced by exaggerated tales of
“decapitated bodies,” only ups the pressure for ever more building blocks to Fortress USA. Brewer’s are sweet words to the
companies who hope to profit, including DRS Technologies, StrongWatch, and Boeing. The governor is hardly
alone. Politicians from both parties are loath to acknowledge (as is the much of the mainstream media) how drastically the
enforcement landscape along the U.S.-Mexican borderlands has been altered in recent years. As geographer and border
scholar Joseph Nevins sums the matter up: “The very existence of lines of control over the movement of people is a very
recent development in human history.” Al-Qaedizing Immigrants Anybody revisiting Nogales, El Paso, San Ysidro, or
Brownsville today would quickly realize that they look nothing like they did two decades ago. In 1993, there were only 4,000
Border Patrol agents covering 6,000 miles of Canadian and Mexican boundarylands, and only flimsy chain-link fences along
the most urbanized stretches of the southern border separated communities on either side. Now, 16-foot walls cut through
these towns. An array of cameras peer over them into Mexico sending a constant flow of images to dark monitoring rooms in
Border Patrol stations along the 2,000 mile southern border, where bored agents watch mostly pedestrian traffic. Stadiumstyle lighting rises over the walls and shines into Mexico, turning night into day as if we were indeed in salesman Dodds’s
football game. For residents whose homes abut the border sleep is a challenge. Border Patrol forces, still growing, have more
than doubled in the years since 9/11. As the new uniformed soldiers of the Department of Homeland Security, close to
20,000 Border Patrol agents now occupy the U.S. Southwest. Predator drones and mini-surveillance blimps regularly patrol
the skies. Nevins says that it is a “highly significant development” that we have come to accept this version of “boundaries”
and the institutions that enforce them without question. The Border Patrol became part of the Department of Homeland
Security in 2003 and was placed under the wing of Customs and Border Protection, now the largest federal law enforcement
agency in the country with 60,000 employees. In the process, its “priority mission” became “keeping terrorists and their
weapons out of the U.S.” Since then the Border Patrol has not netted a single person affiliated with a terrorist organization
nor a single weapon of mass destruction. It has, however, apprehended millions of Latin American migrants coming north,
including a historic number of Mexicans who were essentially victims of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). No terrorists, they were often small farmers who could no longer compete with subsidized U.S. grain giants like
Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland for whom NAFTA proved a free pass into Mexico. U.S. officials were well aware that
the trade agreement would lead to an increase in migration, and called for the enforcement build-up. In the post-9/11 world,
under the rubric of “protecting” the country from terrorism, the DHS, with the help of state governments and local police, has
enforced what is really a line of exclusion, guaranteeing eternal inequality between those who have and those who do not.
These lines of division have not only undergone a rapid build-up, but have fast become the accepted norm. According
to anthropologist Josiah Heyman, the muscling up of an ever more massive border enforcement, interdiction, and surveillance
apparatus “has militarized border society, where more and more people either work for the watchers, or are watched by the
state.” Heyman’s words may prove prophetic, and not just along our borders either. As any migrant, protester, or activist in
the United States knows, the “watchers” and the “watched” are proliferating nationwide. Geographer Matthew
Colemansays that the “most significant yet largely ignored fallout of the so-called war on terrorism... [is] the extension of
interior immigration policing practices away from the southwest border.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is
another 20,000-strong agency sheltered under the expansive roof of the Department of Homeland Security. It draws from a
pool of 650,000 law enforcement officers across the country through deputization programs with innocuous names like
287(g) and Secure Communities. ICE effectively serves as a conduit bringing the borderlands and all they now imply into
communities as distant as Utah, North Carolina, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. More than one million migrants have
been deported from the country over the last 3½ years under the Obama administration, numbers that surpass those of the
Bush years. This should be a reminder that a significant, if overlooked, part of this country’s post 9/11 security iron fist has
been aimed not at al-Qaeda but at the undocumented migrant. Indeed, as writer Roberto Lovato points out, there has been an
“al-Qaedization of immigrants and immigration policy.” And as in the Global War on Terror, military-industrial companies
like Boeing and Halliburton are cashing in on this version of for-profit war.
An unmonitored border makes future acts of terrorism within the U.S. inevitable-multiple reasons
Krikorian 2008 (Mark, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, MA from Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University, “Immigration Policy and the Terrorist Threat”, p. 37-38, May 2008)
The security challenges posed by immigration are usually viewed as discrete problems that can be addressed through better
watch lists, for example, or through additional resources for consular staff who conduct visa interviews. But this is a mistake.
Under modern conditions, mass immigration itself is incompatible with security. This is true for two reasons: first,
immigration overwhelms our efforts to screen out security threats; and, second, it creates large immigrant communities that
shield and incubate terrorists. In the past, references to the “home front” were metaphorical, intended to create among
civilians at home a greater sense of solidarity with soldiers at war fronts. But advances in communications, transportation,
and weapons technology mean that today-and in the indefinite future-that home front is no longer a metaphor, but is an actual
war front. As President George W. Bush has said, “our country is a battlefield in the first war of the 21st century” (White
House, 2003). The new context makes immigration a central issue-perhaps the central issue-in considerations of national
19
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
security. The staff report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States on “terrorist travel” opens
by stating, “it is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are
unable to enter the country” (Eldridgr et al., 2004). Enemy operatives not only need to enter the United States, or whatever
they are targeting, but also often need to remain under the radar, as it were, for an extended period of time. This means that
keeping foreign terrorists out-and keeping them on the run or arresting them if they do get in-is a security imperative.
And, this will facilitate the transfer and use of nuclear weapons
Allison 2004 (Graham, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Prof of Government at
Harvard, former assistance Sec. Of Defense for policy, Nuclear Terrorism, p. 116)
Drug trafficking is not the only trade exploiting the holes in America's Swiss-cheese borders. Sneaking illegal immigrants
past the Border Patrol has also become a big business. Many migrants pay "coyotes"—professional human smugglers—
thousands of dollars to help them enter the country. As many as 500,000 people successfully slip across the border—through
tunnels, in the trunks of cars, or on foot overland across the southwestern deserts—and take up residence in the United States
each year, despite the more than $9 billion that our government spends each year on border controls as part of the national
homeland security effort. As one officer put it, "The best we can do is manage the border, not control it."39
Almost all the smuggling routes that are used in bringing illegal immigrants or drugs into the United States would be an
equally effective way to transport a nuclear weapon across the border. After all, a nuclear weapon is smaller than a person,
and the HEU or plutonium for a bomb's core could weigh less than the hundred-pound loads of drugs that smugglers bring in
backpacks. It is not uncommon for migrants to get themselves deep into the United States without anyone noticing. Any
sophisticated terrorist group can surely do better.
That escalates to global nuclear war and extinction
Speice 2006 – 06 JD Candidate @ College of William and Mary [Patrick F. Speice, Jr., “NEGLIGENCE AND
NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: ELIMINATING THE CURRENT LIABILITY BARRIER TO BILATERAL U.S.RUSSIAN NONPROLIFERATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS,” William & Mary Law Review, February 2006, 47 Wm
and Mary L. Rev. 1427
Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from
Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era nuclear security
measures. 39 Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from
the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or
stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is
the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own. Very little material is
necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the
technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that
could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully
employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists
from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44
Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and
the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that
was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists
who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be
tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear
ambitions. 48 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. 49 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. 50 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. 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United
States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52 as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the
United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.
Fortunately boosted UAV patrolling solves
Seper 2012 [Jerry Seper, editor for the Washington Times, “Border Patrol adapting to new threats, Strategy to use drones,
copters in Southwest”, May 8, 2012, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/8/border-patrol-adapting-to-newthreats/]
20
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Just eight months after Defense Department officials complained in a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that
there was “no comprehensive Southwest border security strategy” in place, the U.S. Border Patrol unveiled a new strategy
Tuesday that relies on helicopters and unmanned aerial drones and targets repeat offenders. Recognizing that it had to realign
its priorities, resources and organizational structure to focus on new security threats while continuing its missions of
immigration enforcement and drug interdiction, the new strategy represents what Border Patrol officials called “an evolution”
to account for and take advantage of changes and improvements in the border environment and the agency since the
September 2001 terrorist attacks. While threats to the Southwest border have evolved since the agency’s last official strategy
in 2004, the new plan said Border Patrol resources and capabilities to meet those threats “have also grown.” Accordingly, the
new national strategy is structured to adjust to those evolving threats and to reflect what the agency called “the effectiveness
of the Border Patrol’s additional resources and improved operational capabilities.” The new 32-page strategy comes at a time
that the number of agents has more than doubled to 21,000 since 2004 and the apprehension of those entering illegally from
Mexico has dropped to a 40-year low. The strategy evolves from a resources-based approach to a risk-based approach, built
around a framework of what the Border Patrol called the use of “information, integration and rapid response to better secure
the border in the most risk-based, effective and efficient manner.” The strategy represents a natural evolution from an underresourced organization focused on obtaining sufficient personnel, technology and infrastructure to “an organization that is
managing rapid growth and is focused on using those additional resources in the most effective and efficient manner.” “The
U.S. Border Patrol has proudly protected our borders since its founding in 1924. Its mission has always been important.
However, on 9/11, that mission immediately became more vital than ever before to our nation’s security,” Border Patrol
Chief Mike Fisher says in the report. During a hearing before the House Homeland Security subcommittee Tuesday, the chief
defended the new strategy, saying it would give the Border Patrol tools, programs, techniques and approaches that are more
focused, effective and efficient. The report said the agency will introduce and expand sophisticated tactics, techniques and
procedures; increase mobile response capabilities and expand the use of specially trained personnel; and disrupt and
dismantle transnational criminal organizations by targeting enforcement efforts against the highest priority threats. It also will
increase and sustain the certainty of apprehension for illegal crossings, and increase community engagement through
community programs, media relations and leveraging the public to help it achieve its goals. The Sept. 12 GAO report said the
Defense Department was hampered in identifying its role regarding border security and planning for that role since it could
not identify a comprehensive Southwest border security strategy. GAO’s auditors said top Defense officials expressed
concern not just about the military’s role on the Southern border, but that key officials at the Department of Homeland
Security - including those who oversee the Border Patrol - had not bothered in eight years to map out a comprehensive border
strategy. The auditors said Defense officials told senior leaders at Homeland Security they felt the military’s “border
assistance” was “ad hoc in that DOD has other operational requirements.” It noted that the Defense Department assists when
legal authorities allow and resources are available, while Homeland Security had “a continuous mission to ensure border
security.”
Second is Pyroterrorism:
Pyroterror attacks are inevitable in the squo
Deshpande 2009 a a Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Version of record first published: 20 Jan 2009. Pyro-Terrorism: Recent Cases and the Potential for Proliferation, Studies in
Conflict & Terrorism, 32:1, 36-44.
Pyro-terrorism has the potential to become a tactic of choice for terrorists in more cases and in new places than it has been in
recent years. By harnessing the environment as an operational platform, terrorists can avoid traditional security mechanisms
designed to detect sophisticated bombs and biological or chemical agents. A reliance on existing vegetation ensures that both
the cost and the inherent risk of a terrorist operation are mitigated. It takes little more than fuel and a combustible tool or a
crude incendiary device to start a forest fire given the right environmental conditions. It can be safely assumed that extremist
groups are also aware of a lack of preparedness for natural disasters and emergency response on a massive scale.
Finally, terrorists are aware of the consequences of such scenarios because of widespread news coverage that focuses on the
acute visual effects of infernos. An attack of this nature can have extensive repercussions. Today, wildfires represent a
growing threat to populations in urban and rural interfaces as climate change and de- mographic shifts increase the size of
danger areas. The 2007 California wildfires, one of which was deliberately set, exemplify the problems created by the urban
and rural interface that exists in many parts of North America today; as a result of the fires, thousands were evacuated and
nine people were killed.4 Fires result in significant economic and market distress and “strategic dislocation,” due, in part, to
the overuse of existing resources and the distraction of public and private sector bodies.5 Firefighters and other emergency
workers may suffer from psychological stress due to exposure to a high-risk and potentially deadly environment. The threat
to human life, although less than that of a direct attack, cannot be ignored. As a result, intentionally set forest fires have the
potential to disrupt lives on a massive scale.
21
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
That collapses the economy
US Fire Administration 2005. 8/11/2005. Pyro-terrorism. www.usfa.fema.gov/fireservice/subjects/emrisac/infograms/ig2005/igaug1105.shtm.
Major Baird's thesis discusses that terrorist organizations are adapting to avoid security and screening systems. "Instead of
using expensive, complex, and readily detectable nuclear or radiological bombs, a terrorist could easily ignite several massive
wildfires to severely damage regional economies, impact military and firefighting forces, and terrorize the American
people." Unfortunately, impending destructive energy already exists in our nation's forests. An opportunistic terrorist "can
unleash multiple fires creating a conflagration potentially equal to a multi-megaton nuclear weapon." The EMR-ISAC agrees
that massive wildfires could overwhelm suppression resources, destroy critical infrastructures, weaken regional economies,
demoralize the general public, and put much pressure on local, regional, and national leadership.Therefore, the EMR-ISAC
supports Major Baird's call for greater threat awareness by those living and working in the vicinity of wildlands. Increased
alertness can be achieved by "community service advertising" on the television, radio, Internet, and in print. The goal of this
dedicated campaign should be an aware citizenry looking to reliably identify and quickly report suspicious activity in the
nation's forests. Assisted by a vigilant public, law enforcement will be in a better position to catch the perpetrators and negate
the devastating effects of pyro-terrorism.
Nuclear war
Walter Mead, CFR, 4 February 2009 (Only Makes you stronger: Why the recession bolstered America,
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2169866/posts)
History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less
reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist
system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the
Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is
almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in
1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns
into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The
United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
Fortunately next gen integrated UAS UAS systems solve for wildfires and pyroterror
Zala Aero 2009 (Zala Aero, “ZALA AERO UAVs Monitors Forest Fires,” 10/21/09,
http://zala.aero/en/news/forest_fire_uav_agri.htm)
Today ZALA AERO would like to announce a successful completion to the planned testing of UAS ZALA 421-08 (2kg) and
ZALA 421-12 (4kg) during September 22nd to 24th that tested the capabilities of these systems to monitor and survey for
forest fires as well as identifying the roles that UAVs can have in the agricultural industry in the near future. The key finding
of the testing that took place in the Moscow region concluded that ZALA UAS systems portability and simply changeable
payloads play a key role in providing flexibility that agricultural environment requires. Both of the systems are now equipped
with built in photo cameras with GPS mapping and changeable day view or infrared payloads that provide 360 degree
viewing angle. During the tests the information from both systems was translated to one ground control station on which the
targets were mapped out. As for results, the pre-pared fires that ZALA UAV systems needed to identify on all of the tests the
systems identified all burning fires but also identified underground fires that were spreading while also on two separate
occasions identifying and tracking the culprits. These tests were conducted with the government agency FGY
<<AVIALESOOHRANA>> to test systems capability and the integration of ZALA UAS into the existing ISDM-Rosleshoz
network as information component. Other conclusions include that ZALA UAS are applicable and provide cost benefits to
the manned aviation in surveying agricultural establishments and enforcing the law. These tests have established a defiant
point in the applicability of UAV systems in civil sector. ZALA AERO and FGY <<AVIALESOOHRANA>> are now in
discussions to establish and ingrate a ZALA UAS system before the end of the year.
22
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
1AC Solvency
Boosted investment results in quick implementation of next gen tech-federal funding is key
GAO, August 6, 2010 (“FAA and NASA Have Improved Human Factors Research Coordination, but Stronger Leadership
Needed,” http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-824)
To address challenges to the aviation industry's economic health and safety, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is
collaborating with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other federal partners to plan and
implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). NextGen will transform the current radar-based air
traffic control system into a satellite-based system. Pilot and air traffic controller roles and responsibilities are expected to
become more automated, thereby requiring an understanding of human factors, which studies how humans' abilities,
characteristics, and limitations interact with the design of the equipment they use, environments in which they function, and
jobs they perform. FAA and NASA are tasked with incorporating human factors issues into NextGen. As requested, this
report discusses the extent to which FAA's and NASA's human factors research (1) is coordinated and (2) supports NextGen.
To address these issues, GAO reviewed coordination mechanisms and planning documents and synthesized the views of nine
aviation human factors experts. While FAA and NASA officials are coordinating their NextGen human factors research
efforts in a variety of ways, they lack a cross-agency human factors plan for coordination. FAA and NASA have participated
in research advisory committees and interagency research transition teams, signed interagency agreements, and held crossagency meetings and conferences focused on human factors issues. FAA also created a human factors portfolio to identify
and address priority human factors issues but not a cross-agency human factors coordination research plan in cooperation
with NASA, as previously recommended by FAA's Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO)--an interagency
organization responsible for planning NextGen. As a result, FAA has not established an agreed-upon set of initial focus areas
for research that identifies and capitalizes on past and current research and establishes focus areas for human factors research
and development, among other things. The experts GAO contacted generally agreed that FAA's and NASA's human factors
research efforts adequately support NextGen, but made several suggestions, including enhancing human factors research
leadership, for further incorporating human factors issues into NextGen systems. FAA and NASA have undertaken a variety
of human factors efforts to support NextGen, including, among other things, creating planning documents detailing how
human factors research will be incorporated into NextGen and dedicating financial resources specifically to NextGen human
factors research. While the human factors experts GAO interviewed stated that these efforts support NextGen, a majority
offered the following suggestions for further integrating human factors issues into NextGen: (1) Better ensure that human
factors issues are fully integrated throughout the development of NextGen systems. FAA did not do this in the development
of past systems, a fact that led to schedule slippages and cost increases. (2) Improve collaboration of human factors efforts
within FAA departments. (3) Establish strong leadership. A 2008 National Academy of Public Administration's report
identified leadership as the single most important element of success for large-scale systems integration efforts like NextGen.
FAA has not prioritized consistently staffing the top two human factors positions. Specifically, the position of the Chief
Systems Engineer for Human Factors (now referred to as the human factors integration lead) has been vacant since January
2010. Moreover, FAA did not have a permanent program director of its Human Factors Research and Engineering Group
from January 2009 until June 2010. These two positions currently lack the authority to ensure that human factors issues are
addressed early and throughout the NextGen system development process to prevent the need to redesign these systems after
implementation, which can cause delays and add costs. As a result, FAA may lack consistent leadership with the sufficient
authority to not only prioritize human factors issues but ensure that human factors issues are addressed throughout NextGen.
FAA should (1) create a coordination plan and (2) give priority to filling vacant leadership positions and provide the
positions with authority for prioritizing human factors. FAA agreed to consider the recommendations.
And the US is at a crossroads—federal leadership is essential and now is key
Stephen Goldsmith Harvard Kennedy School, Zachary Tumin Harvard Kennedy School, and Fred Messina Booz Allen
Hamilton, March, 2010 (“Assuring the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation System A New Strategy for
Networked Governance,” http://www.ash.harvard.edu/extension/ash/docs/nextgen.pdf)
The lessons of history can exert powerful force on how the many parties involved view the path forward. Because the nation
has grappled with airspace modernization and NextGen for some years now, these lessons abound—many being the lens
through which decision makers now see their current choices and likely futures. The hegemony of first come, first served has
been paramount. We have a long tradition of successful, egalitarian coexistence in self-managed airspace. An airline
executive spoke of “the decades when businesses represented many different customers with divergent needs, resources,
operational priorities and models, and all managed to coexist in American airspace”—this, on a first come, first served basis.
Many are skeptical of FAA’s ability to execute large transformations, even once funds have been appropriated. “There is
little point,” said one respondent, “in trying to move toward a day when everyone can simultaneously flip a switch.” Cited,
for example, is the failed Advanced Automation System program; some say it has branded FAA negatively and left many
23
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
people “very, very skittish about any major transformation in the system for quite a long while.” Described as “the big bang
theory” in that the system might be changed overnight using a lead system integrator with a great deal of authority, AAS
stumbled. Yet AAS was not nearly so ambitious as NextGen. Evolutionary change requiring investment by both industry and
government cannot proceed without delivering its stream of promised benefits. History suggests that aviation must evolve
and gain benefits during its evolution to NextGen. Yet there is deep skepticism that benefits delayed might ever be realized.
A cross-industry willingness to accept evolutionary progress requires that aviation leaders be definitive about direction, set
specific goals and objectives, assure interim benefits, and meet those goals on time. Whether transformational or
evolutionary, leadership is essential. Government pays for infrastructure . Government has always underwritten air traffic
control infrastructure—towers and runways, for example—as public benefits. The airlines have been responsible for cockpit
investments. Yet these paradigms blur in the NextGen future: the very essence of NextGen is control features built into
cockpit avionics. When infrastructure moves to the cockpit, who pays? The National Highway Administration is a potential
paradigm for change on a similar scale—and points to potential leadership requirements. Some invoke the time in the 1950’s
when transportation became a national priority, when the government appointed an Administrator to oversee the creation of
the National Highway System. They view the scale and necessity of NextGen as comparable to the challenges requiring such
an appointment.
24
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Solvency Contention-Status Quo Bad
Status quo next gen system is limited
NASA 2007
(The Current National Airspace System, http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/docs/nextgen_whitepaper_06_26_07.pdf_)
Although today’s National Airspace System (NAS) is one of the safest means of transportation, it has evolved into a large,
complex, distributed, and loosely integrated network of systems, procedures, and infrastructure without the benefit of
seamless information exchange. The process of control is primarily through the use of surveillance radars, voice radio
systems, limited computer support systems, and numerous complex procedures. Couple this non-integrated, distributed
control paradigm with the cognitive human limitations that restrict the number of aircraft an individual air traffic controller
can handle, and it becomes evident how today’s system has severe limitations on operational flexibility and overall capacity.
Uncertainties in the total flight environment (such as winds, convective weather, unpredictable aircraft performance, and
operator procedural changes) are manifest in many areas in today’s system, taking a toll on system throughput. In today’s
system, uncertainty is managed by queuing traffic waiting to be serviced, and demand is managed by restricting access to the
airspace to avoid straining capacity. The primary function of the current Traffic Flow Management is to identify and resolve
imbalances in the demand and supply of NAS resources such as airspace and runways. However, the current airspace
structure is rather rigid, increases restrictions, leads to ground delays during convective weather, and is largely unable to
accommodate user preferences. Noise and emissions are becoming a bigger problem at airports and are already constraining
the growth of the air transportation system. It is anticipated that emissions will also become a problem en route. Development
of civil aviation must be compatible with environmental compliance. Finally, safety assurance is currently based on
prescriptive rule compliance, with the regulatory authority focused on extensive testing, inspecting, and certifying individual
systems and operational elements. Risk analyses are lacking continuity, are often time consuming, and are not always shared.
Even though today’s system is extremely safe, there are concerns that problems are handled reactively rather than
proactively.
25
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Solvency Contention-Implementation
Next gen can be quickly and efficiently integrated
GAO 2010 United States Government Accountability Office http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-132R
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the lead implementer and planner for the Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NextGen)--an ambitious, multiyear, multibillion-dollar overhaul of systems, procedures, aircraft performance
capabilities, and supporting infrastructure that will create an air transportation system that uses satellite-based surveillance
and navigation and network-centric operations. NextGen was designed as an interagency effort to leverage expertise and
funding throughout the federal government. The Senior Policy Committee--the overall governing body for NextGen, chaired
by the Secretary of Transportation--consists ocabinet-level officials from each of the partner agencies. The initial planning for
NextGen, which began with Vision 100 in 2003 and was carried out by the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO)
within FAA, focused on improvements to the air transportation system that would be implemented through 2025. JPDO
produced three key planning documents--a Concept of Operations, a NextGen Enterprise Architecture, and an Integrated
Work Plan (IWP). Recently, FAA has shifted its focus from the longer term (i.e., beyond 2018) and emphasized
improvements that can be implemented in the near term and midterm (2010 through 2018). The shift responds, in part, to
concerns expressed by stakeholders and Members of Congress about the lack of progress in FAA's implementation of
NextGen, which they view as reminiscent of the schedule delays and other issues that plagued FAA's previous air traffic
control modernization efforts. This shift is embodied in FAA's 2010 NextGen Implementation Plan, which responds to
priorities put forward by stakeholders for NextGen implementation by the NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force
(the Task Force). FAA has generally identified the NextGen capabilities that it plans to implement in the near term to
midterm, through 2018. These capabilities are laid out in the 2010 NextGen Implementation Plan, which feeds into FAA's
overall national airspace system Enterprise Architecture, which, in turn, is aligned with JPDO's NextGen Enterprise
Architecture. Supporting the NextGen Implementation Plan are two more detailed plans--Segment A, which defines detailed
activities through 2015, and Segment B, which defines NextGen capabilities through 2018. These two plans detail the
specific actions that must take place to implement the identified capabilities. According to FAA, Segment A has been
developed, while Segment B is expected to be completed over the next 12 to 18 months. These plans are not made publicly
available, but FAA plans to include a description of Segment A in its 2011 NextGen Implementation Plan. In addition, these
two plans reflect FAA's responses to recommendations from industry and other stakeholders, developed by the Task Force,
which was formed at the request of FAA and included representation from the four major aviation operating communities-airlines, business aviation, general aviation, and the military--as well as participation from air traffic controllers, airports,
avionics and aircraft manufacturers, and other key stakeholders. Thus, the Task Force's recommendations represent a
consensus view from industry on how to move forward with NextGen. The Task Force recommended that FAA implement
those capabilities that the industry identified as maximizing benefits and facilitating a business case for industry investment
across five key areas--surface operations, runway access, congestion relief in metropolitan areas, cruise operations, and
access to certain airspace--and two crosscutting areas--data communication applications and integrated air traffic
management. In developing the 2010 NextGen Implementation Plan and its supporting documents, FAA has continued to
work with the Task Force to further refine the recommended actions and priorities. While FAA has taken a number of actions
to respond to the Task Force recommendations and integrate those recommendations in its plans, some gaps remain in FAA's
response. In an August 2010 meeting of the Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee, the Chairman recommended that
FAA address remaining gaps between the Task Force recommendations and the responses reflected in the NextGen
Implementation Plan and publish an updated plan or a document that will detail the changes FAA will make to its plans to
address these gaps. FAA directed RTCA to create a new advisory committee for NextGen--the NextGen Advisory
Committee--that includes senior industry participants. We recently recommended to FAA that it work with industry and other
stakeholders to develop outcome-based performance metrics and goals for NextGen broadly and for specific NextGen
portfolios, programs, and capabilities and share them with the Congress. We recommended that FAA develop a timeline and
action plan to agree with stakeholders on a list of specific goals and outcome-based performance metrics for NextGen. The
Task Force also made related recommendations for the development of performance metrics and made recommendations
specific to FAA's approach to developing performance-based navigational procedures. FAA has recently taken several
actions that begin to respond to these recommendations and areas of concern. For example, in response to the Task Force,
FAA is creating teams that will include FAA and industry to evaluate performance-based navigation procedures at individual
airports. FAA has created two such prototype teams in Dallas and Washington, D.C. In addition, the new NextGen Advisory
Committee has been tasked with collaborating with FAA on establishing high-level performance measures for NextGen.
26
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Solvency Contention-Implementation
FAA focus on the plan solves
GCN 2009 Government Computer News http://gcn.com/Articles/2009/03/19/NextGen-air-traffic-control031909.aspx?Page=2
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is looking at opportunities to begin phasing in new technology over the next
decade that could help relieve the growing congestion in the nation’s air transportation system. The FAA’s most recent
implementation plan for the Next Generation Air Transportation System, which is supposed to be in place by 2025, focuses
on capabilities that can be achieved in the mid-term, from 2012 to 2018, the Government Accountability Office told a House
panel Wednesday. That shift is in part a response to industry concerns about the ability of the current system to handle
growing volumes of air traffic. “Today’s system is straining to meet current demands,” Gerald Dillingham, GAO’s director of
physical infrastructure issues, said. “To help address current congestion and delays, industry stakeholders have frequently
suggested that FAA focus on maximizing what can be done with existing, proven capabilities and existing infrastructure.”
The NextGen system would replace the current radar-based air traffic control system in which data, communications and
instructions flow to and from a handful of ground control facilities, to a satellite-based system that would allow aircraft to
locate each other and communicate with each other and FAA controllers more efficiently. This would allow more efficient
use of congested air space and airport facilities. GAO reported on FAA’s NextGen progress to the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee's Aviation Subcommittee. GAO has expressed concerns about the organization of the FAA’s Joint
Planning and Development Office, in charge of planning the new system, and the Air Traffic Organization, which will be in
charge of implementation and transition. “Recent versions of NextGen planning documents have partially addressed some of
GAO’s concerns about their usefulness, but industry stakeholders continue to express frustration that the documents lack any
specific timelines or commitments,” Dillingham said. The aviation industry also wanted to see more near-term investment in
existing technologies to ease pressure. The nation’s air traffic controls system now handles about 50,000 flights a day, and in
2008 one in four of those flights was delayed or canceled. The volume is expected to increase to 80,000 a day by 2025. The
aviation industry suggested to GAO the broader use of off-the-shelf tools, such as Traffic Management Advisor, Traffic Flow
Management, and User Request Evaluation Tool, as well as techniques such as performance-based navigation and tailored
arrival procedures. Traffic Management Advisor, a decision support tool, is being used in some airports to increase capacity,
but the industry it is not being used to its full potential. NextGen includes five major programs, Automatic Dependent
Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), System-Wide Information Management, NextGen Data Communications, NextGen
Network Enabled Weather, and National Airspace Voice Switch. One of the first of these to be implemented in the near term
could be ADS-B, which FAA has been using in pilot and demonstration programs. ADS-B lets airplanes determine their
position using a global navigation satellite system and broadcast that information to other aircraft and to ground stations,
rather than depending on ground-based radar. This would enable improved use of increasingly crowded airspace, and FAA
established its Surveillance and Broadcast Services program office in 2005. FAA calls ADS-B a proven technology after
years of use by general aviation pilots in Alaska and in air transport carriers in the Ohio River Valley. However, industry
officials told GAO that without explicit commitments from FAA to reduce separation standards with ADS-B is in place, there
would be no incentive for airlines to invest in the technology. Staffing and funding for updating the air traffic control system
also is a concern. A senior FAA official told GAO that staffing needs can be difficult to address because historically the skills
needed have been in short supply and competitively priced in the marketplace. Funding requested for FAA NextGen research
and development has significantly increased, GAO said, from $83 million in fiscal year 2009 to about twice that amount in
each of the next four fiscal years. This funding should complement investments made by other federal agencies, particularly
NASA, to help support NextGen’s implementation. The stimulus funding law has increased NASA’s budget for aeronautics
research by $150 million, although it does not specify whether this additional funding will be focused on NextGen-specific
research.
27
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Solvency Contention-Will Succeed
Next gen works-testing proves
University of Alabama, December 16, 2009 (Next-Generation Air Transportation System to Ultimately Succeed,
Computer Scientist Predicts, http://phys.org/news180186094.html)
The Next Generation Air Transportation System, known as NextGen, is due for national implementation in stages between
now and 2018. "I am predicting ultimate success and a system that will provide a much safer travel environment," says Dr.
David Brown, a University of Alabama professor who has used data mining to help improve FAA safety databases. The Next
Generation Air Transportation System, known as NextGen, is due for implementation across the United States in stages
between now and 2018. To implement this new system, the Federal Aviation Administration will undertake a wide-ranging
transformation of the entire air transportation system. “It is very well known that the current air transportation system is
under increasing stress from gridlocks and delays,” says Dr. David Brown, professor of computer science at The University
of Alabama and a nationally recognized expert on using database retrieval technology to help improve highway safety and
FAA safety databases. “The recent computer problem in November with the FAA system that collects airlines’ flight plans
caused widespread cancellations and delays.” The NextGen system moves from the current ground-based technologies to
more dynamic satellite-based technologies. The first phase will be the automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast, which
will use Global Positioning System satellite signals, and will begin after the proposed rule is finalized around 2010. “If
history is any indicator, I would predict it will be a complete flop because they have tried this recently, but to no avail,” says
Brown. “Given that they have to upgrade, however, I would think that perhaps they have learned from their past mistakes and
instead of a big bang approach will do some smaller scale prototyping and testing. I also expect them to put a plan into effect
to allow the new system to evolve concurrently as the old system is being phased out.” “So, I am predicting ultimate success
and a system that will provide a much safer travel environment,” explains Brown.
NextGen is capable of handling three times the traffic using integrated weather information
NASA, 2007 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration. “NASA & THE NEXT GENERATION AIR
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (NEXTGEN)” http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/docs/nextgen_whitepaper_06_26_07.pdf)
The future Traffic Flow Management (TFM) function for NextGen has to be designed to deal with as much as three times
today’s traffic, be less structured, and be able to handle a traffic mix consisting of airline operations, air taxi operations,
general aviation, and unmanned air vehicles. It will be enabled by 4D trajectory-based operations, as described above,
resulting in optimal utilization of the prevailing airspace and airportal configuration (but flexible and dynamic enough to
support the future operational paradigms of NextGen). In the NextGen, many aircraft will have gate-to-gate 4D
commitments, which may include gate identification, pushback time, take-off time, a complete 4D trajectory through the
airspace, touchdown time, and gate arrival time. However, there may also be some aircraft in the NextGen that are equipped
to design, in real time, a 4D trajectory of their choice while separating themselves from other traffic. TFM must
accommodate both. All of this must be done with full use of integrated weather information. In addition, airspace adjustments
restructuring should be fast and allow for airspace management from any facility by any controller on a routine basis to assist
in balancing workload, and capacity and demand. NASA research in TFM will directly address these challenges as it
develops concepts to effectively allocate demand through management of departure times, route modification, and adaptive
speed control, among others, in the presence of uncertainties such as wind prediction, dynamic convective weather, aircraft
performance, and crew/airline procedures and preferences
28
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Solvency Contention-Efficiency
Next gen massively boosts efficiency
NASA 2012 “8 Questions about NextGen, Part 1: How We'll Get Where We're Going Tomorrow”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/8q_nextgen.html
The United States is undertaking the largest transformation of air traffic control ever attempted. Known as the Next
Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, it is a multi-billion-dollar technology modernization effort that will make
air travel safer, more flexible and more efficient. As the system gets better, its capacity will grow and the demand for
different types of air transportation – even unmanned aircraft – will increase.
More ev-huge relative gains in efficiency
Quon 2012 Leighton Quon, project manager of NextGen Systems Analysis, Integration, and Evaluation at NASA's Ames
Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., answers eight questions about what NASA is doing to help improve air transportation
for all of us in the future. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/8q_nextgen.html
What would be the benefits of an updated air transportation system?
Leighton: NextGen will make air travel more dependable and efficient. In this case, “efficient” means to reduce the
resources with less fuel burned, less time taken or even more flights in a given time. It will provide improvements to how air
traffic is managed, saving fuel and reducing noise, emissions, congestion and delays.
Next gen substantially reduces bottlenecks in US air traffic
Newsday June 10, 2012. Put Nextgen air traffic control at MacArthur.
A long-awaited advance in technology promises to reduce costly air travel delays across the nation. But it shouldn't mean
moving hundreds of high-paying air traffic control jobs off Long Island. That could be the unhappy result when federal
aviation officials decide early next year where in the New York City region the nation's first next-generation, satellite-based
air traffic control facility will be. There's a strong case for locating it on Long Island, and our congressional delegation and
U.S. senators are aggressively pressing federal officials to do so. But a number of potential sites on Long Island are being
bandied about -- including a parcel in Selden owned by Suffolk Community College and even the Hub in central Nassau
County. That lack of focus could weaken the area's pitch. Long Island officials should get behind one site. MacArthur Airport
in Islip appears to fit the bill nicely. The NextGen control system is the Federal Aviation Administration's answer to frequent
flight delays at New York City-area airports, a bottleneck responsible for many of the air travel delays nationwide. The
global positioning satellite-based system will replace antiquated radar-based air traffic control, providing more precise
information to controllers and pilots. That will enable planes to fly closer to one another and take off and land with less
separation in time and space.
29
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Solvency Contention-Airport Capacity
Next gen enhances airport capacity relieving congestion pressures
Monte Whaley, 6/25/2012 (Denver airports will benefit from new takeoff and landing technology,
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20936372/denver-airports-will-benefit-from-new-takeoff-and)
New GPS-like technology to help airplane operations be more efficient and timely will be the focus of several public
hearings this week at area airports. The hearings will focus on the implementation of The Next Generation Air Transportation
System, or NextGen, and its environmental impacts. NextGen, which uses satellites for navigation for more precise take-offs
and landings, will require new routing and procedures around Denver-area airports, the Federal Aviation Administration says.
The agency is proposing new routes for Denver International Airport, Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport in Broomfield
and Centennial Airport in Arapahoe County in a 30-mile radius around all three. The first hearing is Tuesday from 5:30 p.m.
to 8 p.m. at Rocky Mountain Airport in the Mount Evans Conference Room, 11755 Airport Way. The second hearing is
Wednesday at the Denver Marriott South at Park Meadows, 10345 Park Meadows Drive. The third is scheduled Thursday at
the Crown Plaza International Airport, 15500 E. 40th Ave. in Denver. The current ground-based air traffic control system can
no longer support huge increases in flights and causes delays , say FAA officials. Federal aviation and airline industry
officials say NextGen will cut flight delays, reduce carbon emissions, allow more airplanes to fly and save on fuel
consumption."We can be more fuel efficient and more predictable," said Aaron Barnett, the FAA's Denver area district
manager for air-traffic control. The $42 billion system is expected to be put in place over the next 20 years and help airports
like DIA deal with huge hikes in air traffic. Barnett pointed out that when DIA opened in 1995, it recorded 585,000
operations - take offs and landings. Last year, the airport reported 985,000 operations. One components of the NextGen
technology is RNP or Required Navigation Performance, which is an on-board system that allows pilots to navigate aircraft
to any point in the world using only geographical coordinates, according to the FAA. This helps pilots land in weather
conditions that would ordinarily force them to touchdown elsewhere. Barnett said DIA, the 11th-busiest airport in the world,
is also one of the world's most reliable. And NextGen will make DIA even more dependable. "This will help us predict our
flow even more precisely," Barnett said.
More ev
NASA 2007 (The Need For Change, http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/docs/nextgen_whitepaper_06_26_07.pdf_)
Forecasts indicate a significant increase in demand, ranging from a factor of two to three by 2025.1 However, the current
system is already strained and cannot scale to meet this demand. The ensuing shortfall could cost the U.S. billions of dollars
annually in lost productivity, increased operational costs, higher fares, and lost value from flights that airlines must eliminate
to keep delays to an acceptable minimum. As noted in the recently released National Aeronautics R&D Policy, “Possessing
the capability to move goods and people, point-to-point, anywhere in the nation and around the world is essential to advance
the local, state, and national economies of the United States.” In short, U.S. competitiveness depends upon an air
transportation system that can significantly expand capacity and flexibility, in the presence of weather and other
uncertainties, while maintaining safety and protecting the environment. The problem and the path forward were highlighted
in a statement by then-Department of Transportation Secretary, Norman Y. Mineta in a January 27, 2004 speech when he
stated, “The changes that are coming are too big, too fundamental for incremental adaptations of the infrastructure...we need
to modernize and transform our air transportation system – starting right now.” Evolutionary extrapolation of the current
system simply cannot get us where we need to go.
30
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Solvency Contention-A2: Won’t Work
Demonstration flights prove that next gen tech works
Stewart, 2010 (Don R. Stewart. “NextGeneration air traffic system holds new promise for airways”
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=45&a rticleid=20100627_45_e1_thenex600201 )
But in recent months, two airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration have performed demonstration flights and tests of
the new technologies that prove their groundbreaking capabilities, airline and government executives said. In Philadelphia,
federal air traffic controllers using satellite-based Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology are
more precisely tracking aircraft, separating them in the sky and on the runways, producing greater efficiencies and increased
margins of safety. "This new technology is a tremendous leap forward in transforming the current air traffic control system,"
said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt in April at the conclusion of ADS-B tests. "The operational benefits in Philadelphia
extend as far as Washington, D.C., and New York, which has some of the most congested airspace in the world." In Miami,
Fla., American Airlines and Air France flights originating in Paris in April used NextGen technologies to shorten routes and
flight times, reduce fuel consumption and carbon emissions, while lowering aircraft noise levels on final approach and
landing. American Flight 63 on a Boeing 767-300 aircraft from Paris Charles De Gaulle Airport to Miami International
Airport demonstrated several fuel conservation measures, including single-engine taxi on departure and arrival, continuous
climb and descent profiles, optimized routing over water and a "tailored" arrival, American executives said. "It is critical that
the aviation industry work with our air traffic control partners to demonstrate the benefits of NextGen technology today," said
Bob Reding, American's executive vice president of operations. "Utilizing NextGen technology is also a crucial part of
American's overall environmental and fuel savings efforts, which have already yielded annual fuel savings of more than 110
million gallons and a reduction of 2.2 billion pounds of carbon emissions." American Airlines has been a pioneer in the use
of NextGen or global positioning satellite navigation systems. In 1990, American published the first area navigation flight
procedures for approaches and landings at mountain-ringed Eagle-Vail (Colo.) Airport. "Before NextGen had a name,
American Airlines was using similar techniques in Colorado," said Brian Will, a 22-year American pilot who heads the
airline's NextGen program. "We were taking delivery of (Boeing) 757 aircraft, which have a great combination of high thrust
and dual flight management computers. We looked at some airports that had operational challenges — mostly at high altitude
mountain airports. "It started a movement of using on-board avionics to fly these airplanes. American Airlines and other big
airlines have been prepared to move forward with NextGen for quite a while." Traditional air navigation systems are based on
World War II-era ground-based radar. Radar signals cannot penetrate mountains, bad weather or reach across oceans, so
coverage in some instances is limited, industry officials say. ADS-B and other NextGen technologies use global positioning
satellite signals along with aircraft cockpit avionics to transmit the aircraft's location to ground receivers. The ground
receivers then transmit the information to controller screens and cockpit displays on aircraft equipped with ADS-B avionics.
ADS-B allows pilots to see for the first time other aircraft in the sky around them, increasing the margin for safety. It allows
air traffic controllers to more precisely identify aircraft locations and their proximity to other aircraft. Aircraft separation
distances can be reduced with the use of more accurate NextGen technologies, industry officials say. The U.S. air-traffic
system handles 35,000 to 37,000 commercial aircraft flights a day. At any one moment, 5,000 aircraft are in the sky over the
United States, said FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto. "With the development of the new technology, we are given a
significant amount of new information," Will said. "When all of this technology is working well, it is very very beneficial.
"Number one, we will be able to fly more precise routings into airports — keeping aircraft from inhabited areas at night or on
weekends, with fewer carbon emissions, and the number of delays will be reduced. We can fit a bunch more aircraft into the
airspace using NextGen technologies. "NextGen promises significant increases in our abilities to reduce delays, shorten flight
times and use less fuel. Hopefully, we will be able to pass on those benefits in terms of lower fares." The FAA is installing
the ground infrastructure for ADS-B. The agency has proposed that airlines and private aircraft install ADS-B avionics by
2020. ADS-B is expected to be available nationwide by 2013, FAA officials said.
31
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Solvency Contention-A2: No Air Integration
Planes already equipping next gen
Halsey 2011. Ashley Halsey III Washington Post Staff Writer “FAA to equip some JetBlue planes with NextGen GPS
technology” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020306000.html
The federal government will pay $4.2 million to install new navigation systems on 35 JetBlue airplanes, hoping their
enhanced performance will entice the airline industry to invest up to $20 billion in the new technology over the next decade.
The systems are the heart of the Federal Aviation Administration's plan to overhaul the way in which commercial air traffic is
routed, moving away from ground-based radar to the use of Global Positioning System satellites. Years in the planning, the
system known as NextGen is expected to deliver an unprecedented level of precision that the FAA says will relieve air traffic
congestion, allow more direct routing on flights, reduce flight delays and promote fuel efficiency. "This is just good business,
really, independent of the FAA investment," JetBlue Airways chief executive Dave Barger said Thursday. "I'll be delighted to
make the rest of the investment." The current system relies on radar to pinpoint planes so that air traffic controllers can guide
takeoffs, landings and flight patterns that keep planes at a safe distance. But radar, a 20th-century technology that uses radio
waves to detect objects, is less exact than GPS signals transmitted by satellites to ground stations. Many planes are equipped
with GPS technology, but NextGen is a multifaceted system that will link that data into an information system that will
manage air travel from the time a plane pushes back from one gate until it arrives at the next. NextGen's network of ground
stations is to provide blanket coverage of the United States by 2013. By 2020, all commercial planes will be required to use
the system, but selling the recession-strapped industry on its benefits is the FAA's challenge. Although air traffic has declined
during the recession, the skies around major hubs still are congested and air travel is projected to increase significantly as the
economy recovers. The administration estimates NextGen will reduce flight delays by 20 percent, save airlines millions in
fuel costs and cut carbon dioxide emissions dramatically. If the investment in JetBlue, announced Thursday, proves all that,
the FAA will have a persuasive argument with other airlines. For the airline industry, the investment could run between
$32,000 and $175,000 per plane for the basic system that will be installed in 35 JetBlue planes. The FAA estimates an
additional $162,000 to $670,000 per plane will be necessary to buy the full package of equipment. The significant difference
in cost depends on whether an older plane is being retrofitted or a new plane receives factory installation. "It's better to come
on board sooner and take advantage of these innovations," said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt, who said similar
incentives might be offered to other airlines. "We do have money in our NextGen budget to take these things into the field."
The federal investment in NextGen is expected to be between $15 billion and $22 billion
Commercial airline adoption proves
ACSS 2012 ACSS is a Leader an the Development of NextGen ADS-B Avionics http://www.acss.com/nextgen/
As the cornerstone technology of the FAA’s NextGen airspace initiative, ADS-B increases capacity and throughput for air
transportation, providing more precise position information. ACSS is an industry leader in ADS-B avionics technology,
becoming the first to develop and certify ADS-B avionics for commercial aircraft applications. ACSS Mode S transponders
are built with DO-260B readiness, the FAA’s latest specification, which allows equipped aircraft to transmit more
information about an aircraft’s position via ADS-B Out. Its SafeRoute suite of ADS-B In applications. include Surface Area
Movement Management (SAMM), In-Trail Procedures (ITP), CDTI Assisted Visual Separation (CAVS) and Merging &
Spacing. ACSS’s newest SafeRoute customer is JetBlue. They announced the plan to put ACSS SafeRoute ADS-B avionics
and transponders on 35 Airbus A320s operated by JetBlue. ACSS President Kris Ganase attended, along with Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood, FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt and JetBlue CEO Dave Barger. Dave Barger said the new
avionics will reduce flight times and fuel burn for JetBlue, and Randy Babbitt said that companies’ equipping today are going
to reap the benefits of the transformation of our airspace system sooner rather than later in the areas of greater efficiency, fuel
savings, and more on-time arrivals.
32
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Solvency-A2: No Testing
NextGen technology has been tested and inspected –only a matter of implementation
NASA 2007 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “NASA & THE NeXT GENERATION AIR
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (NEXTGEN), http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/docs/nextgen_whitepaper_06_26_07.pdf)
Uncertainties in the total flight environment (such as winds, convective weather, unpredictable aircraft performance, and
operator procedural changes) are manifest in many areas in today’s system, taking a toll on system throughput. In today’s
system, uncertainty is managed by queuing traffic waiting to be serviced, and demand is managed by restricting access to the
airspace to avoid straining capacity. The primary function of the current Traffic Flow Management is to identify and resolve
imbalances in the demand and supply of NAS resources such as airspace and runways. However, the current airspace
structure is rather rigid, increases restrictions, leads to ground delays during convective weather, and is largely unable to
accommodate user preferences. Noise and emissions are becoming a bigger problem at airports and are already constraining
the growth of the air transportation system. It is anticipated that emissions will also become a problem en route. Development
of civil aviation must be compatible with environmental compliance. Finally, safety assurance is currently based on
prescriptive rule compliance, with the regulatory authority focused on extensive testing, inspecting, and certifying individual
systems and operational elements. Risk analyses are lacking continuity, are often time consuming, and are not always shared.
Even though today’s system is extremely safe, there are concerns that problems are handled reactively rather than
proactively.
Next gen has been tested and ready to go online since 2011
Lockheed Martin 2011 (“Lockheed Martin Celebrates Opening of NextGen Technology Test Bed,
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2011/november/LockheedMartinCelebratesO.html)
Martin (NYSE: LMT), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) and a
consortium of industry partners have opened the Florida NextGen Test Bed, a laboratory where new and emerging Next
Generation Air Transportation (NextGen) concepts and technologies can be demonstrated and validated. The FAA's NextGen
initiative is designed to improve travel through an integrated, adaptable air transportation system, enabling aircraft to adjust
to factors such as weather, traffic congestion, flight patterns and security issues. The NextGen Test Bed, located at Daytona
Beach International Airport (DBIA), was established by the Integrated Airport Initiative (IAI), comprised of aviation industry
leaders who wanted to share their expertise to advance NextGen. Lockheed Martin and ERAU created the IAI in 2006.
Today, its membership has grown to 15 partners, including DBIA, Barco, Boeing, CSC, ENSCO, Frequentis, GE, Harris,
Mosaic ATM, NATS, Sensis and Volpe. "The NextGen Test Bed enables real world validation of concepts that will enhance
safety, capacity, efficiency and security at airports nationwide," said Sandy Samuel, vice president of Lockheed Martin's
Transportation Solutions. "Lockheed Martin is proud to support the FAA in transforming our national airspace, and making
travel easier than ever before." As the prime contractor for the FAA's En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)
program, Lockheed Martin is building and deploying the platform for NextGen air traffic control initiatives that will enable
the FAA to transition to future concepts and functions. ERAM is a replacement for the FAA automation systems and
infrastructure used by controllers to manage airspace above 10,000 feet. It will process more than double the number of
flight plans and utilize nearly triple the number of surveillance sources used by the current system. Lockheed Martin is a
member of the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC), which is working with the FAA to develop a common understanding
of priorities for NextGen capabilities and implementation constraints. Lockheed Martin will host the NAC's next public
meeting at ERAU on Feb. 2. "Lockheed Martin's leadership in helping develop the Test Bed has been very valuable," said
Christina Frederick-Recascino, executive vice president for academics and research at ERAU. "From the beginning Lockheed
and Embry-Riddle have worked together to make this facility a success." Lockheed Martin's Transportation Solutions is part
of the corporation's Information Systems & Global Solutions-Civil business. IS&GS-Civil is responsible for a wide array of
information technology systems and services in areas such as energy, health care, transportation, information and cyber
security, citizen protection and space exploration. Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security
company that employs about 126,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development,
manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation's 2010
sales from continuing operations were $45.8 billion.
33
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Solvency-A2: No Testing
Next gen air transportation system is testing and ready for deployment
Jad Mouawad, 4-3-2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/business/a-satellite-system-that-could-end-circling-abovethe-airport.html?pagewanted=all (Jad Mouawad is the airline reporter at The New York Times)
Capt. Mike Adams demonstrated what the future will look like at the nation’s airports as he pulled back on the throttles of his
Boeing 737 flight simulator, setting the engines on idle to glide smoothly from his cruising altitude all the way down to the
runway. Pilots using the technology will no longer need to circle overhead awaiting clearance to land, saving fuel and
reducing delays. Starting in June, that’s exactly what actual Alaska Airlines flights will be doing when the airline begins
testing the use of satellite technology to land at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport — all in the hope of saving fuel and
reducing delays. Alaska Airlines, one of the nation’s smallest airlines, has taken some of the biggest steps in adopting a
technology that allows its planes to navigate Alaska’s hazardous terrain, weaving through narrow valleys and mountain
peaks, and land at remote airports in some of the worst imaginable weather. Now it wants to demonstrate that technology at
big, busy airports, said Captain Adams, the airline’s chief technical pilot. Planes using the new technology will cut 30 miles
from their approach to the airport by taking a more direct path to the runway. They will no longer need to circle overhead
awaiting clearance to land. And pilots will not have to push and pull at the throttles — in effect, repeatedly stepping on the
gas, then coasting — to maintain the altitude assigned by air traffic controllers as they begin a stairlike descent. For
passengers, landing will feel more like coming down a slide. “This makes much better use of the airspace,” Captain Adams
said. “It improves efficiency and reduces congestion. That’s the holy grail we’re all aiming for.”
34
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Solvency-A2: Delay Works
Status quo implementation is not sustainable—upfront development is key
Fujisaki, 2012 (Norm, “FAA Reauthorization: Trying to Get 10 Pounds in to a 5 Pound Bag”, March 22, 2012,
http://www.metronaviation.com/blogs/tasking-nextgen/2012/03/22/faa-reauthorizationtrying-to-get-10-pounds-into-a-5pound-bag/, accessed 7/17/12)
The Reauthorization is interesting from several perspectives. It directs the Secretary of Transportation to give budgetary
priority to NextGen projects. Of course, in reality, there is only so much latitude that the Secretary of Transportation and the
FAA Administrator have. They can request, but the appropriators in Congress are the ones who determine how much funding
is provided and where it is allocated. In a constrained budgetary environment, which this is, there is never enough funding to
go around. Aviation will have to complete with every other government agency and public need.Even if the appropriators
funded the FAA to the full level of the authorization, would that be enough? Over ten years ago, I was involved in doing an
analysis to determine what the capital needs of the FAA ought to be. One of the driving forces turns out to be the need to
refresh the existing infrastructure. Buildings last 40 years, power generators 25 years, some components 15 and 20 years,
others 5 years, etc. If you could smooth your spending to maintain your infrastructure, you would replace 1/40 of your
buildings each year, 1/25 of your power generators, etc. When we added it all up, it turned out we needed $1.7B each year,
nearly 90% of our capital budget, just to refresh the infrastructure we had. It ate up nearly the entire capital budget, which
was a little under $2B at the time. Clearly, that didn’t leave enough to pay for the myriad of new technologies that needed to
be developed, built and implemented. So, we sought out ways to make the system significantly more efficient and less costly
while limping along and eking out a few more years from infrastructure that had long ago passed the end of its economic
service life. Under the constrained budget of that day, we figured out a way to keep the system afloat, while making progress,
albeit slow progress, toward modernizing the infrastructure. Sometimes, that progress was too slow. When your progress is
too slow, sometimes the support you need unravels. That happened on several occasions.Now we are in the era of NextGen,
an era requiring accelerated change and investment. The capital budget is still $2.7B per year (and worth a lot less in
purchasing power than the $2.4B capital budget that the FAA had 10 years ago). Does the Reauthorization provide enough
funding authority to pay for NextGen and the existing infrastructure? Or, is this a case of trying to fit 10 pounds into a 5
pound bag? Clearly there isn’t enough funding to sustain the existing infrastructure plus produce all of the planned NextGen
improvements. If NextGen is to become a reality, plans would be needed to shed significant portions of the existing
infrastructure as soon as practical. The FAA recently announced plans to eliminate a large portion of its VOR navigational
aids and transition to airspace that is no longer tied to ground navigation facilities. That is a good start. Much more needs to
be done to shed costly infrastructure that could be eliminated by doing things more innovatively. A higher standard of
benefit-to-cost criteria perhaps ought to be adopted to eliminate facilities that contribute little or no positive economic
value.On the NextGen side of the ledger, there needs to be more focus on delivering benefits sooner. A lot of NextGen
funding is going into large, new infrastructure programs. The new infrastructure is important. But, perhaps even more so at
this juncture, it’s important to deliver visible improvements that can be taken to the bank, real benefits that can serve as
compelling justification and build credibility to maintain political support for longer term investments. How well are we
doing at fixing the most costly problems in the system today? Do we even know what the most costly problems are?
35
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Solvency-A2: Delay Works
Gradual next gen implementation fails
Levin, 2012 (Alan, “Next Gen FAA Contracts are Still $4.2 Billion Over Budget, GAO Says”, February 24, 2012,
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-24/nextgen-faa-contracts-are-4-2-billion-over-budget-gao-says.html, accessed
7/17/12)
Eleven of the 30 contracts underpinning the so-called NextGen system exceed projected costs by a total of $4.2 billion,
according to a Government Accountability Office report released today. Fifteen of the contracts are behind schedule by an
average of four years, the GAO report said.“These challenges, if they persist, will impede the implementation of NextGen,
especially in light of the interdependencies among many acquisition programs, where cost increases or delays in one program
can affect the costs and schedules of other programs,” the agency said in the report.The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
is moving from a radar-based system of tracking aircraft to one using global- positioning satellites. The NextGen system
should reduce aircraft-fuel consumption and emissions while improving safety, according to the agency. It will cost the
government, and airlines and other aircraft owners as much as $42 billion by 2025, the agency estimates.
The FAA, which was shown a copy of the findings, didn’t say whether it agreed or disagreed, according to the report.In 2009,
the GAO took the FAA off its “high-risk” list of government agencies because it had improved management of large
contracts. Recent issues with agency contracts “have renewed concerns about the agency’s ability to manage complex multibillion-dollar procurement programs,” the GAO said in the report.GPS AccuracyThe Wide-Area Augmentation System,
which makes the position information from GPS accurate to within a few meters, is costing the FAA $3 billion, three times
higher than initial estimates, the GAO said. It has also taken 14 years longer to complete than the FAA planned, the auditing
agency said.WAAS is being built by a consortium of Raytheon Co., Tetra Tech Inc. and Lockheed Martin Corp.The Standard
Terminal Automation Replacement System, the computers that display flight information to controllers handling aircraft near
airports, was $1.8 billion more expensive than projected, the GAO said. The system, which was built by Raytheon, was
completed in 2007, almost two years late.The contract for Automated Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast, a backbone of the
NextGen system, is $44 million more than the $1.7 billion cost estimate, a 3 percent increase, the GAO said. It’s scheduled to
be completed in 2014 and is on track, according to the report.Radio TransmissionsADS-B is a network of ground stations and
computers that will monitor radio transmissions from the thousands of planes in the air, allowing controllers to know where
the aircraft are located. Under this new system, each aircraft will use GPS to determine its own position and broadcast that
once a second, a more accurate way of tracking planes than radar. The lead contractor is ITT Corp.An update to the
computers that monitor high-altitude air traffic, the En-route Automation Modernization program built by Lockheed, is $330
million, or 15 percent, over budget, according to the report. It is almost four years behind schedule.Some of the cost overruns,
including for the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System and the En-route Automation Modernization program,
have previously been reported by the FAA, the GAO and in the press. The GAO surveyed the status of the contracts at the
request of Congress.Best PracticesThe FAA didn’t follow best practices for estimating costs of ADS-B and three other
programs that the GAO analyzed in depth, according to the report. Delays and cost increases occur for several reasons,
according to GAO. The FAA adds unanticipated requirements to programs; controllers and other users of new systems are
not sufficiently involved in development; the complexity of software development is underestimated and unanticipated events
such as funding cuts occur, the GAO said.While some of the programs are already completed or not directly related to
NextGen, delays may also slow NextGen because programs in air-traffic are so connected, according to the report.
Next gen delays crush benefits
Schofield, 2012 (Adrian, “NextGen Breakeven Shifts 2020, FAA Says”, March 22, 2012,
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_03_22_2012_p0-439330.xml, accessed 7/17/12)
There is no doubt that NextGen will eventually deliver impressive savings and greater efficiency. However, due to a
combination of factors the FAA has shifted out its forecast for achieving these benefits by two years. The latest guidance is
part of the agency’s NextGen implementation plan, which is issued annually.According to the FAA, the breakeven point for
NextGen investment will occur in 2020, while last year’s version of the plan estimated a 2018 breakeven. The breakeven is
defined as the year when cumulative benefits – to the FAA and airspace users – equal the cumulative implementation
costs.The new report estimates that NextGen will reduce delays by 38% by 2020, compared to the expected delay level
absent any further NextGen improvements. The 38% delay reduction would yield $24 billion in cumulative savings by 2020
to the public, aircraft operators and the FAA. There would be a cumulative saving of 1.4 billion gallons of fuel and 14 million
metric tons of carbon monoxide emissions over this period.While those figures are impressive, they also represent a slight
slip from previous estimates. The FAA says the benefits are essentially the same as those forecast last year for 2018
36
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Aerospace Advantage-Uniqueness
Peer competitors are rapidly approaching the point of overtaking US aero dominance
NIA 2006 (National Institute of Aerospace, “Responding to the Call: Aviation Plan for American Leadership”
http://ns1.nianet.org/pubs/AviationPlan/AviationPlan_recommendations.pdf )
The United States of America has been the undisputed world leader in aviation technology since the end of World War II.
The aviation industry accounts for a very large fraction of all U.S. exports, and aviation jobs are among the highest paid percapita of any industrial sector. The aviation industry has, in all candor , been a cornerstone of American defense , a staple of
American prosperity, and a symbol of American ingenuity for more than six decades. Today, the U.S. position as world
leader in aviation is no longer undisputed. We are being challenged not on the basis of corporate competition, but
increasingly on the basis of national competition. A new, united Europe has already surpassed the U.S. in a variety of key
aviation sectors. Further, the European Union has plainly stated that their goal is to dominate the aviation industry by 2020.
Europe is presently investing heavily in the long-term research necessary to make this a reality within the next fifteen years.
And the future looks set to bring even more competition, particularly from Asia. China is rapidly industrializing, and if its
present pace of technological advance can be sustained, they will likely overtake the U.S. in 10-20 years.
Specifically China is on the verge of passing the US
Cliff, Olhandt, and Lang 2011 (Roger Cliff, Chad J.R. Olhandt, and David Yang. RAND – National Security
Research Division.
China’s aerospace industry has advanced at an impressive rate over the past decade. While some of this progress can be
attributed to rapidly growing governmental support for China’s aerospace sector, China’s aerospace capabilities have also
benefited from the increasing participation of its aerospace industry in the global commercial aerospace market and the
supply chains of the world’s leading aerospace firms. This monograph assesses China’s aerospace capabilities and the degree
to which China’s participation in commercial aerospace markets and supply chains is contributing to the improvement of
those capabilities. Most major aviation manufacturers—Boeing, Airbus, General Electric (GE), Rolls-Royce, and Pratt &
Whitney—have joint ventures in China or source components from China. China has also received technical assistance from
Western companies in the development of airliners, avionics, satellites, and other systems. Although joint ventures and
assistance from Western companies are generally confined to purely civilian technologies, this assistance may nonetheless be
contributing to the development of China’s military aerospace capabilities. This monograph assesses the growth of China’s
aerospace capabilities and the extent to which China’s participation in commercial aerospace markets and supply chains is
contributing to that growth. Specific areas assessed include China’s commercial aviation manufacturing capabilities, its
commercial and military capabilities in space, efforts of the Chinese government to encourage foreign participation in the
development of China’s aerospace industry, transfers of foreign aerospace technology to China, the extent to which U.S. and
other
The exodus is coming – massive worker shortages in the status quo doom the industry’s
competitiveness
SF Chronicle 2008 (San Francisco Chronicle, 3/10/08, “Aerospace, defense sectors brace for brain drain as Cold War
workers retire” http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Aerospace-defense-sectors-brace-for-brain-drain-3292154.php )
The aerospace and defense sector is bracing for a potential brain drain over the next decade as a generation of Cold War
scientists and engineers hits retirement age and not enough qualified young Americans seek to take their place. The problem almost 60 percent of U.S. aerospace workers in 2007 were 45 or older - could affect national security and even close the door
on commercial products that start out as military technology, industry officials said. While U.S. universities are awarding
nearly 200,000 engineering, math and computer science degrees annually - 2 1/2 times as many as they did 40 years ago defense companies must compete with the likes of Google, Microsoft and Verizon for the best and the brightest. Industry
leaders are doing their best to emphasize the allure, and growing importance, of jobs linked to national defense.
37
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Aerospace Advantage-Uniqueness
Cold War aerospace workers are now reaching retirement age – collapse of the industry is
inevitable
Montgomery 2008 (Dave Montgomery, staff writer for The Seattle Times, “Retiree flood waits in aerospace wings”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2004174511_jobsage10.html )
Roughly a quarter of the nation's 637,000 aerospace workers could be eligible for retirement this year, raising fears that
America could face a serious skills shortage in the factories that churn out commercial and military aircraft. "It's a looming
issue that's getting more serious year by year," said Marion Blakey, chief executive of the Aerospace Industries Association.
"These are real veterans. It's a hard work force to replace." The association, which represents aircraft manufacturers and
suppliers, has designated the potential skills drain as one of its top 10 priorities in this year's presidential race. One of the
major aerospace unions is embracing the issue in a rare alliance between labor and management. " It's not a problem that's
coming. It's here, " said Frank Larkin, spokesman for the 720,000-member International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers. The issue particularly resonates in aircraft-manufacturing centers such as the Puget Sound region, the
Dallas-Fort Worth area, St. Louis and Wichita, Kan., which bills itself as the "Air Capital of the World." "Obviously, we are
concerned that we have a large portion of our work force that in five years, 10 years, will pick up and go," said Marivel
Neeley, the senior manager of equal-opportunity programs at Lockheed Martin's plant in Fort Worth.
The most recent evidence proves – shortage of workers is already affecting the industry
Koopmans 7/15 (Kelly Koopmans, staff writer for the Seattle Post Intelligencer, “Cantwell: As work force retires, who
will build Boeing's planes?” http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Cantwell-As-work-force-retires-who-will-build3709079.php#ixzz20tBAbziM )
Boeing has a big job ahead after last week's announcement of airplane orders and commitments worth billions of dollars.
Now, as thousands of aerospace workers prepare to retire, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell is wondering where the skilled workers
will come from to build those planes. During a tour of Machinists Inc., a precision machining company and Boeing supplier
in Seattle, Cantwell announced she will be holding a Senate Aviation Subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C., this week
on aviation competitiveness. "Over the next 20 years, the aerospace industry is expected to grow by more than $3 trillion,"
said Cantwell. "I'm bringing together aviation and aerospace leaders to talk about what they think must be done for the U.S.
to remain on top of these industries."
And, now is key – 15% will retire by the end of the year
AIA 2011 (Aerospace Industries of America, “Workforce”, http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/ip_workforce_2011.pdf )
ISSUE: Our nation is not producing enough qualified workers to fill important
jobs at aerospace companies and the shortfall will increase as retirements grow.
BACKGROUND The major long-term threat to our preeminence in aerospace comes from our own demographics. The
generation of talent that won the space race and the Cold War is reaching retirement age and America is not producing the
number and quality of scientists, engineers and technicians necessary to replenish those ranks. The 2005 National Academies
report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, provided a definitive statement of the problem and the challenges that must be
overcome to fix it. The numbers are stark: the average age of aerospace and defense workers rose to 45.7 percent in 2010.
Among our largest companies, 57 percent of the workforce is 45 or older, meaning that within 10 years well more than half
of their employees will become retirement eligible. Fifteen percent of the aerospace engineering workforce will be eligible
for retirement in 2012. Among our largest companies, 29.43 percent of the engineering workforce will be eligible to retire
in 2016.
38
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Aerospace Advantage-Uniqueness
More ev-US falling behind in aerospace
Albaugh 2011 (Jim, President and CEO of Boeing, Address to the 10th Annual Aviation Summit and US Chamber of
Commerce, 4/27/11, http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/speech_042711_albaugh.pdf)
Thank you, Carol. This afternoon I want to talk about the importance of aerospace, the state of the industry today, and some
of the threats our industry faces, and what we can do about them. Aerospace at a Crossroads. I believe we’re at a crossroads.
No one is ahead of America in aerospace, at least not yet. The U.S. is the undisputed leader. We build the most efficient and
capable commercial airplanes in the world. The weapons systems we produce are unmatched, our commercial and military
satellites are phenomenal in what they can do, and our orbital manned space program – a program the United States will walk
away from this year – is second to none. But our leadership is being threatened by other countries intent on replacing the
U.S. as the world’s leader in aerospace. Today, we’re not trying to reclaim our lead. We’re trying to keep it. The question is:
Will we take the steps required to maintain our leadership? Or will we allow aerospace and aviation to join the list of
industries that America used to lead? Aerospace Makes America Strong. To understand why that’s so important, we have to
look at what aerospace has done for our country. I was fortunate enough to join this industry in the final quarter of a
remarkable century. To me, American aerospace defined the 20th Century. It helped win World War II. It brought the
world closer together with commercial air travel. It changed the way we communicate with commercial satellites. And, of
course, it changed forever how we look at the world around us when man first walked on the Moon. I am also convinced that
aerospace will define the 21st century. The question is, will it be U.S. aerospace that does it? That’s a critical question
because what we do helps keep America strong. No industry has a bigger impact on exports. It tips the balance of trade in
our favor by about $53 billion. President Obama has set the goal of doubling U.S. exports in five years. Aerospace will be
essential to help us reach that goal. When you look at direct land secondary impacts, it's been estimated that U.S. civil
aviation alone is responsible for 12 million jobs and contributes to more than 5 1/2 percent of the US GDP. The State of
Aerospace. So what does our commercial marketplace look like today? It’s vibrant, growing, challenging and rapidly
changing. A Recovering Market. The commercial aviation market has been roaring back the last 15 months, despite the
impact of the worst recession since the Great Depression. At Boeing, we have a 7-year, $263 billion commercial airplane
backlog. With air traffic increasing at a rate 1.5 times world GDP, the future looks good. Looking forward, we expect world
GDP to grow at about 4 percent between 2011 and 2015. While not discounting events in Northern Africa, and the potential
impact on the price of oil, the future looks good from a macro standpoint. Over the next 20 years, we see a need for 31,000
new airplanes. That’s a $3.6 trillion dollar market. It’s a market many countries and companies covet. That outlook is being
shaped by many factors. I’d like to talk about a few of them: globalization, competition, and shifting demographics.
39
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Aerospace Advantage-Industry Strength
Next gen stimulates the aviation activity-lack of technology will destabilize potential gains
National Aerospace Week 2011 [National Aerospace Week, “Aerospace and Defense: Second to None”, September
17, 2011, http://www.nationalaerospaceweek.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/whitepaper.pdf]
As the U.S. economy continues to move through uncertain times and the nation grapples with a growing debt, America’s
aerospace industry remains a powerful, reliable engine of employment, innovation and export income. Aerospace contributed
$77.5 billion in export sales to America’s economy last year.1 Conservatively, U.S. aerospace sales alone account for three to
five percent of our country’s gross domestic product, and every aerospace dollar yields an extra $1.50 to $3 in further
economic activity.2
Aerospace products and services are the bedrock of our nation’s security and competitiveness. We
strongly believe that keeping this economic workhorse on track is in America’s best interest. To accomplish this, government
policies must support robust funding of defense priorities, research and development, a 21st century air traffic control system,
a level playing field abroad and a robust industrial base. Additionally policies that promote science, technology engineering
and mathematics (STEM) will help reenergize an aging aerospace workforce with an infusion of younger employees. This
paper explains what’s at stake and how to ensure that the economic and national security benefits of our industry are
bolstered and broadened. It’s particularly important this year. With sixty percent of aerospace sales dependent on federal
contracts, ill-considered budget cuts could jeopardize our national security, civil and space transportation infrastructure and
economy. Civil Aviation: Transforming the Future of Flying Civil aviation is an economic engine directly and indirectly
contributing more than $1.3 trillion — or 5.6 percent of gross domestic product — to the U.S. economy. It supports nearly 11
million jobs with a payroll of $369 billion.9 Civil aviation contributes positively to the U.S. trade balance, creates high
paying jobs, keeps just-in- time business models viable and connects all Americans to friends, family and business
opportunities. All of that economic activity passes through the nation’s air traffic system. As long as the system can
accommodate the rising demand for air travel and just-in-time express delivery, the growth of jobs and economic activity
associated with civil aviation will continue. Our current system is safe, but antiquated and highly inefficient. We need to
replace our 1960s-era air traffic control technology with a much more accurate and efficient 21st century satellite-based Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). NextGen is essential to helping airlines return to profitability. It is critical
for reducing fuel consumption and airplane emissions. Without NextGen, our national airspace will remain cluttered and
inefficient and undermine the economic benefits of America’s commercial aviation industry. Excluding the costs of delays
due to system inefficiency, failure to institute NextGen could cost the U.S. about $35 billion in annual economic loss by 2014
and as much as $52 billion in annual economic loss by 2024 — and that’s only in unmet demand and lost productivity.
Businesses related to or dependent on aviation risk losing as many as two million jobs every five years if the nation doesn’t
implement NextGen. 9 The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy, FAA, Dec. 2009. 2011 Aerospace
Industries Association of America, Inc. 5 The entire U.S. fleet of civil aircraft can be NextGen equipped in less than three
years for less funding than has been committed to surface transportation infrastructure projects. Experts say with an equipped
fleet and a commitment to accelerate supporting ground infrastructure, NextGen could be in place in five to eight years
instead of 10 to 15. Full NextGen deployment requires the production and installation of hundreds of thousands of high-tech
avionic products assembled by skilled workers in U.S. factories and maintenance stations in every state. Without these
products, our National Airspace System cannot upgrade to satellite-based navigation and will lag behind systems in other
countries. Building and deploying NextGen equipment, procedures and infrastructure could create approximately 153,600
jobs.10 A viable aviation sector enhances economic activity in a wide number of industries outside aviation, including travel,
tourism and industries that rely on just-in-time global inventories and shipping capability. Implications on the trade front are
also important. Our strong competitive position in aerospace is being challenged by the European Union, Australia, Canada
and other countries. China and India, which will witness the greatest growth in aviation travel for years to come, will look to
either the United States or Europe for leadership as they develop their respective air traffic control systems. If the United
States does not promptly deploy these technologies, opportunities for U.S. manufacturers and workers could be lost. Business
Practices Underpin our Technology and Competitiveness The United States has always relied on technology as a
competitiveness multiplier. However, there must be a business environment that supports innovation underlying that superior
technology. Without this environment, we will lag in the global marketplace no matter how advanced our products. Adopting
a tax code that adheres to the principles of efficiency, innovation, competitiveness and simplicity will pay dividends across
the board. U.S. companies will have more business, there will be more jobs for Americans and the nation will experience
more economic growth. Congressional action on repealing the three percent withholding tax, making the research and
development tax credit permanent and lowering corporate tax rates are all an excellent first step forward. Supplying the
systems and services that support America’s men and women in uniform is one of the most important functions of the
aerospace and defense industry. The defense acquisition system — when properly used — is a powerful tool for ensuring that
systems, supplies and services are provided at fair and reasonable prices in compliance with the cost, schedule and technical
parameters of government contracts. The ability of the defense acquisition process to produce the best military equipment at
the best value for taxpayers is dependent on several important factors — a strong industrial base, a rational and flexible
40
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
acquisition process, well-defined requirements, budget realism, stable procurement plans, a well-trained and experienced
acquisition workforce and support from Congress. All are interdependent and all operate in a dynamic environment that faces
continuing challenges. When President Obama and his team came in to office, one of the first areas of emphasis for the new
administration was acquisition reform.. Over the last several years, the government has proposed a number of rules to reduce
fraud, waste and abuse in government contracting. We support this objective, but are committed to achieving a streamlined
and efficient acquisition process that does not impose unnecessary administrative burdens on contractors or government
contracting officers. We need the kinds of reforms that promote competitiveness and efficiency in the aerospace and defense
industry while providing reasonable returns for good performance. Second to None Every dollar invested in the aerospace
industry has a triple effect. It helps retain good jobs in the United States; creates the products that bring significant revenues
from other countries and provides security and economic benefits that flow uniquely from America’s civil aviation, defense
and space defense leadership. The aerospace and defense industry takes great pride in contributing to our nation’s success,
and, with the appropriate policies and resources will remain a source of economic strength for generations to come. After all,
this industry in Second to None.
41
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Aerospace Advantage-Competitiveness Internals
Next gen implementation is the lynchpin of US leadership and competitiveness
AIAA 2012 Information Paper (No Author 2012 "Developing a Robust Next Generation Air Transportation System" )
ABSTRACT: The current National Airspace System (NAS) was developed more than 60 years ago. The present system was
not designed to incorporate many of today’s new and emerging technologies, aircraft platforms, and system-use capabilities
into its spectrum. Delays and denials of access impact the nation’s economy and security. Delays in upgrading the
technologies, policies and processes that control access and movement throughout the NAS increase costs on end users, deny
efficiencies that could reduce environmental impacts of air travel, reduce the utility of aerospace systems in achieving
documented national goals and priorities, and inhibit safety enhancements throughout the system. Developing a robust next
generation air transportation system is vital to retaining our economic and technological leadership in the global
marketplace.
Next gen is key to US competiveness
NAM 2010, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM 2010 ""Expediting Air Traffic Modernization and Accelerating
NextGenn Air Transportation System"" )PHS
Competitiveness Under Threat The nation’s air transportation system is a unique public-private system that requires
significant investment and leadership from both public and private sources to deliver benefits to the traveling public and other
users of the system. The U.S. competitive position in the aviation sector is being challenged by the European Union (E.U.)
and the U.S. civil aerospace industry will be outpaced if we do not consider the transition to NextGen as a serious national
objective. U.S. passenger traffic will more than double over the next 20 years and almost triple globally. Other nations with
growing air traffic, like China and India, are looking to the U.S. or the E.U. to guide the evolution of their air transportation
systems. If the U.S. is not the perceived leader in deploying this technology, opportunities for U.S. manufacturers and
workers will be lost forever.
More ev-key to prevent massive competitiveness pitfalls
Mineta and Blakely 2004 (Norman Y. Mineta, chairman of the Senior Policy Committee; and Marion C. Blakely, FAA
Administrator; “Next Generation Air Transportation System Integrated Plan”
http://www.jpdo.gov/library/ngats_v1_1204r.pdf 12-12-04 )
The U.S. aviation system must transform itself and be more responsive to the tremendous social, economic, political, and
technological changes that are evolving worldwide. We are entering a critical era in air transportation, in which we must
either find better, proactive ways to work together or suffer the consequences of reacting to the forces of change. The
consequence of a donothing approach to this public policy problem is staggering. As the Commission on the Future of the
United States Aerospace Industry noted, consumers stand to lose $30B annually due to people and products not reaching their
destinations within the time periods we expect today.
42
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Aerospace Advantage-Key to Hege
Aerospace key to heg – power projection
Hazdra 2001 (Richard, Major, US Air Force, “Air Mobility: The Key to United States National Security Strategy,
Fairchild Paper” http://aupress.au.af.mil/fairchild_papers/Hazdra/Hazdra.pdf )
In shaping the international environment, the United States must possess a credible military force where military activities
include overseas presence and peacetime engagement and the will to use military force.2 According to the NDP, overseas
presence is the key to a stable international environment.3 Peacetime engagement includes rotational deployments that help
sustain regional stability by deterring aggression and exercises with foreign nations that solidify relations with those
nations.4Deployments and exercises both require air mobility in the form of both airlift and air refueling in order to transport the necessary troops and equipment. Peacetime engagement also includes other programs such as the Nunn–Lugar
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program where the United States assists members of the Commonwealth of Independent
States in dismantling and storing WMD.5Here, air mobility is the lead component by transporting nuclear weapons to the
United States from compliant nations. Airlift also plays a crucial role in responding to threats and crises by enhancing our
war-fighting capability.6 The United States may move some forces nearer to a theater in crisis and rapidly deploy other
forces into that theater. Depending on the crisis, forces from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or any combination of
military personnel and equipment could comprise the force structure required. Consequently, the United States must airlift
these forces along with the needed logistics support. In addition, the focused logistics concept of Joint Vision 2010 requires
the transportation of supplies and materials to support these forces within hours or days rather than weeks, a mission solely
suited to air mobility. In responding to crises, forces may deploy in support of smaller-scale contingencies which include
humanitarian assistance, peace operations, enforcing NFZs, evacuating US citizens, reinforcing key allies, limited strikes, and
interventions.7 Today, US forces find themselves globally engaged in responding to these contingencies more frequently and
maintain longer-term commitments to support these contingencies. In these situations, many deployments occur in the
absence of forward basing.8 The loss of forward basing has reduced AMC’s worldwide infrastructure from 39 locations in
1992 to 12 in 1999.9 Thus, the United States must again use air mobility to deploy forces overseas in a minimum amount of
time for an operation to be successful.
43
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Aerospace Advantage-Key to Hege
Fully funding next gen is key to maintaining aerospace leadership– that's key to heg
Blakely 2011 (Marion, President and CEO of Aerospace Industries Association, 6-30-11 "Second to None - Maintaining
U.S. Aerospace Leadership in the 21st Century” http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/speech_063011.pdf )
The Second to None campaign will focus on specific steps to preserve our aerospace and defense industrial base and maintain
U.S. aerospace leadership in the 21st century. I hope a number of you will join us in it. So from a policy standpoint, how do
we tackle our challenge to keep America on top? I’ll offer four steps for your consideration now. • Fully fund NextGen . •
Preserve procurement and R&D for the Defense Department and for NASA.• Exploit our breakthroughs in aircraft, integrate
unmanned aerial systems in civil airspace and let’s export them! • Press forward with the President’s goal of doubling our
exports, and that means export-control reform. First, NextGen. It may seem foolhardy to call for full funding in this budget
environment. But when you compare the constraints of our current ATC system with the benefits of NextGen and how
quickly we can realize them, I think it’s clear that NextGen is a smart investment. Just recently, American Airlines worked
out with the FAA a tailored approach to Miami International for flights from London Heathrow. The Center uplinks the
approach two hours prior to landing. The Boeing 777 crew flies a constant descent at idle thrust. Projected savings: 1,000 to
2,000 pounds of fuel, reduced emissions. Plus greater safety. Wow! But just one of many examples. Look -- commercial
aviation is back on track today to grow at a steady annual average of 5 percent a year. The reality is our current ATC system
can’t handle that growth. If this sounds familiar, it should. Many have sounded this warning. I did so right here before the
Aero Club back in 2007, in my last speech as FAA administrator. I said then that we 44had a solution – NextGen – but that to
succeed it needed a few things, including a steady stream of funding and a strong commitment from government and
industry. The progress we’ve made in NextGen since 2007 – and we’ve made quite a bit – came despite expiration of FAA
reauthorization that same year. Having spent time at the FAA, I can tell you the stop-and-start effect of 20 reauthorization
extensions is no way to run a program that should be setting ATC standards for the rest of the world. And, we as an industry
have failed to commit as we should have to NextGen. We’ve differed on its benefits and the means of paying for it,
particularly the onboard equipment that aircraft will need to use it. Now NextGen, like every other federal program, faces the
knife. The President’s 2012 Budget Request proposed funding NextGen at $1.24 billion – an increase of $100 million from
the proposed budget for this year. That’s the funding level Congress should approve.
A strong aerospace industry is key to preserving heg
Albaugh 2011 (Jim, President and CEO of Boeing, 4-27-11, “Keepings America’s Lead in Aerospace” http://www.aiaaerospace.org/assets/speech_042711_albaugh.pdf )
Aerospace Makes America Strong. To understand why that’s so important, we have to look at what aerospace has done for
our country. I was fortunate enough to join this industry in the final quarter of a remarkable century. To me, American
aerospace defined the 20th Century. It helped win World War II. It brought the world closer together with commercial air
travel. It changed the way we communicate with commercial satellites. And, of course, it changed forever how we look at
the world around us when man first walked on the Moon. I am also convinced that aerospace will define the 21st century.
The question is, will it be U.S. aerospace that does it? That’s a critical question because what we do helps keep America
strong. No industry has a bigger impact on exports. It tips the balance of trade in our favor by about $53 billion. President
Obama has set the goal of doubling U.S. exports in five years. Aerospace will be essential to help us reach that goal. When
you look at direct and secondary impacts, it's been estimated that U.S. civil aviation alone is responsible for 12 million jobs
and contributes to more than 5 1/2 percent of the US GDP.
44
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Heg Impact-Hegemony Good
Hegemony is critical to deter balancing-potential competitors won’t develop theories of victory
Christopher Layne, Professor Texas A&M School of Government, 2009, International Security, Vol. 34, No. 1, Summer,
p. 159-60
Because it uniquely combines overwhelming economic and military power, the United States enjoys unchallenged
preeminence in the international system (pp. 34–35). Its huge military edge over potential challengers dissuades others from
competing against it. Moreover, combined with collective-action problems, U.S. hard power advantages pose an insuperable
barrier to states that might want to engage in external balancing against the United States (pp. 35–37). Also, Brooks and
Wohlforth say, other states will not balance against the United States because the “threat” posed by a hegemonic—but
geographically distant—United States pales in comparison to the regional security threats that they confront in their own
neighborhoods (pp. 39, 40–41). Brooks and Wohlforth also argue that there is no structurally induced soft balancing against
the United States. Although other states may favor “multipolarity” rhetorically, they simultaneously want to enjoy the
benefits of cooperation with the United States and, hence, will not balance against it (pp. 62–63, 71).
Primacy preserves a peaceful international order – military might prevents power struggles and
supports a peaceful economic order
Bradley Thayer, Assc. Prof., Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State Univ., In Defense of Primacy,
The National Interest, November-December 2006, ln
A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's number one power--the
diplomatic, economic and military leader. Those arguing against primacy claim that the United States should retrench, either
because the United States lacks the power to maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or
because the maintenance of primacy will lead the United States into the trap of "imperial overstretch." In the previous issue
of The National Interest, Christopher Layne warned of these dangers of primacy and called for retrenchment.1 Those arguing
for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. They include isolationists, who want no foreign military commitments;
selective engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want a
modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of
relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests. But retrenchment, in any of its guises, must be avoided. If the
United States adopted such a strategy, it would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and
war in the world, imperil American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy. There are two
critical issues in any discussion of America's grand strategy: Can America remain the dominant state? Should it strive to do
this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious military, economic and soft power capabilities. The totality of that
equation of power answers the first issue. The United States has overwhelming military capabilities and wealth in comparison
to other states or likely potential alliances. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly, that will remain the case for the
foreseeable future. With few exceptions, even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this. So the debate revolves
around the desirability of maintaining American primacy. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U.S.
action--but they fail to realize what is good about American primacy. The price and risks of primacy are reported in
newspapers every day; the benefits that stem from it are not. A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its
starting point the protection of the U.S. homeland and American global interests. These interests include ensuring that critical
resources like oil flow around the world, that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and that Washington's
worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected. Allies are a great asset to the United States, in part because they
shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In
contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States.
Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because
threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out",
and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states or rising powers, history shows that threats must be
confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home", thus abandoning its commitments or making
unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat.
To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom,
predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international
politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic
military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats. And when enemies must be confronted, a
strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas, away from American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush
Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and
train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical, on-the-ground presence that cannot be achieved by
offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the
45
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
"global commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from
its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a consequence, the costs of power projection for the
United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent
capabilities is increased.2 This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. A remarkable fact about international
politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that countries want to align
themselves with the United States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so
allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater influence.
Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal
arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85
to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States
versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies. U.S. primacy--and
the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape
the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to
create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the
Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can
be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save
the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of
the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the
typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United
States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for
example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to
Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States.
China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the
United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other
mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and
intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work,
and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits,
as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the
"Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is
not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations.
THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power-Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the
anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade,
a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power.
Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power
behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things
happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established
at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and
western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note
what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within
the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful
world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most
notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned-between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is
not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not
seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form:
great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its
ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as
John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States
and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once
states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because
democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and
more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are
good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration
for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the
obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers
from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or
stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be
46
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to
Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though
remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power
of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin
America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Westernstyle democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian
Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the
number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States
has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for
international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from
this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World.
The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This
economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as
well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of
military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic
network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his
career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now
recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free
market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed
alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic
prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to
advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of
positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War-and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de
facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster,
earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day
after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some
300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid
and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About
20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and
prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have
accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the
U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces. American generosity
has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80
percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of
America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the
United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three
million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby
Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to
Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression
about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the
United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the
money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror.
When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive
impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military
action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg.
Loss of leadership causes nuclear wars, systemic global instability, and magnifies impacts
Ferguson 2004, Niall Ferguson, Professor, History, School of Business, New York University and Senior Fellow, Hoover
Institution, Stanford University, September-October 2004 (“A World Without Power” – Foreign Policy) p. infotrac
So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the
Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this
Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more
populous--roughly 20 times more--so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent.
Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on
supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to
sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities,
labor, and capital--has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from
47
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would
certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second
September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for
foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists'
infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking
point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces
that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are
preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning
great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the
targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft
carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited
nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending
catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity
imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The
few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave
their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today
a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile
self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are
ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish
for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. And far
more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.
48
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Heg Impact-Balancing 2AC
Credible military threat reduces intervention, deters conflicts, and promotes sustainable
leadership
Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Columnist for the Washington Post,
and Contributing Editor at the Weekly Standard and the New Republic, and William Kristol, Editor and Publisher of the
Weekly Standard, Spring 2000 (“The Present Danger” – National Interest) p. ebscohost
A strong America capable of projecting force quickly and with devastating effect to important regions of the world would
make it less likely that challengers to regional stability will attempt to alter the status quo in their favor. It might even deter
them from undertaking expensive efforts to arm themselves for such a challenge. An America whose willingness to project
force is in doubt, on the other hand, can only encourage such challenges. In Europe, in Asia and in the Middle East, the
message we should be sending potential foes is: “Don’t even think about it.” That kind of deterrence offers the best recipe
for lasting peace, and it is much cheaper than fighting the wars that would follow should we fail to build such a deterrent
capacity.
Overwhelming hard power and resolve not only deters enemies, but prevents security competition
that causes balancing
Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for United States Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, 2004 (Power, Terror,
Peace, and War) p. 30
Over time, there has been a distinct shift in American strategic thinking toward the need for overwhelming military
superiority as the surest foundation for national security. This is partly for the obvious reasons of greater security, but it is
partly also because supremacy can have an important deterrent effect. If we achieve such a degree of military supremacy that
challenges seem hopeless, other states might give up trying. Security competition is both expensive and dangerous.
Establishing an overwhelming military supremacy might not only go far to deter potential enemies from military attack, but it
might also deter other powers from trying to match the American buildup.
49
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Heg Impact-Hegemony Sustainable
US Primacy is sustainable
Robert J. Lieber, Government Professor GWU, 2009, International Politics, Vol. 46, p. 136-7
Demography also works to the advantage of the United States. Most other powerful states, including China and Russia as
well as Germany and Japan, face the significant aging of their populations. Although the United States needs to finance the
costs of an aging population, this demographic shift is occurring to a lesser extent and more slowly than among its
competitors. Mark Haas argues that these factors in global aging ‘will be a potent force for the continuation of US power
dominance, both economic and military’ (Haas, 2007, p. 113). Finally, the United States benefits from two other unique
attributes, flexibility and adaptability. Time and again, America has faced daunting challenges and made mistakes, yet it has
possessed the inventiveness and societal flexibility to adjust and respond successfully. Despite obvious problems, not least
the global financial crisis, there is reason to believe that America’s adaptive capacity will allow it to respond to future
requirements and threats. None of this assures the maintenance of its world role, but the domestic underpinnings to support
this engagement remain relatively robust. Thus for the foreseeable future, US primacy is likely to be sustainable. America’s
own national interest – and the fortunes of a global liberal democratic order – depend on it.
US dominates the ability to power project
Stephen G. Brooks & William C. Wohlforth, Professors of Government- Dartmouth, 2008, World Out of Balance:
International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy, p. 28-9
These vast commitments have created a preeminence in military capabilities vis-à-vis all the other major powers that is
unique after the seventeenth century. While other powers could contest US forces near their homelands, especially over
issues on which nuclear deterrence is credible, the United States is and will long remain the only state capable of projecting
major military power globally. This capacity arises from “command of the commons” –that is, unassailable military
dominance over the sea, air, and space. As Barry Posen puts it, “Command of the commons is the key military enabler of the
US global power position. It allows the United States to exploit more fully other sources of power including its own
economic and military might as well as the economic and military might of its allies. Command of the commons also helps
the United States to weaken its adversaries, by restricting their access to economic, military and political
assistance….Command of the commons provides the United States with more useful military potential for a hegemonic
foreign policy than any other offshore power has ever had.
Combination of military and economic potential means US primacy is historically unprecedented
Stephen G. Brooks & William C. Wohlforth, Professors of Government- Dartmouth, 2008, World Out of Balance:
International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy, p. 29-30
Posen’s study of American military primacy ratifies Kennedy’s emphasis on the historical importance of the economic
foundations of national power. It is the combination of military and economic potential that sets the United States apart from
its predecessors at the top of that international system (fig 2.1). Previous leading states were either great commercial and
naval powers or great military powers on land, never both. The British Empire in its heyday and the United States during the
Cold War, for example, shared the world with other powers that matched or exceeded them in some areas. Even at the height
of the Pax Britannica, the United Kingdom was outspent, outmanned, and outgunned by both France and Russia. Similarly,
at the dawn of the Cold War the United States was dominant economically as well as in air and naval capabilities. But the
Soviet Union retained overall military parity, and thanks to geography and investment in land power it had a superior ability
to seize territory in Eurasia. The United States’ share of the world GDP in 2006, 27.5 percent, surpassed that of any leading
state in modern history, with the sole exception of its own position after 1945 (when World War II had temporarily depressed
ever other major economy). The size of the US economy means that its massive military capabilities required roughly 4
percent of its GDP in 2005, far less than the nearly 10 percent it averaged over the peak years of the Cold War, 1950-70, and
the burden borne by most of the major powers of the past. As Kennedy sums up, “Being Number One at great cost is one
thing; being the world’s single superpower on the cheap is astonishing.”
50
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Heg Impact-A2: Economic Crisis
Recent economic crisis doesn’t end US primacy
Robert J. Lieber, Government Professor GWU, 2009, International Politics, Vol. 46, p. 135
The extraordinary financial crisis that has impacted the United States, Europe, large parts of Asia and much of the rest of the
world has provided the impetus for renewed predictions of America’s demise as the preeminent global power. Of course,
present problems are very serious and the financial crisis is the worst to hit the United States and Europe since the great
depression began some 80 years ago. The impact on real estate, banking, insurance, credit, the stock market and overall
business activity is quite severe, and a painful recession is already underway. Yet by themselves, these developments do not
mean that America will somehow collapse, let alone see some other country assume the unique role it has played in world
affairs. Arguably, the impact of the crisis upon the US economy is actually less than for the major European powers. For
example, the $700 billion bailout for financial firms approved by Congress amounts to about 5 per cent of the country’s
annual gross domestic product, significantly less as a percentage than the burdens borne by many countries. In addition,
while the exchange rate of the euro declined sharply in the early months of the crisis, as did the British pound, the Russian
ruble and many other currencies, the dollar rose sharply in value as foreign investors sought a safe haven for their funds.
(Among the other G-8 currencies, only the Japanese yen experienced a substantial rise.) The United States will eventually
surmount the present crisis, the excesses that helped to cause it will be corrected, and despite painful costs of adjustment, its
economy and financial systems will sooner or later resume a more normal pattern of activity and growth. The new Obama
administration will continue and even intensify cooperation with other leading countries in efforts to reform the international
economic and financial systems. These may or may not produce a new ‘Bretton Woods’ system, but agreements will be
reached and the United States necessarily will play a central role in this effort.
No economic power transition to China
Stephen G. Brooks & William C. Wohlforth, Professors of Government- Dartmouth, 2008, World Out of Balance:
International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy, p. 132-3
Finally, even if China benefits more from enhanced global economic interdependence than the United States, a power
transition is simply not in the cards for many decades precisely because the United States now occupies such a dominant
power position in the system. The challengers that Gilpin discussed were great powers with advanced economies at a
comparable level of development to the hegemon. In those circumstances, aggregate GDP is a far better index of power than
in a case where the rising state has a very large but comparatively poor population. As Chapter 2 established, the power gap
between the United States and China is currently immense, especially in military capabilities; no single factor, including
globalization, can wipe it away anytime soon.
51
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Heg Impact-A2: Dollar Shift
US dollar won’t be replaced as the global currency
Stephen G. Brooks & William C. Wohlforth, Professors of Government- Dartmouth, 2008, World Out of Balance:
International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy, p. 126-8
In fact, Pape’s scenario is highly improbable. For one thing, there is little reason to think that a switch to euro oil pricing
could occur in the policy-relevant future. In this regard, OPEC’s overall stance is most crucial. Over the years, “OPEC has
many times said that it would continue pricing oil sales in dollars only.” The general aversion of OPEC to switch away from
pricing oil only in dollars is grounded in concrete economic factors. The various economic advantages of the dollar for
OPEC would be less consequential if there were not downsides associated with pricing oil in multiple currencies. Yet from a
transactions cost standpoint, continuing to price oil exclusively in dollars has a number of advantages. For these and other
reasons, it thus appears that “OPEC is unlikely to bring about or even try to shift markets to euro-priced oil.” The more
important point is that even if a switch to euro oil pricing eventually did occur, the practice of pricing oil in dollars is a very
minor contributor to the status of the dollar as the international reserve currency. Global trade flows—of which oil is
obviously just one element—are a tiny portion of global financial flows: the average daily turnover in foreign exchange
markets is now $3.2 trillion per day, while the value of world exports is just under $12 trillion per year. Significantly, many
of the core contributing factors to the dollar’s status as the reserve currency have the weight of path dependency behind them.
The dollar’s role as the reserve currency is intimately related to the United States’ long-standing position as the largest
military and economic power in the system. The dollar’s status as the reserve currency is also a product of the deep, welldeveloped nature of US capital and money markets: “Countries, or more precisely cities within countries, become financial
centers when their markets in financial assets are deep, liquid, and stable. Status as a financial center, once acquired, thus
tends to sustain itself. When a country succeeds in attracting a critical mass of transactions in the relevant securities, other
investors bring their business there to take advantage of the liquidity and depth of the market. Incumbency is an advantage,
and the United States is the leading incumbent financial center.” Furthermore, “network externalities” make use of the dollar
very attractive: the dollar has long been widely held (around two-thirds of foreign exchange reserves are now held in dollars)
and widely used, and “the more often a currency is used in international transactions, the lower the costs associated with
using that currency and hence the more attractive is the currency for conducting international exchanges.”
52
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Heg Impact-A2: Iraq
Four reasons Iraq doesn’t take out primacy
Thomas J. Lynch & Robert S. Singh, Lecturer and Professor Foreign Policy, University of London, 2008, After Bush:
the case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 266-8
In the context of American primacy, it is worth recalling William Wohlforth’s observations on measuring power. Four points
argue that the days of American primacy and a unipolar world are not yet over. First, power as a relational concept and power
as resources are quite different concepts. That is, the ability to achieve certain stated international ends or global public
goods need not, of itself, reveal the relative power of a state. The stalemate reached in Korea in the early 1950s, for instance,
did not negate America’s superpower position in the First Cold War. Similarly, America’s failed counterinsurgency in
Vietnam did not bring into being a multipolar world. Whether or when America “fails” in Iraq, that intervention is equally
unlikely to usher in a new multipolarity. America remains the world’s leading power “after Iraq.” It spends roughly as much
on defense as the rest of the world put together. The Pentagon’s budget bid for fiscal year 2008, of $578 billion, represented
approximately 4 percent of GDP, a low proportion by historical standards. Of course, the ability to use those resources and
the need to do so are contingent matters. American power has not been able to establish a secure constitutional democracy in
Iraq any more than it could decisively quell the communist subversion of South Vietnam. But the fact of American primacy
endures even in the face of a campaign that did not secure its original objectives. The cardinal indicators of a challenge to
that unipolar world – a balancing of other powers against the superpower or a meaningful increase in rival powers’ defense
spending – have simply not occurred. Second, shifting the goalposts—evaluating US power by its ability to resolve global
problems from drug proliferation to climate change—does not offer a solid perspective. The US did not cease to be
superpower after the Bay of Pigs fiasco or on being ejected from the UN Commission on Human Rights. The failure to
intervene in Darfur will come to be regarded as a global abdication of responsibility to international actors, just as Rwanda
was previously. But it was not authored by Washington and it affects American power not a jot. Third, relying on a single
indicator is typically unreliable in evaluating national power. To be sure, analysis of budget and trade deficits highlights
possible weaknesses in the American economy. But the economy is, on other indicators—growth, inflation,
unemployment—in robust health. Moreover, even in terms of the financial position of the US, growing interdependence
means that those states (notably China and Japan) that hold most in terms of dollar reserves are themselves exposed should
they abandon them. There exist few states with a relationship with the US (and all developed states have one) that would not
be materially disadvantaged if America suffered a serious economic downturn. Fourth, analysts often overlook latent power –
the degree to which resources can or could be mobilized by a government. Despite America waging a global campaign since
9/11, it has been the military rather than the nation as a whole that has been at war. The public has not been asked or required
to make serious material sacrifices either to secure the homeland or to assist the struggle against jihadism abroad. Taxes
remain low, America has an exclusively volunteer army, and fatalities in Iraq – while tragic—do not remotely brook
comparison with those of Vietnam, Korea, or the Second World War. In sum, America possesses ample reserves with which
to defend its global role and primacy, if needed.
53
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Heg Impact-A2: Overstretch
This theory is flawed-it doesn’t account for potential resources and can’t apply independent of
counterbalancing
Stephen G. Brooks & William C. Wohlforth, Professors of Government- Dartmouth, 2008, World Out of Balance:
International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy, p. 210-1
Imperial Overstretch. Paul Kennedy coined the term imperial overstretch to describe the fate of past leading states whose
“global interests and obligations” became “far too large for the country to be able to defend them all simultaneously.”
Mounting budget deficits, increased foreign indebtedness, and armed forces stretched thin in Iraq led many analysts to warn
that the United States was in danger of following suit. But these first two strains are chiefly the result of domestic choices to
cut taxes while increasing spending, while the latter can largely be traced to the priority placed on the Pentagon’s force
modernization plan over a significant increase in the size of the army. Analysts who argue that the United States now suffers,
or soon will suffer, from imperial overstretch invariably fail to distinguish between latent power (the level of resources that
could be mobilized from society) and actual power (the level of resources a government actually chooses to mobilize). In his
original formulation of imperial overstretch, Kennedy had in mind a situation in which a state’s actual and latent capabilities
cannot cope with its existing foreign policy commitments. To date, there is virtually no research on whether the United
States faces this prospect. Part of the problem is that because the Bush administration made no attempt to ask the public for
greater sacrifice, there is no observable evidence of whether it would be possible to extract more resources for advancing US
foreign policy interests. The Cold War experience indicates that the US public is capable of supporting, over long periods,
significantly higher spending on foreign policy than current levels. Yet this does not necessarily mean that the US public
would be willing to support a dramatic increase in foreign policy spending now if policymakers called for it. The larger issue
is that though IR scholars use the term, they have not theorized or researched imperial overstretch as a constraint independent
of counterbalancing. In the historical cases highlighted by Kennedy and others, leading states suffered from imperial
overstretch in significant part because they faced counterbalancing that demanded more resources than they were able to
extract domestically. As chapters 2 and 3 showed, the United States does not face a counterbalancing constraint. This raises
a key question of whether there are limits to the US polity’s capacity to generate power in the absence of the threat posed by
a geopolitical peer rival. Lacking a focused research effort, scholars can now only answer with speculation.
54
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Heg Impact-A2: Obama
US will retain committed to primacy
Thomas J. Lynch & Robert S. Singh, Lecturer and Professor Foreign Policy, University of London, 2008, After Bush:
the case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 5-6
Notwithstanding their obvious dissimilarities, the parallels between the Truman and Bush presidencies are instructive. The
Bush presidency was the most important and controversial in American foreign policy since Truman. But the demise of the
Bush presidency marks not the repudiation of an aberrant or even revolutionary disjuncture in foreign policy but the
beginning of the end of the first phase in a Second Cold War against Jihadist Islam. The past is, in this respect at least, truly
prologue, even as this particular prologue has now passed. Just as Truman left office with his popularity at its lowest ebb, his
party charged with a succession of foreign policy failures, and the nation mired in a seemingly unwinnable war, so Bush ends
his tenure with relatively few commentators either within or outside America mourning his exit. But, like Truman before
him, Bush’s imprint on American grand strategy, his joining a global war on Islamist terror and establishment of policies at
home and abroad to see America prevail in that war will remain substantially intact under his successors. The central
premises and prescriptions of the National Security Strategy (NSS) documents of 2002 and 2006 will continue to shape
American foreign policy in the new administration of 2009-13 and beyond.
Continuity of the terrorist threat and failure of multilateral alternatives make presidential pursuit
of primacy inevitable
Thomas J. Lynch & Robert S. Singh, Lecturer and Professor Foreign Policy, University of London, 2008, After Bush:
the case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 293-4
For this reason, and despite the hopes of the liberal left and the predictions of realists, there is not a single mainstream US
politician with serious presidential ambitions who would choose the constraints of multipolarity over the freedom of US
primacy. It is inconceivable that a presidential candidate who seeks a permission slip to act on behalf of American security
could win the White House; in 2004, John Kerry’s reference to “a global test” for US foreign policy should pass won him
very few votes. Whilst building the United Nations into the Second Cold War is fine in principle, the structural and political
impediments to doing so are manifold and, we confidently predict, quite beyond the remit of even the most tactically astute,
rhetorically gifted, and politically empowered American president. The European Union, likewise, offers the United States
very little in terms of enhanced military or diplomatic effectiveness. The freedom of action Bush enjoyed, which included
the freedom to botch disastrously the aftermath of the Iraq War, is one none of his successors will sacrifice. Much as it pains
Bush’s many detractors – on the right and the left – to acknowledge, a change of administration in Washington will have no
measurable effect on Islamist ideology, though it might on their capacity; a sound policy will negate that capacity, a poor one
will advance it. The Bin Laden camp waged war as fiercely against Bill Clinton as it did against George W. Bush and will
continue to do so against their successors. A jihadist suicide bomber is supposedly afforded seventy-two virgins in heaven
whether he kills Democrats or Republicans. Because the frustrations and ambitions of the enemy are unlikely to change
much over time we should not expect the American response to those ambitions to alter very much either. Continuity of
threat will determine the continuity of American strategy. The imperative will be one few American presidents can amend
without risking catastrophe. We predict the next few will not try.
55
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Heg Impact-A2: Bad Alliances
Non unique and US primacy can bring them around
Thomas J. Lynch & Robert S. Singh, Lecturer and Professor Foreign Policy, University of London, 2008, After Bush:
the case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 136-7
Critics argue that only a hypocritical nation would urge the democratization of states like Afghanistan and Iraq whilst
sustaining the military dictatorships of Pakistan, the autocracy of Uzbekistan or the feudal theocracy of Saudi Arabia. The
war on terror is hardly unique in this regard. The First Cold War was replete with US alliance-making of dubious moral
character. Such an auditing of both cold wars misses the necessity of nose-holding when facing an existential threat. In her
famous Commentary article, the late Jeanne Kirkpatrick argued that American foreign policy came most unstuck when it was
guided by a naive moral compass. Jimmy Carter was her case study. The fear, for her, was not that friendly dictators would
be replaced by liberal internationalists but by “less friendly autocrats of extremist persuasion.” The logic applied to Iran in
1979 – when a westward-looking dictator was overthrown by anti-American Islamists—applies today in places like Pakistan.
American interests are rarely served by abandoning friends on account of their moral turpitude. This enemy-of-my-enemy-ismy-friend approach explains why the US-Soviet wartime alliance of 1941-5 was so effective, despite the less than pristine
human rights record of Joseph Stalin, and why, in the First Cold War, supporting Pinochet’s junta in Chile was preferable to
allowing communist subversion across that continent. Ultimately, as Kirkpatrick predicted, right-wing regimes, like Chile,
transitioned into functioning, pro-western democracies. The odds on this happening to Pakistan and Kazakhstan are perhaps
long but only possible at all if they remain within the US camp.
56
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Heg Impact-A2: Multilaterialism Good
Multilateralism net worse-leads to inaction
Thomas J. Lynch & Robert S. Singh, Lecturer and Professor Foreign Policy, University of London, 2008, After Bush:
the case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 38-9
Consistent with the purported moral sanctity of multilateralism is the belief that it is more effective practically than the
unilateralism of any one state. This is open to dispute on a number of fronts. If anything, the lesson of post 1991
international crises is that if the US government does not act the EU is unlikely to do so. US ambivalence over the Rwandan
genocide (1994) goes some way to explaining—even if it does not excuse—European inaction. It seems reasonable to argue
that, without an American willingness to take on Serbia in 1994-6 and 1999, EU leaders, as Alikja Izetbegovic, the president
of Bosnia-Herzegovina, is alleged to have said, “would have talked and talked until we are all dead.” Sometimes the
multilateral imperative (which of its very nature requires an illusive consensus) leads to a lethal inaction.
Primacy doesn’t trade-off with multilateral problem solving
Robert J. Lieber, Government Professor GWU, 2009, International Politics, Vol. 46, p. 134-5
Can American primacy be sustained? Threats from radical Islamist groups, nuclear proliferation, the potential use of CBRN
weapons and competition from authoritarian capitalist powers pose challenges that require assertive American engagement.
In addition, democratic allies and others have shown few signs of wanting to forego the involvement of the North American
‘Goliath,’7 and despite heated rhetoric about ‘hyperpower’8 and real or imagined excesses of unilateralism, a good deal of
multilateral cooperation has continued to take place. The NSS of September 2002 included a much-overlooked endorsement
of multilateralism and, at the time, the Bush administration avidly sought to enlarge its coalition of the willing for the use of
force against Saddam. In recent years, there have been six-party talks with North Korea, deference to Germany, Britain and
France (the EU-3) for their ultimately unsuccessful negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, promotion of the
multilateral Proliferation Security Initiative aimed at strengthening the NPT, co-sponsorship with France of UN Security
Council Resolution 1559 calling for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, a massive increase in funding to combat
AIDS in Africa, an expanded NATO role in Afghanistan and UN mandates – UNSC Resolutions 1546 (2004) and 1637
(2005) – for the US-led multinational force in Iraq.
International cooperation is dependent on unilateralism – it spurs countries into action
Michla Pomerance, Professor of International Law, Hebrew University, Spring 2002 (“U.S. Multilateralism, Left and
Right” – Orbis) p. ScienceDirect
More fundamentally, those who have understood the concept of "multilateralism" best have always emphasized the
dependence of multilateralism on unilateralism. Thus, the foremost American scholar of international organization, Inis
Claude (author of Swords into Plowshares), has written that despite the world’s bias against unilateralism, "unilateralism …
is, in fact, indispensable to effective multilateralism." "Effective multilateralism starts with resolute unilateralism; the mission
of the leader is not respectful deference to the majority but determined pulling and hauling at it." Or as Thomas Friedman
wrote in 1995: If the Clinton foreign policy team has learned anything these past two years I hope it is this: there is no
multilateralism without unilateralism. Unless you first show people that you are ready to go alone, you will never have
partners to go with you …. Repeat after me: ‘The UN is us. The UN is us.’ From this perspective, the ones who were paying
lip service to multilateralism were not Bush and his Republican followers, who understood this important lesson instinctively,
but rather all those who insisted on untainted "humanitarian" motives for multilateral actions. Theirs was a prescription for
inaction and could provide its pretext.
57
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Heg Impact-A2: Soft Power Good
No internal link from soft power to primacy
Stephen G. Brooks & William C. Wohlforth, Professors of Government- Dartmouth, 2002, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81,
No. 4, July/August, p. 31
Historically, the major forces pushing powerful states toward restraint and magnanimity have been the limits of their strength
and the fear of overextension and balancing. Great powers typically checked their ambitions and deferred to others not
because they wanted to but because they had to in order to win the cooperation they needed to survive and prosper. It is thus
no surprise that today’s champions of American moderation and international benevolence stress the constraints on American
power rather than the lack of them. Political scientist Joseph Nye, for example, insists that “[the term] unipolarity is
misleading because it exaggerates the degree to which the United States is able to get the results it wants in some dimensions
of world politics. ... American power is less effective than it might first appear.” And he cautions that if the United States
“handles its hard power in an overbearing, unilateral manner,” then others might be provoked into forming a balancing
coalition. Such arguments are unpersuasive, however, because they fail to acknowledge the true nature of the current
international system. The United States cannot be scared into meekness by warnings of inefficacy or potential balancing.
Isolationists and aggressive unilateralists see this situation clearly, and their domestic opponents need to as well. Now and for
the foreseeable future, the United States will have immense power resources it can bring to bear to force or entice others to do
its bidding on a case-by-case basis.
Hard power doesn’t trade-off
William H. Thornton, Professor Cultural Studies National Cheng Kung University, 2005, New World Empire, p. 6-7
9/11 changed all that in a flash. The 1990s turned out to have been at best a respite between two warring ages. It was made
abundantly clear that order would not simply unfold, but would have to be imposed. In the White House this revelation was
so far from bad news that the challenge was not smiling too broadly in front of the cameras. At home and abroad, security
took full priority over all the things the administration wanted to dispose of anyway. Securitization also enhanced the
comparative advantage of America’s military supremacy—this is at a time when its economic supremacy was flagging. That
gain in hard power was not offset by any major loss in soft power, since America was still swimming with the global tide.
Just to make a point however, Washington let the fact be known that it could go it alone or even swim against the tide if need
be. NATO responded to 9/11 by invoking for the first time a provision of its founding treaty that construes an attack on any
member as an attack on all. But, as if to put multilateralism in mothballs, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz curtly
vetoed that collective action, saying that if the United States needed help, it would ask for it.
Libya proves necessity of hard power to make soft power effective
Thomas J. Lynch & Robert S. Singh, Lecturer and Professor Foreign Policy, University of London, 2008, After Bush:
the case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 133-4
For others, including ourselves, coercive diplomacy played the more decisive role. Neoconservatives argued that the example
of regime change in Iraq forced Qadaffi’s U-turn—“Saddam was deposed, eight months ago, on flimsy evidential grounds,”
observed the Libyan leader, “just think what will become of me when the Americans have absolute knowledge of my WMD
capacity,” [F]ive days after we captured Saddam Hussein,” noted Dick Cheney pointedly, “Qadaffi came forward and
announced that he was going to surrender all of his nuclear materials to the United States.” This “Libyan surrender,”
concurred Charles Krauthammer, was the product of “a clearly enunciated policy – now known as the Bush Doctrine – of
targeting, by preemptive war if necessary, hostile regimes engaged in terror and/or refusing to come clean on WMDs
…Hussein did not get the message and ended up in a hole. Qaddafi got the message.” Ronald Reagan had, after all, bombed
Tripoli in April 1986 in reprisal for its sponsorship of terrorism. Precedent therefore tended to support the conclusion, no
doubt shared by the Libyan regime, that, through a 9/11-three Ts prism, the US would not balk at doing so again, and more
decisively. The Libyan case is a classic example of liberal internationalists assuming everyone thinks like them. The regime,
according to them, responded to inducements to rejoin “the society of nations” rather than to the fear of American violence.
It was not the war on terror that accounted for Qadaffis’s conversion but his empathy with, or threatened exclusion from, a
liberal project. Bush was more realistic about why Libya changed course. “Actions by the United States and our allies,” he
said, “have sent an unmistakable message to regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass destruction: Those weapons do
not bring influence or prestige. They bring isolation or otherwise unwelcome consequences.” These “unwelcome
consequences” are perennially undervalued, even eschewed, in liberal statecraft when, in reality, they are a form of hard
power that makes soft power possible. Neither works in isolation, both are only effective in tandem. As Jentleson and
Whytock conclude, “there is greater potential complementarity between force and diplomacy than more singular advocates of
one ore the other tend to convey.”
58
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Heg Impact-A2: Anti-Americanism Turn
No link between anti-Americanism and hard power-only risk of a turn
Thomas J. Lynch & Robert S. Singh, Lecturer and Professor Foreign Policy, University of London, 2008, After Bush:
the case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 198
Such perceptions reflect and reinforce a widespread view of America that is untroubled by dispassion and balance. Any
objective analysis of American military interventions can hardly cast Washington as a regional villain or Islamophobic
power. During the last half-century, in eleven of twelve major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, the US sided
with the Muslim/Arab groups. American backing for Israel has been the sole significant exception, with the US helping
Israel to survive efforts from Arab states and terrorists to remove it from the map. As Barry Rubin notes: “It has been the
United States’ perceived softness in recent years, rather than its bullying behavior, that has encouraged anti-Americans to act
on their beliefs. After the United States failed to respond aggressively to many terrorist attacks against its citizens, stood by
while Americans were seized as hostages in Iran and Lebanon, let Saddam Hussein remain in power while letting the shah
fall, pressured its friends and courted its enemies, and allowed its prized Arab-Israeli peace process to be destroyed, why
should anyone have respected its interests or fear its wrath?...further concessions will only encourage even more contempt for
the United States and make the anti-American campaign more attractive…If Arab anti-Americanism turns out to be grounded
in domestic maneuvering rather than American misdeeds, neither launching a public relations campaign nor changing
Washington’s policies will affect it… Only when the systems that manufacture and encourage anti-Americanism fail will
popular opinion also change.”
Soft power net more likely to provoke anti-Americanism
Thomas J. Lynch & Robert S. Singh, Lecturer and Professor Foreign Policy, University of London, 2008, After Bush: the
case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 199
The tenacity with which febrile notions of American designs and influence win currency in the Islamic world is remarkable.
Indeed, this should be factored into discussions of American “soft” power winning “hearts and minds.” As Bernard Lewis
noted, when Khomeini and other fanatics labeled America the “Great Satan” they chose their term carefully. Satan is a
seducer more than he is a warrior. It is the power to tempt “good Muslims” into a degenerate, infidel mindset and lifestyle
that is the devil’s greatest threat. It is not what America does that accounts for Muslim rage. To parrot this notion as a
rational explanation, demanding a change in policy that will then lead to cordial relations, is to ignore the reality that, for
Islmaists, what America is generates resentment, anger, and envy. It is this paradox (“Yankee go home! And take me with
you!) that, among other problems, precludes the success of a “hearts and minds”-based strategy. As Lewis observed: “from
the writings of Khomeini and other ideologists of Islamic fundamentalism, it is cleat that it is the seductive appeal of
American culture, far more than any possible hostile acts by American governments, that they see as offering the greatest
menace to the true faith and the right path as they define them. By denouncing America as the Great Satan, the late Ayatollah
Khomeini was paying an unconscious tribute to that seductive appeal.” Given this, and the societal, economic, and political
deficiencies that generate anti-Americanisms in the region, what can feasibly be done?
Radicalism not driven by US primacy
Robert J. Lieber, Government Professor GWU, 2009, International Politics, Vol. 46, p. 123-4
Another reason for concluding that the threat is deep-seated and long term has to do with the fundamental sources of radical
Islamism. Those who downplay the threat tend to argue that the most important causes stem from specific provocations by
America, Israel or the West, particularly the Iraq War, the American presence in the Middle East, the Israeli–Palestinian
conflict and the affront caused by ‘occupation’ of Arab or Muslim lands (see Pape, 2005a). Such interpretations not only do
not take into account the far deeper origins of radical Islam, but they also tend to over-simply the explanation of
contemporary conflicts. In contrast, Assaf Moghadam of the Olin Institute for Security Studies at Harvard has provided a
compelling refutation of the idea that suicide terrorism is primarily motivated by a resistance to ‘occupation.’ Instead he
emphasizes the way in which it has evolved into a ‘globalization of martyrdom’ (Moghadam, 2006; see also Doran, 2002).
The fundamental causes of radical jihadism and its manifestations of apocalyptic nihilism lie in the failure to cope
successfully with the disruptions brought by modernity and globalization and in the humiliation experienced, especially by
parts of the Arab–Muslim world, over the past four centuries. These reactions have been expressed at both individual and
societal levels. For example, in an implied reference to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and thus the end of the Muslim
Caliphate which had extended back some 13 centuries to the time of the Prophet, Osama bin Laden’s October 2001 video
invoked 80 years of Muslim ‘humiliation’ and ‘degradation’ at the hands of the West (Al-Jazeera, 2001). In turn, the 2002
UN Arab Human Development Report has described the contemporary Arab world as afflicted by profound deficits in
freedom, in empowerment of women, and in knowledge and information. These failures have, in some cases, been amplified
by the experiences of individuals who have become detached from one world and yet have been unable to integrate into
another (see Lewis, 2002; Ajami, 2006; Murawiec, 2008). It is noteworthy too that the 9/11 attacks took place before the US59
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
led invasion of Iraq, and that terrorist strikes against American targets abroad were carried out in 1990s when the Israel–Arab
peace process seemed to be making real progress. Suicide terrorism elsewhere has had little to do with ‘occupation’ by the
West or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Attacks in Bali, Mumbai, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Amman, the murder of the
Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, the effort to blow up the Indian parliament, the destruction of the Shiite golden dome
mosque in Samarra, deadly Sunni–Shiite violence in Iraq, mass casualty attacks on public transportation in London and trains
in Madrid, and numerous interrupted plots are among multiple indications not only of the wider threat posed by radical
jihadism, but also of a deep- seated and fundamental rage against modernity and those identified with it.
60
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Air Power Impact-Readiness Scenario
Readiness is declining now
Schwartz, USAF General (4-Star), 2012 (Norty, “Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium: “Sustaining Readiness
with Constrained Budgets”, February 23, 2012, http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120223-024.pdf, accessed
7/17/12)
A heavy operations tempo and demanding deployment rotation since 9/11 has resulted in some detrimental effects on our
overall readiness, particularly with regard to aging weapon systems, limited opportunities for full-spectrum training, and
stress on our personnel. While these factors have affected all of the Services, they are particularly pronounced for the Air
Force, which, after inflicting strategic paralysis on the adversary during the opening salvo of Operation DESERT STORM in
1991, remained at war in Iraq for the next 20 years. After our ground force teammates fought a brilliant campaign, they
withdrew from the region in the weeks and months that followed.But Airmen continued to patrol the skies over Iraq
continuously for the ensuing decade, until the return of U.S. and coalition ground forces in 2003. Then, again, Airmen paved
the way for, and remained shoulder-to-shoulder with, their Joint teammates for the full duration of operations IRAQI
FREEDOM and NEW DAWN. And today, with the withdrawal of ground forces from Iraq, Airmen once again will remain
in the Central Command area of responsibility in significant numbers for years to come, training our partner air forces and
providing robust combat capabilities to maintain regional stability. Page 2With this in mind, we face a readiness conundrum:
the Air Force will get smaller due to reduced budgets, but we also will become more valued due to the requirements of the
current and anticipated security environment, as described by the new Defense Strategic Guidance. This strategy emphasizes
Air Force capabilities as fundamental to its major priorities, such as deterring and defeating aggression, projecting power in
anti-access and area-denial environments, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, conducting space and cyber
operations, and maintaining the preponderance of our Nation’s nuclear deterrent.
Air Power is a diverse force that counters emerging threats—uniquely mitigates challenges to
military readiness
Air Combat Command, 2012 (“2012 Air Combat Command Strategic Plan”, 2012,
http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120319-025.pdf, accessed 7/17/12)
Today’s strategic environment is filled with emerging threats and expanding capability requirements. Our Airmen require and
possess a very diverse set of skills that enable them to operate across a wide spectrum of operations. Therefore, we must
continue to focus on initiatives and investment opportunities to improve education, training, and inventory sustainment.
Additionally, we will continue to enhance our LVC simulations and scenarios to provide the most realistic and representative
threat environment to expand our operational training within contested and degraded environments. Through these efforts, we
can continue to mitigate readiness challenges that lead to atiered‑ ready force and compromise the USAF’s ability to
immediately respond and deliver combat airpower.
61
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Air Power Impact-Readiness Scenario
Readiness is key to hege—now is key
Air Combat Command, 2012 (“2012 Air Combat Command Strategic Plan”, 2012,
http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120319-025.pdf, accessed 7/17/12)
The implications, as summarized in the SEA, are broadly categorized as follows:• Potential adversaries (to include non-state
actors) are acquiring or developing the means to challenge the US Military and threaten the US Homeland• The demand for
certain types of operations (especially those associated with irregular warfare, humanitarian operations,special operations,
information gathering, and urban operations) will likely increase in frequency or importance• Effective deterrence is expected
to become more challenging for the United States• Future energy costs are expected to rise• New technology opportunities to
exploit. Although we cannot predict with certainty the time, location, or circumstance in which US policy-makers will call
for the use of military power, we must be prepared to respond across the spectrum of conflict to meet the full range of
security challenges.The USAF will remain globally engaged and the world-wide demand for ACC’s distinctive capabilities
will continue to increase across the range of military operations. From potential high-end major combat operations against
near‑ peer competitors tolow-end military engagements or security force assistance actions against insurgent or terrorist
elements, ACC must be ready to leverage the unique characteristics of airpower—speed, range, flexibility, and lethality—to
create precise combat effects that canbe appropriately scaled and tailored to meet the needs of our forces and commanders
around the world.
Only air power can mitigate global conflicts and deter great power war
Dunlap 2006 – Maj. General, deputy judge advocate of the Air Force, National War College graduate with over 30 years
of Armed Forces Experience (Charles Jr., Armed Forces Journal, “America’s Asymmetric Advantage”,
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/09/2009013)
So where does that leave us? If we are smart, we will have a well-equipped high-technology air power capability. Air power
is America’s asymmetric advantage and is really the only military capability that can be readily applied across the spectrum
of conflict, including, as is especially important these days, potential conflict. Consider the record. It was primarily air power,
not land power, that kept the Soviets at bay while the U.S. won the Cold War. And it was not just the bomber force and the
missileers; it was the airlifters, as well. There are few strategic victories in the annals of military history more complete and at
so low a human cost as that won by American pilots during the Berlin airlift. Armageddon was avoided. And the flexibility
and velocity of air power also provides good-news stories in friendly and low-threat areas. For example, huge U.S. transports
dropping relief supplies or landing on dirt strips in some area of humanitarian crisis get help to people on a timeline that can
make a real difference. Such operations also illustrate, under the glare of the global media, the true American character the
world needs to see more often if our strategic goals are to be achieved. Air power also doesn’t have the multi-aspect
vulnerabilities that boots on the ground do. It can apply combat power from afar and do so in a way that puts few of our
forces at risk. True, occasionally there will be a Francis Gary Powers, and certainly the Vietnam-era POWs — mostly airmen
— became pawns for enemy exploitation. Yet, if America maintains its aeronautical superiority, the enemy will not be able to
kill 2,200 U.S. aviators and wound another 15,000, as the ragtag Iraqi terrorists have managed to do to our land forces. The
relative sterility of air power — which the boots-on-the-ground types oddly find distressing as somehow unmartial —
nevertheless provides greater opportunity for the discreet application of force largely under the control of well-educated,
commissioned officer combatants. Not a total insurance policy against atrocity, but a far more risk-controlled situation. Most
important, however, is the purely military effect. The precision revolution has made it possible for air power to put a bomb
within feet of any point on earth. Of course, having the right intelligence to select that point remains a challenge — but no
more, and likely much less so, than for the land forces. The technology of surveillance is improving at a faster rate than is the
ability to conceal. Modern conveniences, for example, from cell phones to credit cards, all leave signatures that can lead to
the demise of the increasing numbers of adversaries unable to resist the siren song of techno-connection. Regardless,
eventually any insurgency must reveal itself if it is to assume power, and this inevitably provides the opportunity for air
power to pick off individuals or entire capabilities that threaten U.S. interests. The real advantage — for the moment anyway
— is that air power can do it with impunity and at little risk to Americans. The advances in American air power technology in
recent years make U.S. dominance in the air intimidating like no other aspect of combat power for any nation in history. The
result? Saddam Hussein’s pilots buried their airplanes rather than fly them against American warplanes. Indeed, the collapse
of the Iraqi armed forces was not, as the BOTGZ would have you believe, mainly because of the brilliance of our ground
commanders or, in fact, our ground forces at all. The subsequent insurgency makes it clear that Iraqis are quite willing to take
on our ground troops. What really mattered was the sheer hopelessness that air power inflicted on Iraq’s military formations.
A quotation in Time magazine by a defeated Republican Guard colonel aptly captures the dispiriting effect of high-tech air
attack: “[Iraqi leaders] forgot that we are missing air power. That was a big mistake. U.S. military technology is beyond
belief.” It is no surprise that the vaunted Republican Guard, the proud fighting organization that tenaciously fought Iran for
years, practically jumped out of their uniforms and scattered at the sound of approaching U.S. aircraft. This same ability to
62
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
inflict hopelessness was even more starkly demonstrated in Afghanistan. For a millennium, the Afghans have been
considered among the toughest fighters in the world. Afghan resistance has turned the countryside into a gigantic military
cemetery for legions of foreign invaders. For example, despite deploying thousands of troops, well-equipped Soviet forces
found themselves defeated after waging a savage war with practically every weapon at their disposal. So what explains the
rapid collapse of the Taliban and al-Qaida in 2001? Modern air power. More specifically, the marriage of precision weapons
with precise targeting by tiny numbers of Special Forces troops on the ground. The results were stunning. Putatively
invulnerable positions the Taliban had occupied for years literally disappeared in a rain of satellite-directed bombs from B-1s
and B-52s flying so high they could be neither seen nor heard. This new, high-tech air power capability completely unhinged
the resistance without significant commitment of American boots on the ground. Indeed, the very absence of American
troops became a source of discouragement. As one Afghan told the New York Times, “We pray to Allah that we have
American soldiers to kill,” adding disconsolately, “These bombs from the sky we cannot fight.” Another equally frustrated
Taliban fighter was reported in the London Sunday Telegraph recently as fuming that “American forces refuse to fight us
face to face,” while gloomily noting that “[U.S.] air power causes us to take heavy casualties.” In other words, the Taliban
and al-Qaida were just as tough as the mujahideen who fought the Russians, and more than willing to confront U.S. ground
forces, but were broken by the hopelessness that American-style air power inflicted upon them. Today it is more than just
bombing with impunity that imposes demoralization; it is reconnoitering with impunity. This is more than just the
pervasiveness of Air Force-generated satellites. It also includes hundreds of unmanned aerial vehicles that are probing the
landscape in Iraq and Afghanistan. They provide the kind of reliable intelligence that permits the careful application of force
so advantageous in insurgency and counterterrorism situations. The insurgents are incapable of determining where or when
the U.S. employs surveillance assets and, therefore, are forced to assume they are watched everywhere and always. The mere
existence of the ever-present eyes in the sky no doubt inflicts its own kind of stress and friction on enemy forces. In short,
what real asymmetrical advantage the U.S. enjoys in countering insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan relates to a dimension
of air power. Strike, reconnaissance, strategic or tactical lift have all performed phenomenally well. It is no exaggeration to
observe that almost every improvement in the military situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is attributable to air power in some
form; virtually every setback, and especially the strategically catastrophic allegations of war crimes, is traceable to the land
forces. While it will be seldom feasible for America to effectively employ any sort of boots-on-the-ground strategy in current
or future counterinsurgency situations, the need may arise to destroy an adversary’s capability to inflict harm on U.S.
interests. Although there is no perfect solution to such challenges, especially in low-intensity conflicts, the air weapon is the
best option. Ricks’ report in “Fiasco,” for example, that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program never recovered from
1998’s Operation Desert Fox and its four days of air attacks is interesting. It would appear that Iraq’s scientific minds readily
conceded the pointlessness of attempting to build the necessary infrastructure in an environment totally exposed to U.S. air
attack. This illustrates another salient feature of air power: its ability to temper the malevolent tendencies of societies
accustomed to the rewards of modernity. Given air power’s ability to strike war-supporting infrastructure, the powerful
impulse of economic self-interest complicates the ability of despots to pursue malicious agendas. American air power can
rapidly educate cultured and sophisticated societies about the costs of war and the futility of pursuing it. This is much the
reason why air power alone delivered victory in Operation Allied Force in Kosovo in 1999, without the need to put a single
U.S. soldier at risk on the ground. At the same time, America’s pre-eminence in air power is also the best hope we have to
dissuade China — or any other future peer competitor — from aggression. There is zero possibility that the U.S. can build
land forces of the size that would be of real concern to a China. No number of troops or up-armored Humvees, new radios or
advanced sniper rifles worries the Chinese. What dominating air power precludes is the ability to concentrate and project
forces, necessary elements to applying combat power in hostile areas. As but one illustration, think China and Taiwan.
Saddam might have underestimated air power, but don’t count on the Chinese to make the same mistake. China is a powerful,
vast country with an exploding, many-faceted economy with strong scientific capabilities. It will take focused and determined
efforts for the U.S. to maintain the air dominance that it currently enjoys over China and that, for the moment, deters them.
Miscalculating here will be disastrous because, unlike with any counterinsurgency situation (Iraq included), the very
existence of the U.S. is at risk.
63
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Air Power Impact-Deterrence Scenario
Air power is key to US mobility and adaptiveness—key to perceptions as a stabilizing force
Mackenzie Eaglen and Douglas A. Birkey, American Enterprise Institute, 2012 (“Nearing coffin corner: US air power
on the edge”, March 21, 2012, http://www.aei.org/outlook/foreign-and-defense-policy/defense/nearing-coffin-corner-us-airpower-onthe-edge/, accessed 7/17/12)
Air power uniquely affords leaders the ability to wage mobile and adaptive campaigns that maximize economy of force
relative to wars based on attrition and occupation. However, policymakers must not assume continued de facto US
preeminence in the skies. Combat operations in the Asia-Pacific would require an ample inventory of aircraft with adequate
range, speed, and stealth. This does not mean limited “silver bullet” fleets that try to perform nearly every mission with only
a few select aircraft."Allies’ commitment to the United States and its interests depends directly on their perceptions regarding
American presence, staying power, and resolve."After two decades of deferred programs and curtailed buys in key platforms,
America’s combat air assets are worn out and spread too thin. The Obama administration and Congress must prioritize
recapitalizing these capabilities with robust investment in the next-generation bomber; the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program;
the KC-46 aerial refueling tanker; F-22 modernization; long-range, low-observable, carrier-based strike platforms; and joint
electronic warfare capabilities. Diversified logistics lines, air base resiliency, carrier battle group defenses, vigorous cyber
capabilities, strong command and control networks, and robust data links will also be critical enablers for the entire joint
force. Although these capabilities require considerable investments, the price of unpreparedness is even greater. Should the
United States find itself underequipped in a future conflict, it simply will not be possible to rapidly design, develop, and field
modern weapons systems and their requisite support elements. The assets and associated infrastructure we acquire today will
govern the options available to the nation’s decision makers for decades into the future.
Air Power prevents wars—credible hegemony changes the behaviors of adversaries
Mackenzie Eaglen and Douglas A. Birkey, American Enterprise Institute, 2012 (“Nearing coffin corner: US air power
on the edge”, March 21, 2012, http://www.aei.org/outlook/foreign-and-defense-policy/defense/nearing-coffin-corner-us-airpower-on-the-edge/, accessed 7/17/12)
Preparing Comprehensively for the Future Whether in the Asia-Pacific domain or elsewhere, putting US military personnel in
harm’s way when alternate means exist for securing national priorities does not typically serve America’s interests. This
requires focusing policy and resource priorities on using peaceful avenues to favorably influence other nations. Taking
positive and proactive action to shape events on the ground means US leaders must continue to build and maintain alliances
with nations that share common interests and will partner to realize mutual regional policy goals. Air power presents many
opportunities for cultivating these associations. Whether conducting training exercises, promoting regional stability through
joint operations, or supporting disaster recovery and humanitarian relief efforts, American and allied airmen are uniquely
situated to project smart, effective, and positive power. This requires putting work into building enduring relationships over
time, not scrambling in a crisis to create them overnight.Considering that air power can be deployed and sustained through
minimal forward troop presence, such cooperative engagement has the advantage of focusing on desired regional effects
without many of the liabilities associated with occupation by land forces. Also, given the scale and scope of the Asia-Pacific
region, air power’s range and speed enables a discrete number of assets to engage across the theater on a sustained basis.
However, these alliances will be successful only if they are built on robust policies underwritten by well-equipped forces.
Allies’ commitment to the United States and its interests depends directly on their perceptions regarding American presence,
staying power, and resolve.When cooperation is not possible, US leaders must have the capability and capacity to discourage
and ultimately deter potential adversaries from threatening American interests. Whether alone or in concert with allied
partners, American air power affords many policy options through its daily missions:Airlift and aerial refueling ensure
regional and global mobility.Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets provide critical data to inform the decisionmaking process.Air superiority ensures access throughout the global commons for all US forces.The ability to strike
anywhere around the globe at will holds targets at risk.Nuclear forces provide an umbrella of protection for allied states and
US forces.However, efforts to change the calculus or behavior of potential adversaries are effective only if they are credible.
Securing interests through peaceful influence demands robust capability and capacity, including adequate quantity of forces.
Failing to make such investments encourages regional instability that may lead to miscalculation and ultimately conflict.
64
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Air Power Impact-ME Scenario
Airpower is key to ME stability
Kenneth Katzman, 6-14-2007,
http://www.grc.ae/index.php?frm_module=contents&frm_action=detail_book&frm_type_id=&op_lang=en&override=Articl
es+%3E+US+Airpower+and+Middle+East+Stability&sec=Contents&frm_title=&book_id=33116 (Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in the Middle East Affairs, and Congressional Research Service
A major component of the US ability to project power and influence in the Middle East is its overwhelmingly superior and
sophisticated airpower. The US Air Force and Navy air operations are able to achieve air superiority anywhere in the Middle
East region, and with little advanced preparation. US airpower—using traditional combat aircraft such as F-16s and Stealth
bombers—was key to the US victory over Saddam Hussein in 1991, and facilitated his overthrow in the 2003 war. It was
largely US airpower that kept Saddam Hussein militarily contained during 1991-2003 through the implementation of “no fly
zones” over southern and northern Iraq. US airpower was also crucial to facilitating the defeat of the Taliban in 2001 by
Afghan opposition forces supported by the United States, with limited involvement by US ground forces. More recently, US
air strikes have been a growing component of US combat against Sunni insurgents in Iraq and against Taliban formations in
Afghanistan. The number of such strikes in both war theaters has doubled since 2005, and has had more effectiveness in
Afghanistan than in Iraq.
65
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Air Power-China Scenario
US air power is key to stabilize Asia
Garretson, Lt. Col. In USAF and the Division Chief, Strategy, Plans & Policy for Irregular Warfare at HQ USAF, ’12
(Peter, “Air Power Key to U.S. Asia Goals”, May 22, 2012, http://oseafas.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/air-power-key-to-u-sasia-goals/, accessed 7/17/12)
To win the contest for influence in the Asia-Pacific, the U.S. military must move beyond boots on the ground. Smart use of
the Air Force is a cost effect tool that could fit the bill. The United States has refocused its strategic priorities in an oft-talked
about “Pivot to Asia” and has made a deliberate decision in new defense strategic guidance not to size the military for large
scale counter-insurgency operations, but instead to posture to deter conflict in Asia where there is a clear anti-access, areadenial threat. Such a shift has implications and raises questions about the appropriateness of retaining force structure and
concepts developed for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan across all the military services. Since fiscal reality dictates that the
United States must downsize its military and focus on a more limited set of priorities, is it appropriate for the United States
Air Force to create and sustain an institutional irregular warfare capability? If the key strategic pre-occupation of the United
States in the forthcoming decades is maintaining a force posture credible to defeating aggression on the high-end of the
spectrum in Asia, what is the place of irregular warfare? And what are the changes required to make the fundamental
components of Air Force irregular warfare – air advising, air diplomacy and aviation enterprise development – more aligned
with larger U.S. strategies? An institutional Air Force irregular warfare capability directly supports U.S. foreign policy
objectives in the Asia-Pacific and represents an asymmetric strength the envy of our competitors. Institutionalization of
USAF irregular warfare capability is important, because it supplies exactly the sort of “low-cost, innovative” strategies called
for in the defense strategic guidance and provides a tool to address the larger deeper problem: shaping the conditions for
continued advantage.
Air power is uniquely key
Garretson, Lt. Col. In USAF and the Division Chief, Strategy, Plans & Policy for Irregular Warfare at HQ USAF, ’12
(Peter, “Air Power Key to U.S. Asia Goals”, May 22, 2012, http://oseafas.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/air-power-key-to-u-sasia-goals/, accessed 7/17/12)
America’s problem in Asia is more than just maintaining a favorable balance of military power. Such a balance is certainly
critical to regional stability and global security. Asia is, after all, the heart of the global economic engine of growth, and it is
U.S. military strength that ensures customary freedom of navigation in the global commons and deters newly powerful states
from using force to settle conflicting claims. Asian states appreciate the positive historic role the United States has played
over the past 50 years, but some hand wring about the ability of the U.S. to continue to play that role. While the importance
of maintaining military balance is undeniable, the larger challenge is a competition for leadership, legitimacy and influence.
Legitimacy is dependent on the actions available to the U.S. to continue to be perceived as present, committed and the
security partner of choice. The great military theorist Carl von Clausewitz enjoined that “war is politics by other means.” But
the strategic competition in Asia, if well managed, is likely to be one of posture and deterrence rather than war. Rather, the
United States might instead consider the rejoinder of China’s first premier, Zhou Enlai, that “All diplomacy is a continuation
of war by other means,” and realize that the strategic competition between great powers takes place against a backdrop where
competing interests struggle for influence and legitimacy within their own states; the realm of irregular warfare. According to
Joint Publication 1, Doctrine of the Armed Forces of the United States, irregular warfare is a “struggle among state and nonstate actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant population(s). IW favors indirect and asymmetric approaches,
though it may employ the full range of military and other capacities in order to erode an adversary’s power, influence, and
will.” And Asia – Southeast Asia, South Asia, North Asia, and Central Asia – all feature non-state actors who seek to erode
the legitimacy of various states. Each of those should be considered dangers and opportunities to U.S. and global security.
Any such conflict could flare into a crisis, triggering instability that undermines the global economic system or presenting the
threat of a failed state with all its attendant costs to blood and treasure. Such internal conflicts can be used by one power
against another to distract, entangle and undermine the stability of their partners. Each internal conflict creates an opportunity
for a “preferred security partner” to fill a vacuum, and provide critical opportunities that build sympathy and lay the
groundwork for access. All the great powers seem to understand that the game in Asia is about more than just deterrence, but
influence. Take for example the recent piece by Yan Xuetong titled “How China Can Defeat America” where he the author
states: “To shape a friendly international environment for its rise, Beijing needs to develop more high-quality diplomatic and
military relationships than Washington. No leading power is able to have friendly relations with every country in the world,
thus the core of competition between China and the United States will be to see who has more high-quality friends. And in
order to achieve that goal, China has to provide higher-quality moral leadership than the United States. China must also
recognize that it is a rising power and assume the responsibilities that come with that status. For example, when it comes to
providing protection for weaker powers, as the United States has done in Europe and the Persian Gulf, China needs to create
66
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
additional regional security arrangements.” Of course it isn’t a zero-sum game, and the U.S. welcomes a China that assumes
the responsibilities with status. But the U.S. shouldn’t remove itself from the competition to remain the security partner of
choice, and it doesn’t have to. This form of competition plays to America’s asymmetric strength, and Yan himself
acknowledges: “America enjoys much better relations with the rest of the world than China in terms of both quantity and
quality. America has more than 50 formal military allies, while China has none. North Korea and Pakistan are only quasiallies of China. In the competition for security cooperation and building partnerships, the U.S. has another asymmetric
advantage: It’s an air-faring nation with an Air Force than can bring constructive effects. While understood by few, “boots on
the ground” is not the only opportunity to help friendly governments in irregular warfare. The last decade of sustained
warfare has given the United States Air Force (USAF) a tremendous opportunity to collect important lessons on how
Airpower – both military and civil – can enhance the legitimacy of partner states. What is required now is to take the lessons,
processes, education, training and guidance learned in contingency operations, and institutionalize them as part of how the
USAF interacts in the pre-conflict phase (“Phase 0”) of building partnership capabilities and capacities. This form of
engagement doesn’t require large numbers of boots on the ground, armed and visible to the populace, but it does require a
few “brains on the ground” who are properly prepared to interface with their host nation counterparts. Using air forces in this
manner is a surprisingly effective strategy. The nation gains significant access and influence via its engagements abroad, yet
the entire “building partnerships” portfolio amounts to less than half a percent of the USAF budget. USAF involvement in
irregular warfare operations has long conjured up images of long-loitering drones firing missiles at insurgents among external
audiences. But such an image betrays a deep lack of understanding of the breadth of how airpower contributes to influence
and legitimacy, and even more so about how Airmen understand irregular warfare. Particularly under conditions where fiscal
or political constraints limit the introduction of U.S. ground forces, USAF advice and assistance can empower a legitimate
government to employ the benefits of airpower to control its skies, diagnose the situation on the ground and respond to
situations on the ground with the unparalleled speed aircraft provide. That response could be the rapid movement of
indigenous forces to protect a village or reinforce a town. But equally likely is the movement of government officials or aid
workers or humanitarian assistance, extending the services and legitimacy of government.
67
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Air Power-China Scenario
Air power deters war and conflict in Asia
Garretson, Lt. Col. In USAF and the Division Chief, Strategy, Plans & Policy for Irregular Warfare at HQ USAF, ’12
(Peter, “Air Power Key to U.S. Asia Goals”, May 22, 2012, http://oseafas.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/air-power-key-to-u-sasia-goals/, accessed 7/17/12)
When airmen look through the lens of irregular warfare, they seek to consciously use airpower in the service of legitimacy –
at the tactical, operational and strategic levels: to enhance the legitimacy of partner nations, to bolster U.S. legitimacy in
alliance relationships and to advance U.S. legitimacy on the field of global strategic competition. The irregular airpower
strategist recognizes that the strength of airpower isn’t only in its responsiveness, but in its long-term contribution to a
nation’s integrity, thus the contribution of airpower isn’t only in the kinetic realm, but in the moral sphere as well. What’s
distinctive about this outlook is that it fundamentally recognizes the elements of time and relationship building, and the
centrality of building partnerships and building partners’ capacities, not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental element to
strategy at all levels. Every friendly state whose capacity can be advanced to where they can provide for their own internal
defense, patrol their own skies and coasts, defend their own airspace is one less opportunity to be a failed state or an easy
target of aggression, and one less potential crisis that would cost America its sons and daughters. Every friendly state which
can provide for its own security can become a net security provider, and contribute capabilities for regional response that
allows burden sharing. By proving ourselves to be a reliable security partner in the Asia-Pacific, we enhance our own access;
thus, edging out strategic competitors and complicating their anti-access strategies. But being the security partner of choice
goes beyond deployments that just prove our presence and resolve to defend our partners’ security to include meaningful
planning to enhance our partners’ capacity for self-help.
Air power is key to U.S. strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region
Mackenzie Eaglen and Douglas A. Birkey, American Enterprise Institute, 2012 (“Nearing coffin corner: US air power
on the edge”, March 21, 2012, http://www.aei.org/outlook/foreign-and-defense-policy/defense/nearing-coffin-corner-us-airpower-on-the-edge/, accessed 7/17/12)
If the Obama administration and Congress truly believe in the centrality of the Asia-Pacific region to the nation’s
fundamental interests, they need to transform rhetoric into meaningful action. In Asia today, American resolve, influence, and
presence are being challenged by a rising great power for the first time since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Budget and
policy priorities must reflect the need to continually strengthen air and sea power to allow technologies to mature and the full
value of taxpayer investments to be realized. Continued reliance on aging Cold War–era systems will effectively sunset US
ability to credibly engage in the Asia-Pacific theater. Considerable lead time is required to recapitalize key weapons systems
and enhance associated support infrastructure. This means action is needed today, especially when addressing draconian
issues like budget sequestration.
Air power in Asia key to stability
Higley 2010. Lt. Col Sam Higley “Vice chief describes airpower's key role in Pacific at Tinian symposium”
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123216891
Together with allies and partners like Japan, the U.S. officials continue to help underwrite security and stability in the AsiaPacific region, the general said. General Chandler said the Air Force and Navy are forging a new vision of cooperation
between the two services called Air-Sea Battle, and that this integration will be especially important to the Pacific area of
operations. Additionally, presence continues to be important to regional peace and stability, he said. "Our current posture in
the Pacific reflects this reality and relies on our presence on Guam and the Northern Marianas to project stability throughout
East Asia," General Chandler said. "Andersen Air Force Base is a key component of our long-term commitment to the
region." Investments in long-range strike will also augment the United States' forward presence throughout Asia, the general
said. "The security and stability of the Pacific region has long been guaranteed by the strength of our diplomacy and our
alliances, all of which have been underwritten by American long-range power projection," General Chandler said.
"Maintaining that balance still requires our vigilance." Maj. Gen. Doug Owens, the Pacific Air Forces vice commander at
Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, attended the symposium as well, and spoke at a wreath-laying ceremony Aug. 6 held at the
Tinian bomb pits designed to load the two atomic bombs on to the B-29s.
68
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Air Power-NoKo Scenario
US airpower key deterrent to NK
Bechtol 2005. Bruce. “The future of US airpower in NK”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXL/is_3_19/ai_n27869320/
In order to address why US airpower has become such an important deterrent to the North Korean military threat, one must
first note how that threat has changed. During the 1990s, North Korea--a nation of 22 million people--boasted the world's
fifth largest military (fig. 1). Its army fields 3,700 tanks, 3,500 armored personnel carriers, over 4,000 self-propelled artillery
pieces, and nearly 800 aircraft. (2) Since subsidies from a collapsed Soviet Union ceased at the end of the Cold War, North
Korea has faced the absolute impossibility of maintaining the readiness and capabilities of a military (with a large,
mechanized army as its core) poised to attack South Korea with the goal of achieving unification under the communist
regime in Pyongyang. (3) Maintaining a sizable military dominated by mechanized forces and self-propelled artillery in a
high state of readiness requires a substantial amount of fuel for the field training of these forces. Feeding them also stands as
a daunting task, especially since food (as well as fuel) has remained in drastically short supply in North Korea since the early
1990s. (4) Furthermore, in any invasion scenario, North Korea's military would have to flow south through two key narrow
invasion corridors--the
69
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-Uniqueness
The US is in a recession now – could get worse
Bloomberg 7/10 (“ECRI’s LAKSHMAN ACHUTHAN: The US is in Recession Already”,
http://www.businessinsider.com/achuthan-the-us-is-in-recession-already-2012-7)
What we said back in December was that we thought the most likely start date for the recession would be in Q1, and if not
then, by the middle of 2012. I'm here to reaffirm that. In other words, I think we're in recession already. As I said back there,
it's very rare that you know you're going into recession when you're going into recession. It often takes some big hit on the
top of the head. In the last recession it took Lehman to wake people up. In the recession before it took 9/11. When you look at
the data today, you see industrial production is off of its April high. Manufacturing and trade sales – much broader than retail
sales – is off of its December high. Real personal income growth, which doesn't always go negative during a recession, has
been negative for several months. So, its consistent with a recession having already started, and GDP – newsflash: the first
quarter of a recession very often has positive GDP. Back in December, looking at leading indicators…our best guess was Q1
as the start date. If not then, mid-2012. Then, we looked at coincident indicators a few months ago. They gave us the same
answer.
The econ keeps dropping-multiple indicators prove
Washington Post 7/17 (“Obama must hide from more bad economic news”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/theinsiders/post/obama-must-hide-from-more-bad-economic-news/2012/07/17/gJQAJr2pqW_blog.html)
Let's pause to remember that the November election will be about jobs and the economy. While America's political
leadership has been consumed with whether Mitt Romney left private employment approximately 12 years ago or 10 years
ago, and President Obama taunts his opponent with criminal charges, the economy is only getting worse. On Monday, the
International Monetary Fund cut its forecast for global growth. This could particularly hurt exports and manufacturing in the
United States. All this is happening while the American president declares his contempt for private business, attacks success
and renews his call for punitive tax increases, and his Democratic allies in Congress celebrate the idea of pushing America
off the "fiscal cliff" — not in pursuit of economic recovery, but to satisfy their death wish for the most productive Americans.
Let's face it, Obama and the Democrats resent private accomplishment and want independent Americans to be cut down to
size while the government is made a little bigger. With the economy getting worse, do you think the 2012 campaign debate
about solutions will get better? Or do you think Obama will double down on distractions and wild charges about Mitt
Romney and Republicans? As I said yesterday, the Obama campaign is too intense too soon. When the smoke clears from the
latest grenade it has thrown at Romney, we will see even more economic rot that Obama is hiding from, and voters will be
more frightened than ever. Also, bad gets worse — retail sales dropped in June as consumers worried about their future. And
stocks dropped following this disappointing news. So will the campaign debate shift quickly back to jobs and the economy?
If you're Obama and you don't have anything credible to say, you have to try to keep up the distractions and keep hiding from
the real news. The recession continues and all the signs say it is getting worse. The president will pay a price if he continues
to pretend that other things are more important. With the economy sinking, does he really believe Americans want to make it
a priority to get to the bottom of exactly when Mitt Romney departed Bain Capital?
Growth is slowing to an anemic rate
BBC News, 4-27-2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17870921 (BBC News is the department of the British
Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) responsible for the gathering and broadcasting of news and current affairs. The department
is the world's largest broadcast news organisation and generates about 120 hours of radio and television output each day, as
well as online news coverage.[1][2] The service maintains 44 foreign news bureaux and has correspondents in almost every
country.)
US economic growth slowed to an annualized pace of 2.2% in the first quarter of the year, from 3% in the final three months
of last year. The figure was below economists' estimates of 2.5% and is equivalent to quarter-on-quarter growth of 0.5%. The
US Commerce Department said businesses had cut back on investment, depressing gross domestic product (GDP).
70
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-Uniqueness
The US is approaching the tipping point of a new recession
Bloomberg, 7-17-12 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-17/gross-says-u-s-nearing-recession-as-goldman-sachscuts-forecast.html (Bloomberg is a 24-hour global network broadcasting business and financial news)
Bill Gross, who runs the world’s largest mutual fund at Pacific Investment Management Co., said the U.S. is approaching a
recession as BlackRock Inc. (BLK) expects the Federal Reserve to take more steps to support growth. Five-year Treasury
yields slid to a record 0.577 percent yesterday after an unexpected drop in U.S. retail sales rekindled speculation Fed
Chairman Ben S. Bernanke will use testimony today to hint at further monetary easing. That followed data earlier this month
showing American employers added fewer-than-estimated workers to payrolls. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and
Deutsche Bank AG cut forecasts for U.S. growth. The U.S. is “approaching recession when measured by employment, retail
sales, investment, and corporate profits,” Gross,
More ev-double dip now
Jones 2012, Forrest. MoneyNews “US Has Already Plunged Back Into Recession
http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Achuthan-US-Recession-economy/2012/07/11/id/445036
The United States already has fallen back into a recession, says Lakshman Achuthan, co-founder of the Economic Cycle
Research Institute. Last year, Achuthan predicted that the U.S. economy would slide into a fresh economic contraction during
the first quarter of this year. Even though gross domestic product rates are officially growing, the country for all intensive
purposes is in economic decline again. "What we said back in December was that we thought the most likely start date for the
recession would be in Q1, and if not then, by the middle of 2012. I'm here to reaffirm that," Achuthan tells Bloomberg
Television. "In other words, I think we're in recession already. As I said back there, it's very rare that you know you're going
into recession when you're going into recession. It often takes some big hit on the top of the head. In the last recession it took
Lehman to wake people up. In the recession before it took 9/11." A recession is officially defined as an economy seeing at
least two consecutive quarters of contracting gross domestic product rates. The U.S. gross domestic product officially
expanded 1.9 percent in the first quarter though other indicators point to a deteriorating economy. "When you look at the data
today, you see industrial production is off of its April high. Manufacturing and trade sales – much broader than retail sales –
is off of its December high," Achuthan says. "Real personal income growth, which doesn't always go negative during a
recession, has been negative for several months. So, it's consistent with a recession having already started, and GDP –
newsflash: the first quarter of a recession very often has positive GDP." The Economic Cycle Research Institute publishes
widely followed economic metrics called the Weekly Leading Indexes, which are forward-looking indicators closely
followed by economist and markets. Officially, the U.S. has skirted above recession and continues to do so. While the U.S.
economy remains in better shape than Europe, parts of which remain mired in recession and debt crises, global uncertainty
continues to dampen recovery and keep hiring at bay. Since the downturn and official recovery in 2009, demand for jobs has
remained weak. The U.S. unemployment rate has hovered over 8 percent for more than three years, yet for seven decades
after the Great Depression, the rate averaged 5.4 percent, the Wall Street Journal reports, citing official data. Job growth has
averaged 125,000 new net nonfarm payrolls a month since 2009, when the labor market was at its worst. At that job pace,
unemployment rates won't even dip to 7 percent until around the end of this decade, the Journal reports. The Labor
Department expects the labor force to grow to 164.4 million by 2020 based on long-run population growth and a declining
labor force participation rate, mainly due to retiring baby boomers. "If the current recovery’s pace of household employment
growth held on, the jobless rate would fall below 8 percent in 2014, but it would not reach 7.0 percent until late 2019," the
Journal finds. "That means this decade’s jobless rate would be about 7.9 percent, the highest for a decade since the Great
Depression, beating out the reigning champ of the 1980s." Meanwhile, a series of tax hikes and spending cuts will kick in at
the same time at the end of this year, a combination known as a fiscal cliff that could siphon hundreds of billions of dollars
out of the economy and send the country right back into recession, others say."We’re close — the single worst recovery of all
time," says economist Arthur B. Laffer, an architect of Ronald Reagan's economic policies, according to CNBC. If the tax
increases go through to 2013, I think we fall off the cliff, to be very honest with you."
71
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-Uniqueness
More ev
Roberts 2012’ Market Watch, The Wall Street Journal “Will QE3 save us from another recession?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-qe3-save-us-from-another-recession-2012-07-17
In the wake of the June FOMC meeting minutes revealed last week, a handful of Federal Reserve members believe that more
stimulus may be necessary. And with an economy teetering on another recession and stagnant economic growth — among
other problems — there is an argument to be made that the only thing preventing us from seeing an economic tragedy
mirroring 2008 is an injection of federal stimulus. Unfortunately, each round of quantitative easing produces diminishing
returns, creates an artificial perception that our markets are healthy and does nothing to help Main Street, which is struggling
the most. Many economists — including myself — did not think the economy was in a bad enough position to see QE3 the
last time Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke spoke. Bernanke was quick to mention that while our economy is growing
slower than he had hoped, America was not in such a dire economic position as to inject billions of dollars of federal money
into the markets. So, with a dismal first half of the year behind us and important economic reports for June in, our best
analysis into whether QE3 is around the corner is not necessarily looking at individual data points that may offer glimmers of
hope, it is only the trend, or direction, of the data that matters. Final sales of domestic product peaked in late 2010. The
economy as a whole slid from 3% growth in the fourth quarter of 2011 to just 1.9% growth in the first quarter of 2012. With
the spate of weakness in recent manufacturing reports, it is likely that we will see second-quarter gross domestic product
closer to 1.5% annualized growth, a very disappointing rate of economic growth a full three years since the recession. And to
add insult to injury, looking deeper into that number, final sales peaked in 2010 following the conclusion of QE1 and have
been on the decline ever since. To put into historical context, when final sales have fallen below 2% growth on an annualized
basis, the economy has generally been in a recession.
And optimistic predictions don’t match reality
Hwang 2012. Inyoung Hwang. The Bloomberg News “U.S. stocks decline as economy concern overshadows energy
gains”
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/sections/news/nation-world-news/us-stocks-decline-economy-concern-overshadowsenergy-gains.html
U.S. stocks fell, dragging the Standard & Poor’ 500 Index lower for the seventh time in eight days, after the International
Monetary Fund cut its global economic forecast and retail sales unexpectedly dropped. JPMorgan Chase & Co. lost 2.7
percent while Home Depot and Caterpillar dropped more than 1 percent to lead the Dow Jones Industrial Average lower.
Equities pared losses as energy companies rose with the price of oil while Visa and MasterCard, the world’s biggest payment
networks, gained at least 1.7 percent after agreeing to a settlement of at least $6.05 billion in a price-fixing case. The S&P
500 declined 0.2 percent to 1,353.64 at 4 p.m. New York time after earlier retreating as much as 0.6 percent. The Dow
slipped 49.88 points, or 0.4 percent, to 12,727.21 Monday. “The retail sales gives you another indicator that uncertainty has
showed up in the consumer side,” James Dunigan, who helps oversee $112 billion as chief investment officer in Philadelphia
for PNC Wealth Management, said. “We’re in a bit of the summer doldrums.” The S&P 500 is down 4.6 percent from a fouryear high in April as economic data trails forecasts and investors brace for what is projected to be the first decrease in
quarterly earnings since 2009. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index for the U.S., which measures how much data from the
past three months is beating or missing the median estimates in Bloomberg surveys, is at minus 64, near the almost 11-month
low of minus 64.9 reached last week. U.S. retail sales dropped 0.5 percent in June, following a 0.2 percent decrease in May,
Commerce Department figures showed Monday. The decline was worse than the most-pessimistic forecast in a Bloomberg
News survey in which the median projection called for 0.2 percent rise. The IMF cut its 2013 global growth forecast as
Europe’s debt crisis prolongs Spain’s recession and slows expansions in emerging markets. Growth worldwide will be 3.9
percent next year, less than the 4.1 percent estimate in April, the fund predicted in an update of its World Economic Outlook.
Manufacturing in the New York region expanded in July at a faster pace than anticipated, signaling factories will keep
contributing to growth. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s general economic index rose to 7.4 from 2.3 in June. The
median forecast of 51 economists surveyed called for an increase to 4.0. Readings greater than zero signal expansion in the
so-called Empire State Index that covers New York, northern New Jersey and southern Connecticut. Earnings beat estimates
at 21 of the 32 companies in the S&P 500 that have reported quarterly results so far, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
Profits probably decreased 2.1 percent in the second quarter, the first drop in almost three years, according to a Bloomberg
survey of analysts. JPMorgan Chase, the largest U.S. bank by assets, fell 2.7 percent to $35.09 after rallying 6 percent on July
13 as Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon predicted the company will still post record earnings this year despite a $4.4
billion trading loss in the second quarter.
72
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-Uniqueness
More ev-decline now
Alter 2012’. DIANE ALTER, Contributing Writer, Money Morning “Recession 2013: An Ongoing Slide?”
http://moneymorning.com/2012/07/16/recession-2013-retail-sales-figures-are-the-latest-sign-of-a-slowing-economy/
While economists continue to voice their concerns that the looming fiscal cliff is bound to throw America into a recession,
the Economic Cycle Research Institute in America says we are already in one. The ECRI points out that the U.S. economy
experienced outright contraction in the second quarter amid slumping job growth, weak retail sales, dismal broader trade
sales and a moribund housing market. "I think we're in recession already," Lakshman Achuthan, co-founder of the ECRI told
Bloomberg TV. "It's very rare that you know you're going into recession...It often takes some big hit on the top of the head,"
he continued, adding that recessions don't always have to be near Armageddon like collapses such as the one that reared its
ugly head in the U.S. in late 2008. But the signs are clear and hard to miss. Achuthan's claim that we are already in a
recession deviates from the median forecasts of economists surveyed byBloomberg which expects an annual growth rate of
2.2% this quarter and the next. Still according to Blomberg , Achuthan is on to something. As Bloomberg points out, factory
output is declining, industrial production has dipped, manufacturing activity is dropping and consumer spending has stalled.
What's more, even though GDP did grow in the first quarter, it is not a compelling indicator of the direction the economy is
headed. For example, GDP grew in the last quarter of 2007, even as the worst recession since World War I began in
December of that quarter. "Evidence is increasingly clear that the U.S. economy is slowing" Jim Baird, an investment
strategist at Plante Moran Financial Advisors in Kalamazoo, Michigan, told Reuters.
Decline now
Alter 2012’. DIANE ALTER, Contributing Writer, Money MorningRecession 2013: Retail Sales Figures are the Latest
Sign of a Slowing Economy
http://moneymorning.com/2012/07/16/recession-2013-retail-sales-figures-are-the-latest-sign-of-a-slowing-economy/
For the third consecutive month, retail sales fell as demand waned for everything from cars and electronics to building
material, another telling sign that the U.S. economy may be slipping back into a recession. The Commerce Department
reported Monday that retail sales dipped 0.5% in June, much less than analysts' forecasts of a 0.2% rise. The decline marked
the first time retail sales had fallen for three straight months since late 2008, near the height of the Great Recession. Most
noticeable in the rash of declining sales was the 0.6% drop in motor vehicles and parts, an area that was widely expected to
show an uptick. Also showing a sharp slump were receipts for electronics and appliances which fell 0.8%. Sales of building
materials sagged 1.6%, and receipts at gasoline stations dried up some 1.8% even while gasoline price fell during the month.
The report adds more fodder to the lingering hope that the Federal Reserve could launch another round of quantitative easing.
The dismal commerce numbers also add to the recent wave of weak economic data. On Monday, the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) cut is forecast for global economic growth and urged European policy makers to take more aggressive measures
to curtail their crisis, while cautioning that China's economy is at risk for taking a hard fall. Meanwhile, Reuters reported a
poll released on Monday that revealed American companies have tempered any plans to hire workers, while a growing
number of firms believe the mess in Europe is hurting sales. The poll showed nearly half (47%) of companies polled believe
their sales have suffered thanks to the Eurozone debt crisis.
73
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-General Internals
Next gen is key to fix the airline industry-delays risk economic failure
McGee, 2011 (Bill McGee, licensed aircraft dispatcher and editor of Consumer Reports. “Five Ways to Improve Air
Travel” http://travel.usatoday.com/experts/mcgee/stor y/2011-10-26/Five-ways-to-improve-air-travel-that-government-wontact-on/50925900/1)
Regardless of which airline you choose, you're likely to be confronted by a flight delay or cancellation that saps your time,
money and patience. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, more than 20% of domestic flights were delayed in
2010, and each month thousands of regularly scheduled flights are either canceled or chronically delayed 70% of the time or
more. Now consider that the United States, for all its power and wealth, is dependent upon an outdated air traffic control
network that relies on radar rather than satellite-based technology. And further consider that the solution has been a political
football, and the punting has continued for years now, ever since a new methodology was proposed in 2003. It's called the
Next Generation Air Transportation System - better known as NextGen -- and by employing satellite and data technologies
it's designed to reduce flight delays 35% by 2018. The Federal Aviation Administration site provides more background
information—in both text and video formats—than most air travelers would ever need. For consumers, the simple fact is
the FAA promises that modernizing the nation's antiquated air traffic control system would bring immediate and lasting
advantages. Here are the top five benefits for air travelers: 1. A more efficient airline network with fewer flight delays, both
in the air and on the ground 2. Fewer flight cancellations, providing passengers with savings in both money and time 3. Less
time en route from Point A to Point B, aided by more direct flight paths, thus reversing the "padded flight times" trend I
wrote about here in 2009 4. An enhanced level of safety "to better predict risks and then identify and resolve hazards" 5. Fuel
savings and a reduction in aviation's carbon footprint, not just by lowering fuel emissions but also by curbing noise. What's
more, these efficiencies and economic benefits would also flow to airlines, corporate customers and communities as well,
thereby strengthening the nation's economy.
Investment in next gen boosts the aviation industry which is key to the overall economy
Roberts 2010 (Dr. Glenn Roberts, The MITRE Corporation, “Research Challenge: The Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen)”)
Aviation is tightly connected to the broader U.S. economy. As a result, the FAA’s aviation policy and investment decisions
have economy-wide impact. If the aviation sector becomes more efficient, industries relying on aviation implicitly also
improve efficiency. When greater efficiency means resource savings, these resources can be put to productive uses. The FAA
needs to understand connections and impacts beyond the aviation industry. Of equal importance is the need to understand the
economy-wide consequences of no action or delayed action in making the case for critical investments, such as NextGen.
Aviation key to the economy – plan is key
Roberts 2011 (Dr. Glenn Roberts, The MITRE Corporation, “Research Challenge:
The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) 2011” )
Aviation has a strong connection to the overall U.S. economy. Demand for air transportation services depends on the overall
level of economic activity, and aviation enables manufacturing and service industries to flourish. This relationship implies the
potential for broad economy- level impacts associated with NextGen air traffic modernization. CAASD has collaborated with
Monash University’s Center of Policy Studies to extend their U.S. Applied General Equilibrium Model (USAGE) to the
aviation domain. The result, the USAGE-Air Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model, models the U.S. economy’s
interrelationships with the air transport industry. The work this year focuses on parameterizing the congestion effects in the
model (the economic consequences of congestion), leveraging other MITRE capabilities such as system wide Modeler and
our NextGen business case work. We are extending our validation efforts, exercising the upgraded model, and documenting
congestion effects in a paper co-authored with the Monash researchers. We again plan to transition these activities to the
FAA work program. This work should create greater chances of success in building consensus among stakeholders such as
Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Transportation.
74
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-General Internals
Next gen would create 12 million jobs and provide $1 billlion in economic activity
Bowen 2011 (Masters of Business with Distinction from Cornell U., “FAA'S NEXTGEN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
SYSTEM A CIO's Perspective on Technology and Security” )
NextGen” is an umbrella term for the ongoing, wide-ranging transformation of the National Airspace System (NAS). At its
most basic level, NextGen represents an evolution from a ground-based system of air traffic control to a satellite-based
system of air traffic management. This evolution is vital to meeting future demand, and to avoiding gridlock in the sky and at
airports. The new system will open the nation’s skies to continued growth and increased safety while reducing aviation’s
environmental impact. These goals are being achieved through the development of aviation-specific applications for existing,
widely used technologies, such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) and technological innovation in areas such as
weather forecasting, data networking and digital communications. Coupled with state-of-the-art technology will be new
airport infrastructure and new procedures, including the shift of certain decision-making responsibility from the ground to the
cockpit. When fully implemented, NextGen will allow more aircraft to safely fly closer together on more direct routes, which
reduces delays and provides benefits for the environment through reductions in carbon emissions, fuel consumption and
noise. The program will also create more than twelve million jobs and over $1 billion in new economic activity.
Modernizing aviation is key to the economy
JPDO 2011 ( Joint Planning and Development Office, “Concept of Operations for the Next Generation Air Transportation
System. Version 3.2”)
The U.S. aviation system must transform itself and be more responsive to the tremendous social, economic, political, and
technological changes that are evolving worldwide. We are entering a critical era in air transportation, in which we must
either find better, proactive ways to work together or suffer the consequences of ... [losing] $30B annually due to people and
products not reaching their destinations within the time periods we expect today.
Air travel is key to the global economy
McCallie 2011 (Donald L. McCallie, Major in the United States Air Force, “EXPLORING POTENTIAL ADS-B
VULNERABILITES IN THE FAA’S NEXTGEN AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM” )
The United States–indeed the global economy–is dependent on safe and reliable air transportation . With an exponential
increase in aviation expected over the next decade and the reliance on aviation for transportation of people and goods, even a
temporary loss could have devastating impacts. Consider the recent Iceland volcano eruption in April 2010. Due to volcanic
ash, flights throughout Europe were canceled because of safety concerns. During a week-long period over 95,000 flights were
canceled and 1.2 million passengers a day were impacted–affecting approximately 29 percent of global aviation [2].
International Air Transport Association chief executive Giovanni Bisignani estimated that airlines lost revenues of $80
million each day during the first three days of groundings. Impacts to air transportation are not limited to acts of nature.
Indeed, “Operation Hemorrhage” is one of the latest plots by terrorist extremists designed to cripple the U.S. economy [3].
Intended to bring down UPS and FedEx cargo planes via printer bombs, Operation Hemorrhage cost only $4,200 to fund and
three months to plan and execute [3]. A similar plot was carried out in December 2009, when an al Qaeda member attempted
to bring down a commercial airliner over Detroit by smuggling explosives onboard that were stowed in his underwear [4].
The results of the two failed attempts were felt by passengers in longer check point lines and increased security regulations.
The current national airspace system (NAS) relies on a systematic framework that dates primarily back to the 1970s [5]. In an
attempt to increase safety and capacity of air transportation operations, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is moving
forward with a fundamental overhaul. The new framework, called Next Generation (NextGen), will drastically change the
current infrastructure and operations [6]. A key component of the NextGen upgrade is the Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) system. When fully operational, NextGen will rely on ADS-B for air traffic management.
75
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-General Internals
More evidence – aviation key to economy
Bonnefoy 2008 (Philippe A. Bonnefoy, Ph.D. in Philosophy in Engineering Systems, M.I.T.; “Scalability of the Air
Transportation System and Development of Multi-Airport Systems: A Worldwide Perspective” )
The generation of delays and their propagation throughout the system has negative impacts on passenger’s quality of travel
and more broadly the economy. Because the air transportation system is a vital underlying infrastructure of a country’s
economy, there is the need to find ways by which the system remains reliable, safe and efficient while meeting future
demand. This motivates the need to investigate the mechanisms by which the air transportation system scaled to meet
demand in the past and will do so in the future. In addition, understanding the implications of the evolution of the system is
fundamental for guiding and informing policy decisions for the Next Generation of Air Transportation System in the United
States and similar modernization and development efforts in other parts of the world.
Plan is key to the economy
Dillingham 2010 (Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. and Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues at the Government
Accountability Office, “NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM - FAA and NASA Have Improved
Human Factors Research Coordination, but Stronger Leadership Needed” )
The aviation industry is critical to the nation’s economic health and safety, accounting for over $1 trillion in economic
activity annually and handling about 50,000 flights per day while also maintaining a high level of safety. The Department of
Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the aviation industry, however, face several challenges
to the industry’s economic health and safety, including increases in demand and congestion. To meet these challenges, FAA
is taking the lead in transforming the current air traffic control system to a new system—the Next Generation Air
Transportation System (NextGen). Whereas the current system is radar-based, NextGen is a more automated, aircraft-centric,
satellite-based system. FAA is charged with implementing NextGen by 2025 with the cooperation and collaboration of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and other federal partners.
Under NextGen, pilots and air traffic controllers will rely to a greater extent on automation, changing their roles and
responsibilities in ways that will require a full understanding of what are known as human factors issues. Human factors
research and development (R&D) studies how humans’ abilities, characteristics, and limitations interact with the design of
the equipment they use, the environments in which they function, and the jobs they perform. FAA and NASA—the primary
agencies responsible for integrating human factors issues into NextGen—must ensure that NextGen explores human factors
issues so that controllers, pilots, and others will operate NextGen components in a safe and efficient manner.
Next gen is vital for economic survival
NAM 2010, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM 2010 ""Expediting Air Traffic Modernization
and Accelerating NextGenn Air Transportation System"" )PHS
NextGen a stronger certainty. The Nation’s Air Transportation System is National Infrastructure: Although we are
experiencing an unprecedented economic downturn of global proportions, the rest of the world and our major competitors are
heavily investing in infrastructure. Targeting investments that modernize the strongest and most essential parts of our
nation’s infrastructure must be encouraged not only for our economic survival and competitiveness, but as a point of national
pride. As Congress and the Administration consider the development of a National Infrastructure Bank in the coming months,
the NAM believes NextGen could benefit from this innovative approach to infrastructure financing.
76
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-General Internals
The civil aviation industry makes up 5.6% of our GDP
AIA 2009, Aerospace Industries Association (AIA 2009 ""NextGen: The Future of Flying"" http://www.aiaaerospace.org/assets/brochure_aia_nextgen.pdf )PHS
The FAA estimates that by 2018 NextGen will reduce total flight delays by better than 21 percent while providing $22 billion
in cumulative benefits to the traveling public, aircraft operators and the FAA. Businesses related to or dependent on aviation
risk losing as many as two million jobs every five years if the nation doesn’t implement NextGen. Depending on the pace of
investment, NextGen could pay for itself in three years. It would be difficult to match that return on any other infrastructure
investment. Civil aviation is an economic engine directly and indirectly contributing more than $1.2 trillion — or 5.6 percent
of gross domestic product — to the U.S. economy. It supplies nearly 11 million jobs with a payroll of $369 billion. Civil
aviation contributes positively to the U.S. trade balance, creates high paying jobs, keeps just-in-time business models viable
and connects all Americans to friends, family and business opportunities.
The aviation system is the life-blood of our economy
ENO 2012- a neutral, non-partisan think-tank that promotes policy innovation and provides professional development
opportunities across the career span of transportation professionals., (ENO 2012 ""NextGen Aligning Costs, Benefits and
Political Leadership"" http://www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/downloadables/NextGen-paper.pdf )PHS
The aviation system that is part of the life-blood of our economy is poised to face rising demand with limited additional
capacity and outdated technology. This could put considerable stress on the system in terms of congestion and efficiency. The
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) represents a series of incremental policies, procedures, and
technological changes to modernize the air traffic control (ATC) system into a more efficient, state-of-the-art satellite-based
system.
Our economy is reliant on the air transportation system
JPDO 2012, Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO "NextGen Topics" http://www.jpdo.gov/nextgen_topics.asp
)PHS
Our nation’s economy relies on an air transportation system that moves both people and goods from domestically and
throughout the world safely and efficiently. In fact, 5.6% of our economy is represented by the aviation industry, according to
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In an October 2008 report entitled “The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on
the U.S. Economy”, the FAA estimates that by 2022, the failure to implement the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen) would cost the US economy $22 billion annually in lost economic activity. Even as early as 2015, an FAA
simulation shows that without some of the initial elements of NextGen, there will be far greater air traffic delays than
currently experienced, according to the “NextGen Q & A” fact sheet at www.faa.gov.
77
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-General Internals
Next gen FAA key to increases in efficiency and the economy
Grizzle, Chief Operating Officer Air Traffic Organization Federal Aviation Administration, 2011 (David, “The Economic
Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy”, August 2011,
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/FAA_Economic_Impact_Rpt_2011.pdf, accessed 7/17/12)
In today’s ever-changing and innovative world, aviation provides a vital link to economic opportunities at home and abroad.
In the wake of global economic and financial uncertainties, runways have become the new main streets for cities and towns to
get down to business and soar once more. In 2009, civil aviation supported over 10 million jobs, contributed $1.3 trillion in
total economic activity and accounted for 5.2 percent of total U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Civilian aircraft engines,
equipment and parts also contribute $75 billion toward the U.S. trade balance. Civilian aircraft engines, equipment and parts
have been the top net export for the past decade. Our economic success clearly depends on the success of aviation. So the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is committed to providing the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
As we move forward, the FAA will continue to invest in airports, and build the Next Generation Air Transportation System
(NextGen). NextGen is a transformation of the National Airspace System. It will add a suite of 21st century technologies and
procedures to make air travel more efficient and green
78
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-General Internals
Next gen has economic multipliers in all sectors
RAA, 2012 (“Equipping Aircraft Will Create Jobs and Achieve Environmental & Safety Benefits Now”,
http://www.raa.org/Portals/0/News/equipaircrafttoreduceco2andcreatejobs010709_.pdf, accessed 7/17/12)
Using the FAA methodology for calculating jobs created, it is estimated that an infusion of $4 billion in funding for NextGen
would generate 77,000 jobs. The methodology referenced is a multiplier system developed by FAA’s Aviation Policy, Plans
and Environment Office, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, which estimates the number of jobs that would be
created for each $1 million invested in NextGen: Aircraft Equipage: 24 jobs per million invested, Construction: 21 jobs per
million invested, Research & Development: ranges from 32-36 jobs per million invested In September 2008, passenger
airline employment fell to 397,400, marking the first plunge below 400,000 since the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
began maintaining these figures in 2003. It also marked a decline of 22,400 jobs from December 2007 and 68,300 jobs since
2003. The jobs created will be high paying jobs - -both manufacturing jobs and jobs created by the installation and
maintenance of the equipage. A viable aviation sector enhances economic activity in a wide number of industries outside
aviation including, among many others, travel and tourism and industries that rely on just in time global inventories and
shipping capability. Global Competitiveness: ATC modernization is a global issue with plans and developments occurring in
Europe and other rapidly growing regions. In addition to the significant domestic benefits, early investment in NextGen will
increase demand for U.S.-developed ATM solutions in international markets, further strengthening the contribution of
aerospace to the U.S. balance of trade and creating additional jobs.
Airport spending stimulates the economy and promote job growth
Economy Watch 2010 (“Airports, World Airports, Economic Impact of Airports”
http://www.economywatch.com/world-country/airports.html)
Airports play an eminent role in the economic development of a region, as well as the nation as a whole. Airports facilitate
the fast movement of man and materials, thereby fostering trade and commerce. Airports support employment generation.
Direct employment opportunities include workers from the construction sector when the airport is being built. Once it is
operational, personnel is required for a range of services, including airport operations and management, aircraft maintenance,
storage facilities, charter services and leasing activities. The Los Angeles Times reported that the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)
International Airport has been generating massive employment opportunities since its inception in the 1970s. Quoting data
from the US Department of Commerce, the US daily said that the four counties surrounding the DFW airport had witnessed
148% growth in employment by the turn of the century. National employment surged 67% during this period. Airports offer
increased accessibility, which in turn fuels the tourism sector. With an increase in the number of visitors and airport users,
more money flows into the local economy. With increased economic activity and employment, consumer behavior changes,
raising the standard of living of the people in the region. Thus, the availability of airports provides a thrust to the GDP of the
local region, having a positively impact on the national economy.
79
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-Multiper Internals
Investing in aviation creates multiplier effects and generates growth in other industries
ICAO 2003 (International Civil Aviation Organization, “Economic Contribution on Civil Aviation”
http://legacy.icao.int/ATWorkshop/C292_Vol1.pdf)
The air transport industry has experienced rapid expansion along with the growth of the world economy, and the demand for
air transport services is primarily driven by economic development. In turn, civil aviation acts as an economic catalyst for
local/regional and national economies around the globe. The level of economic activity of the air transport industry is closely
linked to the level of economic activity in markets and economies that the industry serves. Higher levels of economic activity
go hand in hand with a growing demand for air transport, benefiting not only from expanding industries and trade but also
from generally higher income and consumer spending. Air transport (airlines, airports and air navigation infrastructure)
accommodates the needs of millions of individuals to travel and of business communities to have goods transported by air. In
2002, worldwide scheduled services carried over 1.6 billion passengers and 30 million tonnes of air freight and mail. Volume
I — Global Perspective Volume I of this circular emphasizes the importance of civil aviation in the world economy and
provides an assessment of the contribution of civil aviation (in terms of global output and employment), followed by a profile
of the major contributing civil aviation industries. Economic activity is the value of goods and services produced in an
economy. In this study, economic activity includes the goods and services produced by civil aviation, and other industry
groups affected by civil aviation. Economic activities that are directly attributed to civil aviation industries comprise those of
airlines, other aircraft operators and affiliates, airports, air navigation services providers and affiliates, aerospace and other
manufacturers as well as other industries and their affiliates. Airlines deliver air transport services, the final product of civil
aviation industries, to their customers. It has been estimated that civil aviation industries generated a total direct output of
$652 billion worldwide in 1998. When these values, which include intermediate inputs, are consolidated in order to eliminate
the components of double counting, it is estimated that civil aviation contributed to the world economy some $370 billion in
consolidated direct output in 1998, the production of which required employment of at least 6 million people along the supply
chains of intermediate inputs and final demand. The full economic impact of civil aviation industries cannot be assessed
without taking into account the indirect and induced impacts involving other related industries. Indirect impacts involve the
transactions with related suppliers along the production chains. Induced impacts cover successive rounds of increased
household spending that result from the direct and indirect impacts. In addition, an impact assessment may also include the
off-airport expenditure of air transport users (passengers and freight forwarders) and related employment, which are referred
to as catalytic impacts. These levels of economic activity can be viewed as having a cascading effect on the global economy.
The output of the air transport component of civil aviation yields the direct impacts which in turn stimulate the indirect and
ultimately the induced impacts as well as catalytic impacts. These direct economic activities have multiplier effects upon
industries providing either aviation-specific and other inputs or consumer products (goods and services). The air transport
component of civil aviation is estimated to have generated a total output of $1 360 billion and 27.7 million jobs worldwide in
1998, representing about 4.5 per cent of the world output in terms of real gross domestic product (GDP). The multiplier
effects of air transport can be calculated as a ratio of the sum of catalytic, indirect plus induced demand effects to the direct
demand effects, in terms of output and employment. It is estimated that each dollar of output produced in the air transport
industry worldwide creates a demand of $3.25 output in other industries, and that each job in air transport creates 6.1 jobs in
other industries.
AIRPORT INVESTMENTS KEY TO ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND MULTIPLIERS
AMPU CT 2005 Airport Master Plan Update Center for strategic infrastructure research analysis and government report
<http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/ddotinfo/waterburyoxford/appendixf.pdf>
Airports are economic generators in the communities they serve. They offer business opportunities to entities engaged in
servicing aircraft and providing flight services to local and visiting pilots and passengers. Airport businesses also serve other
users in their community by providing a convenient location to receive and send shipments of goods. In sum, airports serve as
gateways for economic activity, providing a stimulus for business enterprises, and generating employment opportunities for
area residents. The economic contribution of an airport should be publicly recognized so that actions to protect its continued
operation can gain community support. For some, an airport is viewed as a recreational facility that is used by relatively few
persons. However, a broader vision is more appropriate, as airports provide services that affect all citizens. For example, an
airport enables such activities as: 1. Access to the national air transportation system. 2. Transshipment of equipment,
supplies, and personnel. 3. Emergency ingress and egress transportation, including medical response. 4. Shipment of timesensitive items. 5. Pilot training. 6. Aircraft maintenance and storage. The importance of air transportation, particularly in the
corporate aviation sector, is growing. The ability to make just-in-time deliveries and to transport sales and customer service
staff to quickly forming events is a critical business advantage. The Waterbury-Oxford Airport (OXC) is actively used for all
of the above purposes, and generates positive economic impacts in terms of employment and purchases of goods and services
from local businesses. In general, the local communities served by OXC include those within the Central Naugatuck Valley
80
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
and beyond, as reflected by the geographic distribution of the based aircraft owners. Airport economic impacts are generally
expressed as direct, indirect, and induced. Direct economic impacts are defined as the jobs and sales generated by businesses
located at an airport (i.e., those which are dependent on access to the facility). The expenditures by these businesses for local
goods, services, and capital improvements are also classified as direct impacts. Indirect economic impacts are the jobs and
revenues generated by businesses located elsewhere in the community, but are due to their use of the airport. This would
include any sector of the local economy that serves users of the facility, or that uses an airport to transport goods, supplies, or
personnel in order to enhance business opportunities and activities. Like on-airport businesses, these enterprises employ staff,
purchase locally produced goods and services, and invest in capital projects. Businesses in this category can include hotels,
restaurants, manufacturers, shippers, and retail stores whose existence is tied to the airport or to aviation. When assessing
economic impact values, distinction is made between those generated as a result of the airport (direct) and those serving other
segments of the local economy (indirect). Induced economic impacts are those generated in a community caused by the
recycling of spending from both the direct and indirect economic impacts. Airport businesses, users, employees, and the
airport itself are, in essence, consumers whose expenditures support other businesses and employment in the community.
Studies have indicated that a dollar spent in a region will create at least another dollar of income in that region. This reaction
is commonly referred to as the "multiplier effect." Thus, the induced economic impact of any activity is at least equal to the
sum of the direct and indirect impacts, in terms of dollars. Finally, the total economic impact is defined as the sum of the
direct, indirect and induced impacts. For example, if an airport generates $60 in direct impact, $40 in indirect impact, and has
a 2.0 multiplier for the induced impact, then the total economic impact would be $200 (i.e., ($60 + $40) * 2.0 = $200). As an
airport’s activity level changes over time, the total economic impact will similarly change. Continued improvement of an
airport may serve to attract more activity and result in an increased economic impact value to the communities served.
81
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-Congestion Internals
Air travel congestion kills the economy – the plan solves
Dillingham 2010 (Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. and Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues at the Government
Accountability Office; “NEXT GENERATION AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Challenges with Partner Agency and
FAA Coordination Continue, and Efforts to Integrate Near-, Mid-, and Long-term Activities Are Ongoing” )
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on interagency coordination and the integration of current
implementation activities and long-term planning efforts to transform the current air traffic control system to the Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen).1 NextGen is an enormously complex undertaking that requires new
integrated systems, procedures, aircraft performance capabilities, and supporting infrastructure to create an air transportation
system that uses satellite-based surveillance and navigation and network-centric operations. NextGen is intended to improve
the efficiency and capacity of the air transportation system so that it can accommodate anticipated future growth. By 2025, air
traffic is projected to increase up to three times the current level. Today’s U.S. air transportation system will not be able to
meet these air traffic demands, and improvements to the national airspace system are needed to mitigate the potential increase
in flight delays that are likely to occur as air traffic grows and the potential decrease in economic productivity resulting from
more delay and congestion in the system.
82
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-A2: Fed Solves
Fed monetary action takes too long to solve-infrastructure spending is comparatively preferable
Economists View 22 July 2008 (Infrastructure Spending and Stabilization Policy;
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/07/infrastructure.html)
I think Free Exchange has effectively handled the speed issue, i.e. the assertion that infrastructure spending cannot hit the
economy as fast as tax cuts, so let me turn to the assertion about monetary policy dominating fiscal policy generally, and
dominating spending on infrastructure in particular. Yes, monetary policy can be implemented rapidly, but remember how
monetary policy works. It lowers the interest rate or reduces credit market imperfections stimulating investment in new
plants and equipment, investment in new homes, that sort of thing. It takes considerable time to plan and build a new
factory or to refurbish an old one. People don't build and buy houses over night (usually), that takes time too, since it's only
new houses that contribute to GDP. Thus, while monetary policy can be put into place overnight if necessary, it can be quite
some time before it impacts the economy. Stepping away from infrastructure spending for a moment and looking at fiscal
policy generally, the usual view on monetary versus fiscal policy lags is that monetary policy can be implemented quickly,
but the effects take considerable time to be realized - the peak effect can be as long as a year and a half away and drawn
out over a three year period according to many estimates. Fiscal policy takes longer to implement due to factors cited
above, but once in place, the effects are realized fairly quickly (though it does take longer for infrastructure that must be
planned and built from the ground up).
83
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-2AC War Impact
First, economic decline kills democratic cooperation and spurs protectionism and a power vacuum
as US influence wanes. Their historical evidence doesn’t assume the withdrawal of a unipolar
hegemon, threats of transnational terrorism or authoritarian wars of distraction—that’s the 1NC
Friedberg evidence.
Second, economic decline undermines the key foundations of peace. Prefer our evidence about the
current international security climate
Mandelbaum 2010 (Michael, Professor Foreign Policy-Johns Hopkins University, The Frugal Superpower: America’s
Global Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era, p. 105-8)
It is the dominance of peace, democracy, and free markets, supplemented and bolstered by the reassurance that the
United States supplies, that have made the twenty-first century a peaceful period—so far. But their domination, and the
global peace they underpin, are not necessarily destined to last forever; and the recent turmoil in the global economy does
raise the possibility that their era of dominance will turn out to be a short one. The severe global economic downturn that
the financial collapse of September 15, 2008, catalyzed threatens not only the American role in helping to maintain peace in
the world but also the foundations of the stable twenty-first-century global security itself. The international economic and
security systems are not, after all, hermetically sealed off one from the other. To the contrary, each affects the other, and
in the 1930s economics had a profound—and profoundly malignant—effect on politics. The crisis of the global economy
led to the outbreak of the bloodiest episode in the history of international security, World War II, by bringing to power in
Germany and Japan the brutal governments that started that dreadful conflict. In the 1930s the financial crash and the high
unemployment that followed all over the world discredited the shaky democratic governments in place in Germany and
Japan, which fell from power. The fascist regimes that replaced them proclaimed themselves models of governance for the
rest of the world and did win admirers and imitators in other countries. These regimes disdained democratic politics and
practices extensive (although not, as in the case of the Soviet Union, total) government control of economic affairs. Far
from believing in peace, the two enthusiastically embraced aggressive war for the purpose of expanding the territories
under their sway and subjugating—even, in some cases, attempting to exterminate—the people living there. Japan
launched a brutal campaign of conquest in China in 1931; in 1939 Germany embarked on the murderous acquisition of an
Eastern European empire and in the process conquered much of Western Europe as well. The two countries forged a
nominal alliance that included fascist Italy as well. During World War II they were known as the Axis powers. Japan
subdued much of Asia and Germany because the master of most of Europe before the two were finally beaten, at great cost
in blood and treasure, in 1945. Could anything like the ghastly experience of the 1930s and 1940s occur in the twenty-first
century? The precipitating event did, after all, repeat itself after a fashion: the economic slump that began in 2008 became,
by most accounts the most severe since the 1930s. And while Germany and Japan have long since become firmly
democratic in their politics and quasi-pacifist in their foreign policies, two other countries could conceivably play the roles
that the fascist powers assumed in the interwar period. Those two countries are China and Russia. Each was, as the first
decade of the new century ended, a large and military formidable country that had the potential to upset existing political
and economic arrangements in East Asia and Europe, respectively. For much of the second half of the twentieth century
the two had been governed by communist regimes that aspired to spread their form of government, by force when
necessary.
Third, the risk is a function of our internal links—if we win a big one, then there would be a war
Mandelbaum 2010 (Michael, Professor Foreign Policy-Johns Hopkins University, The Frugal Superpower: America’s
Global Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era, p. 111-2)
The unlikelihood of a full recurrence of all the horrors of the 1930s and 1940s does not, however, mean that the global
security order is certain to remain entirely free from threats of war in the years ahead. Avoiding the worst of all possible
futures does not guarantee the best of them. Even if China and Russia do not unleash murderous campaigns of conquest,
this does not mean that each will settle comfortably into a twenty-first-century routine as a staunch supporter of the postCold War security and economic orders. Each has grievances, actual and potential, against the existing order of things. The
extent to which either or both choose to act on these grievances will matter a great deal. Those choices, in turn, will
depend in part on the strength of the American position in their respective regions, East Asia and Europe; and the economic
constraints on the United States will weaken that position in both places.
84
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-2AC War Impact
GREEN AND SCHRAGE 2009 (Michael J Green is Senior Advisor and Japan Chair at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS) and Associate Professor at Georgetown University. Steven P Schrage is the CSIS Scholl Chair in
International Business and a former senior official with the US Trade Representative's Office, State Department and Ways &
Means Committee, Asia Times, 3-26, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/KC26Dk01.html)
Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, analysts at the World Bank and the US Central Intelligence
Agency are just beginning to contemplate the ramifications for international stability if there is not a recovery in the next
year. For the most part, the focus has been on fragile states such as some in Eastern Europe. However, the Great Depression
taught us that a downward global economic spiral can even have jarring impacts on great powers. It is no mere coincidence
that the last great global economic downturn was followed by the most destructive war in human history. In the 1930s,
economic desperation helped fuel autocratic regimes and protectionism in a downward economic-security death spiral that
engulfed the world in conflict. This spiral was aided by the preoccupation of the United States and other leading nations with
economic troubles at home and insufficient attention to working with other powers to maintain stability abroad. Today's
challenges are different, yet 1933's London Economic Conference, which failed to stop the drift toward deeper depression
and world war, should be a cautionary tale for leaders heading to next month's London Group of 20 (G-20) meeting. There is
no question the US must urgently act to address banking issues and to restart its economy. But the lessons of the past suggest
that we will also have to keep an eye on those fragile threads in the international system that could begin to unravel if the
financial crisis is not reversed early in the Barack Obama administration and realize that economics and security are
intertwined in most of the critical challenges we face. A disillusioned rising power? Four areas in Asia merit particular
attention, although so far the current financial crisis has not changed Asia's fundamental strategic picture. China is not
replacing the US as regional hegemon, since the leadership in Beijing is too nervous about the political implications of the
financial crisis at home to actually play a leading role in solving it internationally. Predictions that the US will be brought to
its knees because China is the leading holder of US debt often miss key points. China's currency controls and full
employment/export-oriented growth strategy give Beijing few choices other than buying US Treasury bills or harming its
own economy. Rather than creating new rules or institutions in international finance, or reorienting the Chinese economy to
generate greater long-term consumer demand at home, Chinese leaders are desperately clinging to the status quo (though
Beijing deserves credit for short-term efforts to stimulate economic growth). The greater danger with China is not an
eclipsing of US leadership, but instead the kind of shift in strategic orientation that happened to Japan after the Great
Depression. Japan was arguably not a revisionist power before 1932 and sought instead to converge with the global economy
through open trade and adoption of the gold standard. The worldwide depression and protectionism of the 1930s devastated
the newly exposed Japanese economy and contributed directly to militaristic and autarkic policies in Asia as the Japanese
people reacted against what counted for globalization at the time. China today is similarly converging with the global
economy, and many experts believe China needs at least 8% annual growth to sustain social stability. Realistic growth
predictions for 2009 are closer to 5%. Veteran China hands were watching closely when millions of migrant workers returned
to work after the Lunar New Year holiday last month to find factories closed and jobs gone. There were pockets of protests,
but nationwide unrest seems unlikely this year, and Chinese leaders are working around the clock to ensure that it does not
happen next year either. However, the economic slowdown has only just begun and nobody is certain how it will impact the
social contract in China between the ruling communist party and the 1.3 billion Chinese who have come to see President Hu
Jintao's call for "harmonious society" as inextricably linked to his promise of "peaceful development". If the Japanese
example is any precedent, a sustained economic slowdown has the potential to open a dangerous path from economic
nationalism to strategic revisionism in China too. Dangerous states It is noteworthy that North Korea, Myanmar and Iran
have all intensified their defiance in the wake of the financial crisis, which has distracted the world's leading nations, limited
their moral authority and sown potential discord. With Beijing worried about the potential impact of North Korean
belligerence or instability on Chinese internal stability, and leaders in Japan and South Korea under siege in parliament
because of the collapse of their stock markets, leaders in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang have grown increasingly
boisterous about their country's claims to great power status as a nuclear weapons state. The junta in Myanmar has chosen
this moment to arrest hundreds of political dissidents and thumb its nose at fellow members of the 10-country Association of
Southeast Asian Nations. Iran continues its nuclear program while exploiting differences between the US, UK and France (or
the P-3 group) and China and Russia - differences that could become more pronounced if economic friction with Beijing or
Russia crowds out cooperation or if Western European governments grow nervous about sanctions as a tool of policy. It is
possible that the economic downturn will make these dangerous states more pliable because of falling fuel prices (Iran) and
greater need for foreign aid (North Korea and Myanmar), but that may depend on the extent that authoritarian leaders care
about the well-being of their people or face internal political pressures linked to the economy. So far, there is little evidence
to suggest either and much evidence to suggest these dangerous states see an opportunity to advance their asymmetrical
advantages against the international system. Challenges to the democratic model The trend in East Asiahas been for
developing economies to steadily embrace democracy and the rule of law in order to sustain their national success. But to
85
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
thrive, new democracies also have to deliver basic economic growth. The economic crisis has hit democracies hard, with
Japanese Prime Minister Aso Taro's approval collapsing to single digits in the polls and South Korea's Lee Myung-bak and
Taiwan's Ma Ying Jeou doing only a little better (and the collapse in Taiwan's exports - particularly to China - is sure to
undermine Ma's argument that a more accommodating stance toward Beijing will bring economic benefits to Taiwan).
Thailand's new coalition government has an uncertain future after two years of post-coup drift and now economic crisis. The
string of old and new democracies in East Asia has helped to anchor US relations with China and to maintain what former
secretary of state Condoleezza Rice once called a "balance of power that favors freedom". A reversal of the democratic
expansion of the past two decades would not only impact the global balance of power but also increase the potential number
of failed states, with all the attendant risk they bring from harboring terrorists to incubating pandemic diseases and trafficking
in persons. It would also undermine the demonstration effect of liberal norms we are urging China to embrace at home.
Protectionism The collapse of financial markets in 1929 was compounded by protectionist measures such as the SmootHawley tariff act in 1932. Suddenly, the economic collapse became a zero-sum race for autarkic trading blocs that became a
key cause of war. Today, the globalization of finance, services and manufacturing networks and the World Trade
Organization (WTO) make such a rapid move to trading blocs unlikely. However, protectionism could still unravel the
international system through other guises. Already, new spending packages around the world are providing support for
certain industries that might be perceived by foreign competitors as unfair trade measures, potentially creating a "SmootHawley 2.0" stimulus effect as governments race to prop up industries. "Buy American" conditionality in the US economic
stimulus package earlier this year was watered down somewhat by the Obama administration, but it set a tempting precedent
for other countries to put up barriers to close markets. Nations pushing the bounds of their trade commitments could overload
the circuits of a system that can take two years to determine violations - more than enough time for a global meltdown.
Climate change legislation is also likely to become a stalking horse for protectionism as legislatures enthusiastically embrace
punitive tariffs against Chinese or Indian goods that are produced outside of the framework for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Finally, competitive devaluation - already being pursued by China in the view of some economists - could
intensify international protectionism and friction. Global trade has already contracted for the first time in over two decades
and governments have only just begun exploring unilateral measures that could cause further barriers. Meanwhile, trade
liberalization has stalled in the Doha Round of the WTO and the Obama administration has come into office expressing
strong reservations about major bilateral free trade agreements already negotiated with allies like South Korea and Columbia.
Even if the clarion call of protectionism does not lead to the kind of autarkic blocs that contributed to war in the 1930s, it
could still distract governments from collaboration on common threats and slow the prospects for more rapid recovery. Don't
worry, but be smart These danger signs do not mean that the worst case scenarios are likely to happen even if the economic
crisis extends beyond 2009, but history and contemporary trends both suggest that they could happen if we are not careful.
Fortunately, we can learn from past failings. We know that it is important to fight protectionism, and the US and its key allies
can lead in that effort at home and through the WTO, APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation grouping of nations], the
Group of Seven [leading industrialized nations] and [the broader] the G-20, or through other new or strengthened alliances
that might be built between committed partners. We know that offensive trade liberalization through renewed efforts at the
WTO or with the South Korea-US Free Trade Agreement would be the best defense of all against protectionism. We know
that it is important to provide economic assistance to fragile states like Pakistan and through the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund even amidst our own financial crises. We know that it would be foolhardy to slash defense
spending or to replace deterrence and strong alliances with weak diplomatic arrangements as we did in the 1920s and 1930s.
And we know that we need a global strategy for revitalizing economic growth and recognizing its interconnections to security
rather than seeking relative gains through unilateral approaches.
86
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Economy Advantage-Hege Impact
The impact is great power conflict—economic growth is vital to sustain American primacy
Khalilzad 2011 — Zalmay Khalilzad, Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, served as the
United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush, served as
the director of policy planning at the Defense Department during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush, holds a Ph.D. from
the University of Chicago, 2011 (“The Economy and National Security,” National Review, February 8th, Available Online at
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024, Accessed 02-08-2011)
Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as global leader.
While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are
developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar
global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers.
The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to
be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S.
economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles,
particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose
to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an
unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years.
Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous
proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense
budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even
worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States
would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly
compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally.
Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World
War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders
concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which
crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in
Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be
compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments.
We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries
such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are
growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a
multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but
when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify
geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another,
and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation.
The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S.
leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises
and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars.
American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could
rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms
races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger
powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be
emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.
As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has
enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft,
and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the
seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and
provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South
Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese
hegemony and aggression.
Given the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the
rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still
accounts for over 20 percent of the world’s GDP. American institutions — particularly those providing enforceable rule of
law — set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are
healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a
87
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically,
Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis
that we face today.
The policy question is how to enhance economic growth and employment while cutting discretionary spending in the near
term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the out years. Republican members of Congress have outlined a plan.
Several think tanks and commissions, including President Obama’s debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus
exists on measures to pare back the recent increases in domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and
reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while lowering individual and corporate rates). These are promising
options.
The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill have the will to act and the
skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might be. It is clearly
within our capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and
members of Congress should point not only to the domestic consequences of inaction — but also to the geopolitical
implications.
As the United States gets its economic and fiscal house in order, it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United
States can do so by signaling that its domestic challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese expansionism. This
can be done in cost-efficient ways.
While China’s economic rise enables its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also frightens rival powers.
The Obama administration has wisely moved to strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more
can be done.
Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities
pass. China’s military assertiveness should enable security cooperation with countries on China’s periphery — particularly
Japan, India, and Vietnam — in ways that complicate Beijing’s strategic calculus. China’s mercantilist policies and currency
manipulation — which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere — should be used to fashion a coalition in
favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijing’s over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a
Chinese democracy activist alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw supporters
from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China.
Since the end of the Cold War, a stable economic and financial condition at home has enabled America to have an expansive
role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for granted. Unless we get our economic house in order, there is a risk
that domestic stagnation in combination with the rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing
international problems. Regional hegemons in Asia could seize the moment, leading the world toward a new, dangerous era
of multi-polarity.
And, maintaining a large power differential is key
Tellis 2009 — Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace specializing in
international security, defense and Asian strategic issues, Research Director of the Strategic Asia program at NBR—the
National Bureau of Asian Research, holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, 2009 (“Preserving Hegemony: The
Strategic Tasks Facing the United States,” Global Asia, Volume 4, Number 1, Available Online at
http://globalasia.org/pdf/issue9/Ashley_J._Tellis.pdf, Accessed 09-13-2011, p. 55-56)
Second, and equally importantly, who wins in the ensuing struggle — whether that struggle is short or long, peaceful or
violent — is as important as by how much. This is particularly relevant because the past record unerringly confirms that the
strongest surviving state in the winning coalition usually turns out to be the new primate after the conclusion of every
systemic struggle. Both Great Britain and the United States secured their respective ascendancies in this way. Great Britain
rose through the wreckage of the wars with Louis XIV and with Napoleon. The United States did so through the carnage of
the hot wars with Hitler and Hirohito, finally achieving true hegemony through the detritus of the Cold War with Stalin and
his successors. If the United States is to sustain this hard-earned hegemony over the long term, while countering as necessary
a future Chinese challenge should it emerge, Washington will need to amass the largest differential in power relative not only
to its rivals but also to its friends and allies. Particularly in [end page 55] an era of globalization, this objective cannot be
achieved without a conscious determination to follow sensible policies that sustain economic growth, minimize unproductive
expenditures, strengthen the national innovation system, maintain military capabilities second to none and enjoin political
behaviors that evoke the approbation of allies and neutral states alike.
The successful pursuit of such policies will enable the United States to cope more effectively with near-term challenges as
well, including the war on terrorism and managing threatening regional powers, and will ineluctably require — to return full
circle — engaging the central tasks identified earlier as facing the new US administration. These tasks involve the need to
satisfactorily define the character of desirable US hegemony, the need for sound policies that will renew the foundations of
US strength, and the need to recover the legitimacy of US purposes and actions. What is clearly implied is that the principal
burdens facing the next US president transcend Asia writ large. The success of these pursuits, however, will inevitably
88
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
impact Asia in desirable ways, even as the resolution of several specifically Asian problems would invariably contribute to
the conclusive attainment of these larger encompassing goals.
89
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
UAV Advantage-Internals
NextGen key to UAS integration
Johnson 2010 (Chuck Johnson, NASA, Project Manager: UAS Integration in the NAS, 12/7/10, “UAS Integration in the
NAS Project – Project Overview” http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/pdf/uas_in_the_nas_taac_508.pdf )
The JPDO is tasked with defining the Next Generation (NextGen) Air Transportation System. Since UAS must be
incorporated into NextGen, this relationship is critical. Leverage already occurs with ARMD primarily through the Airspace
Systems Program and Aviation Safety Program. The Project will continue to meet routinely with JPDO to synch outputs
with the national strategy consistent with NextGen. Objectives: UAS Integration in the NAS ConOps; Ensure UAS are
include in the Integrated Work Plan
UAS needs a satellite navigation system that only NextGen can provide
FAA 2011 (Federal Aviation Administration, “Fact Sheet: Unmanned Aircraft Systems”
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/uas_fact_sheet.pdf )
Because of their inherent differences from manned aircraft, such as the pilot removed from the aircraft and the need for
“sense and avoid,” introduction of UAS into the NAS is challenging for
both the FAA and aviation community. In addition, UAS must be integrated into an evolving NAS, from one with groundbased navigational aids to a GPS-based system in NextGen.
NextGen key to UAS
FAA 2012 (Federal Aviation Administration, “NextGen Impementation Plan – March 2012”
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/implementation/media/NextGen_Implementation_Plan_2012.pdf )
Collaboration with NASA and the departments of Defense and Homeland Security helps us explore NextGen concepts,
including efforts to facilitate the entry of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the NAS. Currently, unmanned aircraft may
enter the NAS only after obtaining a certificate of authorization from the FAA. In cooperation with Homeland Security’s
Customs and Border Protection, we are operating remotely piloted Predator B aircraft in Florida’s Cape Canaveral to conduct
Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast and digital data communication flight trials in support of UAS integration. To
help facilitate the FAA’s collaboration with the Department of Defense, a U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory liaison works
closely with FAA experimenters to identify opportunities to leverage research, laboratory capabilities and other expertise.
This partnership advances work on UAS, alternative aviation fuels and human factors research.
90
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
UAV Advantage-Mexico Scenario
Terrorists can easily smuggle a dirty bomb across the border
The Investigative Project on Terrorism 2010 [Investigative Project on Terrorism, “New Terror Threat On Mexico
Border”, July 20, 2010, http://www.investigativeproject.org/2068/new-terror-threat-on-mexico-border]
Border: A Hezbollah-like car bomb explodes in a border town as a congresswoman asks Homeland Security about links
between the terrorist group and Mexican drug cartels. This is more than an immigration problem. Car bombs are a terrorist
specialty and not a drug cartel modus operandi. The heavily armed cartels are more into shootings and kidnappings. So the
car bomb that exploded Thursday in Ciudad Juarez, near a federal police headquarters, killing four, was either a change in
tactics for the cartels or a sign of teaming up with a terrorist group, one of which could be Iran-linked Hezbollah. Officials
called it a well-planned trap using what may have been the first time that traffickers have used a car bomb since the start of a
military-led offensive against drug cartels. It also may be the first indication of Hezbollah's growing influence south of the
border. Erick Stakelbeck of the Investigative Project, a counterterrorism research group, says Hezbollah has established a
base in the Americas in what is known as the Tri-Border area, where Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay meet. As he reports,
"the area is home to roughly 20,000 Middle Eastern immigrants — mostly from Lebanon and Syria — and has long been a
hotbed for terrorist fundraising, arms and drug trafficking, counterfeiting and money laundering." Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C.,
recently sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security asking it to form a task force to investigate growing ties
between Hezbollah and the drug cartels as well as growing evidence of a Hezbollah presence in Mexico. "We have seen their
cooperation in countries across South America, particularly the tri-border area of South America (bounded by Puerto Iguazu,
Argentina; Ciudad del Este, Paraguay; and Foz do Iguanzo, Brazil). Hezbollah operates almost like a Mafia family in the
region, often demanding protection money and 'taxes' from local inhabitants," Myrick said in the letter. Last year we reported
that Colombian officials were investigating the Medellin-based Office of Envigado cartel as a Hezbollah front organization.
This came after the arrest in Bogota of Chekri Mahmoud Harb, a suspected go-between for Hezbollah and the Taliban in
Colombia. According to an April 30 report compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, "International
terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, have also reportedly raised funding for these terrorist activities through
linkages formed with (drug-trafficking organizations) in South America, particularly those operating in the tri-border area of
Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina." Myrick says Farsi tattoos have been found on members of drug gangs in U.S. prisons. Farsi
is the native language of Iran. She also raised concerns over Hezbollah's training of Mexican cartels in making car bombs and
in sophisticated tunneling techniques used in its war against Israel. If the cartels are able to smuggle drugs and people into the
U.S., it has not escaped the attention of groups like Hezbollah and al-Qaida that they are also capable of smuggling other
things into the U.S. — like trained terrorists or the makings of a dirty bomb. State Department documents obtained by
Human Events show that more than 180,000 illegal aliens from countries other than Mexico were apprehended from 2008
through mid-March 2010, including those from state sponsors of terror. Steve Emerson, author of "American Jihad: The
Terrorists Living Among Us," said on Fox News recently that compared with al-Qaida, "Hezbollah has got a greater network,
much, much more developed around the world," including throughout the U.S., and that "potentially Hezbollah can wreak a
lot more damage if they chose to attack the United States within the continental borders." Border security is national security.
The 9/11 Commission said the worst attack on American soil happened in part because of our lack of imagination. We
couldn't conceive of young Islamic men flying passenger jets into building. Early this year, the Los Zetas paramilitary drug
cartel tried to blow up the Falcon Dam near Zapata, Texas, to destroy a rival cartel's smuggling route. Imagine if it was
Hezbollah and the target was America. We'd better start imagining what Hezbollah could do in and from Mexico. Our worst
nightmare may be yet to come.
Controlling immigration at the border key to solve terrorism
Krikorian 2004 (Mark, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, MA from Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University, “Keeping Terror Out: Immigration Policy and Asymmetric Warfare”, April 2004,
http://www.cis.org/node/380)
Prior to the growth of militant Islam, the only foreign threat to our population and territory in recent history has been the
specter of nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. To continue that analogy, since the terrorists are themselves the weapons,
immigration control is to asymmetric warfare what missile defense is to strategic warfare. There are other weapons we must
use against an enemy employing asymmetric means - more effective international coordination, improved intelligence
gathering and distribution, special military operations - but in the end, the lack of effective immigration control leaves us
naked in the face of the enemy. This lack of defensive capability may have made sense with regard to the strategic nuclear
threat under the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, but it makes no sense with regard to the asymmetric threats we
face today and in the future.
91
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
UAV Advantage-Mexico Scenario
It’s key to check illegal border crossings that make terrorism inevitable
Lamar Smith, represents Texas’ 21st district in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is the ranking member on the House
Judiciary Committee, 1 July 2010 (Why Immigration Enforcement and Secure Borders are What Will Keep America Safe
From Terrorists, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/01/rep-lamar-smith-immigration-terrorists-times-squareimmigration-border-security/)
Our national security policy should consist of more than relying on dumb bombers and smart citizens. Sooner or later, a
terrorist is going to build a bomb that works. In both of these terror attempts, our immigration system failed to keep these
terrorists either from entering the U.S. or becoming citizens. Strong immigration enforcement and border security are the first
line of defense against terrorists. If we can prevent terrorists from entering the U.S., we can prevent attacks on U.S. soil. This
is not the first time that our immigration system has been used by foreign terrorists to gain a safe haven in the United States.
The 9/11 hijackers also received visas to come to this country. And once they were here, all but one of the 9/11 hijackers
acquired some form of a U.S. identification document. These forms of ID ultimately helped them board commercial flights
on 9/11. Following the devastating attacks, Congress appointed the 9/11 Commission to examine intelligence failures that led
to September 11. The 9/11 Commission recognized these immigration-related weaknesses as part of the problem. To keep
terrorists—who may already be in the U.S. illegally—from getting valid forms of ID, Congress passed the REAL ID Act.
The law prohibits illegal immigrants -- including terrorists -- from obtaining forms of identification that can be used for
federal identification purposes such as boarding planes and entering federal buildings. Regrettably, the Obama administration
supports repealing the law. To address visa security, Congress created the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Visa Security Program. The goal was simple: increase the security of the visa process at U.S. embassies and consulates
around the world. At visa-issuing posts where the program exists today, 100% of applicants receive additional screening.
Unfortunately, such screening only exists at 14 locations out of a list of the 29 designated “highest-risk” posts worldwide. At
other posts, less than two percent out of 5.8 million applications receive additional screening. The Abdulmutallab “near miss”
is a reminder that we need full screening of visa applications at all “high risk” posts. That’s why Republicans in the House
and Senate introduced the Secure Visas Act of 2010. It mandates that the Department of Homeland Security maintain the
Visa Security Program at the 14 consular posts that already have them and create new units at the 15 other posts that ICE has
designated as “highest-risk.” Terrorists may also be exploiting weaknesses in the Southwest border to enter the U.S. illegally.
In 2007, then Director of National Intelligence Admiral McConnell confirmed that the U.S./Mexico border is a gateway to
the U.S. for terrorists. According to recent news reports, the Department of Homeland Security issued a terror watch
regarding possible illegal crossings into the U.S. by terrorist suspects and recruiters. The report came from Texas authorities
who allegedly were warned that Somali terrorists—members of Al Shabaab, a group aligned with Al Qaeda—are illegally
crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. It makes no sense to deny the link between immigration enforcement and national security.
If we want to prevent attacks, we need to keep terrorists from getting visas and stop them from coming to the U.S. and
obtaining citizenship. That means enforcing our immigration laws, not ignoring them! Terrorists will use any means possible
to enter the U.S. The only way to guarantee that we will not have another terror attack on U.S. is to strengthen border security
and enforce our immigration laws. Until we do that, Americans will remain vulnerable to attacks.
92
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Add On-Warming 2AC
Next gen is key to reduce CO2 emissions and aviation’s carbon footprint
GAO 2008 (Government Accountability Office, “AVIATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT: NextGen and Research and
Development Are Keys to Reducing Emissions and Their Impact on Health and Climate”
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08706t.pdf)
Aviation contributes a modest but growing proportion of total U.S. emissions, and these emissions contribute to adverse
health and environmental effects. Aircraft and airport operations, including those of service and passenger vehicles, emit
ozone and other substances that contribute to local air pollution, as well as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that
contribute to climate change. EPA estimates that aviation emissions account for less than 1 percent of local air pollution
nationwide and about 2.7 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, but these emissions are expected to grow as air traffic
increases. Two key federal efforts, if implemented effectively, can help to reduce aviation emissions—NextGen initiatives in
the near term and research and development over the longer term. For example, NextGen technologies and procedures, such
as satellite-based navigation systems, should allow for more direct routing, which could improve fuel efficiency and reduce
carbon dioxide emissions. Federal research and development efforts—led by FAA and NASA in collaboration with industry
and academia—have achieved significant reductions in aircraft emissions through improved aircraft and engine technologies,
and federal officials and aviation experts agree that such efforts are the most effective means of achieving further reductions
in the longer term. Federal R&D on aviation emissions also focuses on improving the scientific understanding of aviation
emissions and developing lower-emitting aviation fuels. Next steps in reducing aviation emissions include managing
NextGen initiatives efficiently; deploying NextGen technologies and procedures as soon as practicable to realize their
benefits, including lower emissions levels; and managing a decline in R&D funding, in part, by setting priorities for R&D on
NextGen and emissions-reduction technologies. Challenges in reducing aviation emissions include designing aircraft that can
simultaneously reduce noise and emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases; encouraging financially stressed airlines to
purchase more fuel-efficient aircraft and emissions-reduction technologies; addressing the impact on airport expansion of
more stringent EPA air quality standards and growing public concerns about the effects of aviation emissions; and
responding to proposed domestic and international measures for reducing greenhouse gases that could affect the financial
solvency and competitiveness of U.S. airlines.
Airplane emissions contribute greenhouse gas effect
Center for Biological Diversity Climate Law Institute, April 4, 2012 (“AIRPLANE EMISSIONS,”
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/airplane_emissions/i
ndex.html)
In addition to CO2, aircraft emit nitrogen oxides, known as NOx, which contribute to the formation of ozone, another
greenhouse gas. Emissions of NOx at high altitudes result in greater concentrations of ozone than ground-level emissions.
Aircraft also emit water vapor at high altitudes, creating condensation trails or “contrails,” visible cloud lines that form in
cold, humid atmospheres and contribute to the warming impacts of aircraft emissions. The persistent formation of contrails is
associated with increased cirrus cloud cover, which also warms the Earth’s surface. All told, aircraft’s high-altitude emissions
have a greater global warming impact than they would if the emissions were released at ground level. Alarmingly, aircraft
emissions are expected to more than triple by mid-century. But the Center is working to make sure that prediction doesn’t
come true: In December 2007, we joined with states, regional governments and other conservation groups to petition the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to address the effects of aircraft pollution under the Clean Air Act. The agency continued
to drag its feet on the issue, so in June 2010 the Center and allies sued the agency for its failure to address global warming
pollution from aircraft, ships and nonroad vehicles. The next year, a court ruled the EPA must formally determine whether
greenhouse gas pollution from aircraft endangers human health and welfare. It’s crucial that the Environmental Protection
Agency and air industry do their part to fight global warming. This means adopting operational measures to minimize fuel
use and reduce emissions from aircraft; requiring the use of lighter, more efficient airplanes; and producing and using cleaner
jet fuels.
93
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Add On-Warming 2AC
Studies prove—airplane contrails are much more dangerous than CO2 their reduction would have
an immediate effect on warming
Deborah Braconnier, Staff Writer @ Physics.org, March 31, 2011 (“Airplane contrails worse than CO2 emissions for
global warming: study,” http://phys.org/news/2011-03-airplane-contrails-worse-co2-emissions.html)
In a recent study published in Nature Climate Change, Dr. Ulrike Burkhardt and Dr. Bernd Karcher from the Institute for
Atmospheric Physics at the German Aerospace Centre show that the contrails created by airplanes are contributing more to
global warming that all the CO2 that has been caused by the entire 108 years of airplane flight. Airplane contrails are the
white clouds that we see in the sky spreading behind jets. These cirrus clouds are created when the hot, moist air released
from the plane freezes in the colder and drier air. These clouds then trap the long-wave radiation from Earth and create a
warming of the atmosphere. In their study, Burkhardt and Karchar utilized satellite imagery of these spreading contrails to
create a computer model which estimates how the contrails affect the Earth’s temperature. They have discovered that aviation
contrails play a huge role in the impact on the climate and an even greater impact than that created by the CO2 emissions
produced. While the CO2 emissions from airplanes account for around three percent of the annual CO2 emissions from all
fossil fuels and change the radiation by 28 milliwatts per square meter, the aviation contrails are responsible for a change of
around 31 milliwatts per square meter. The only difference is that CO2 has a longer life than that of the contrails, and can still
continue to cause warming even hundreds of years down the road. The researchers believe that while continuing to reduce
CO2 emissions in aviation, more work needs to be done to reduce contrails as well. This reduction of contrails could present
an immediate effect on global warming. Solutions for this could include such things as creating flight plans at lower altitudes
and the development of new airplane engines which would either reduce the water vapor released or immediately condense
the water into ice that would drop to the ground below.
Unchecked warming leads to extinction
Oliver Tickell, Oxford University, journalist, environmental researcher and activist specializing in global warming, August
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 [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom
and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advacement of Science] 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 [Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the
Environment at the University of Oxford], who warned that "if we get to a four-degree 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.
94
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Add On-Warming Internals
More ev-next gen solves warming
FAA 2010 “Fact Sheet – Next Generation Air Transportation System”
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=10261
The Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, is the transformation of the radar-based air traffic control
system of today to a satellite-based system of the future. This transformation is essential in order to safely accommodate the
number of people who fly in the United States.
New, satellite-based technologies will significantly improve safety, capacity and efficiency on runways and in the nation’s
skies while providing environmentally friendly procedures and technologies that reduce fuel burn, carbon emissions and
noise. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is leveraging existing technologies and expanding their capabilities to
bring the benefits of NextGen to the flying public today. In order to make the NextGen concept more easily understood, this
fact sheet explains NextGen through the different phases of flight, describing some of the technologies being used as the
foundation for NextGen. A list at the end shows a few of the many aviation community partners joining forces with the FAA
to help transform the airspace system. These partners include airlines, manufacturers, state, local and foreign governments,
universities and associations. The FAA’s safety management systems approach, which is more proactive and data-driven,
will help the agency achieve the next level of safety for the flying public. Ongoing investments in airport infrastructure –
runways, terminals and technology – will ensure that maximum benefits will be gained from transforming the air traffic
system and renovating aircraft fleets. The investment in advanced engines, airframes and sustainable fuels, along with new
procedures, will help to reduce aviation’s environmental footprint.
Next gen drastically reduces CO2 emissions
NAM 2010, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM 2010 ""Expediting Air Traffic Modernization and Accelerating
NextGenn Air Transportation System"" )PHS
Reducing the Carbon Footprint More efficient routing of airplanes from air traffic modernization efforts can result in
significant fuel and CO2 reductions by 2015—11 percent on the ground and 5 percent in the air. In 2008, the aviation
industry spent $57.8 billion on fuel and could eliminate as much as 15 million tons of CO2 emissions annually with a fully
modernized system. Also, reducing overhead aircraft noise from improved climb and descent procedures will improve the
quality of life for thousands living around and near the nation’s airports
Next gen implementation reduces environmental impact of aviation
FAA 11, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA 2011 "NextGen Implementation Plan" )PHS
Environment As with safety, our work to enhance aviation’s influence on the environment also benefits – and is a beneficiary
of – NextGen. The operational improvements that reduce noise, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions from
aircraft are the tip of the FAA’s environmental iceberg. Equally important are the other four-fifths of the agency’s
environmental approach – aircraft and engine technology advances, sustainable fuels, policy initiatives and advances in
science and modeling. Environmental benefits of operational improvements are simple and direct. When we improve
efficiency in the NAS, most of the time we save time and fuel. Burning less fuel produces less carbon dioxide and other
harmful emissions. And some of our NextGen improvements, notably landing approaches in which aircraft spend less time
maintaining level flight and thus can operate with engines at idle, reduce ground noise too. But operational benefits go only
so far; their net system-wide effect can be offset by growth of the aviation system. To accommodate system growth, we are
looking to develop aircraft, engine and fuel technology. In 2009, we established the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions
and Noise program to bring promising new airframe and engine technologies to maturity, ready to be applied to commercial
designs, within five to eight years. Similarly, we are part of a government-industry initiative, the Commercial Aviation
Alternative Fuels Initiative, to develop sustainable low emission alternative fuels and bring them to market. We have
developed and are using the NextGen Environmental Management System (EMS) to integrate environmental protection
objectives into NextGen planning and operations. The EMS provides a structured approach for managing our responsibilities
to improve environmental performance and stewardship. We also are analyzing the effect on aviation of environmental policy
and standards and of market-based measures, including cap-and-trade proposals.
95
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
Add On-Harmonization 2AC
Next gen is key to harmonization
JPDO 2010 (Joint Planning and Development Office Global Harmonization Working Group. January 7th, 2010
http://www.jpdo.gov/library/InformationPapers/JPDO_International%20Strategy.pdf “JDPO Paper: Next Generation Air
Transportation System International Strategy”)
Private industry plays an integral part in the success of NextGen. The development of the tools and technologies required to
move into the next generation of air transportation will be generated by industry partners both in the U.S. and abroad. Global
harmonization is accomplished when these NextGen tools, technologies, and requisite procedures proliferate around the
globe as a result of international commerce. Global sharing of NextGen industry products should be supported and promoted.
Areas must be identified where industry is best suited to take the lead in interoperability and harmonization efforts.
Additionally, when appropriate, industry will be integrated into the process to assist in the development of technical
standards and demonstration programs.
That’s key to relations
ITA 2007 http://trade.gov/media/publications/pdf/openskies_2007.pdf
On March 2, 2007, the United States and the European Union (EU) concluded a comprehensive air transport agreement with
the 27 EU countries. The agreement, which was signed in conjunction with the April 30, 2007, U.S.-EU Summit in
Washington, D.C., has tremendous potential for transforming air travel and trade across the Atlantic. The U.S.-EU economic
relationship has contributed to commercial success on both sides of the Atlantic. It has opened investment, promoted trade in
goods and services, and enabled the mobility of persons through initiatives such as the Visa Waiver Program. The United
States and the EU lead liberalization efforts in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and they continue to work together to
remove the remaining economic barriers. The U.S. aviation relationship with the European Union and the member states,
however, has not kept pace with our larger economic and commercial ties. The EU and the United States are the two largest
air transport markets in the world. Together they account for more than half of all global scheduled passenger traffic and 71.7
percent of the world’s freighter fleet. 1 The European country with which the United States has had the closest relationship
overall, the United Kingdom, is the country with which it has it has had our most restrictive aviation relationship. The U.S.EU agreement is thus historic and supports not only aviation liberalization but also the growth of international trade. Aviation
plays an important role in driving globalization, enabling trade by bringing businesspeople together, moving high-value,
time-critical products, and contributing to the expansion of travel and tourism. Open Skies agreements remove regulatory
limits on the number of carriers a country may designate, the number of flights, the routes flown, and the type of aircraft an
airline may use. Open routing provisions that permit unlimited flights between the parties also allow carriers to continue
flights on to third-country markets. While removing barriers to market entry and service, the agreements affirm the critical
operations of civil aviation, such as safety and security. The agreements cover operations by scheduled and charter operators,
for passenger and all-cargo services
The impact is global economic collapse
Zuleeg 2012 (Fabian Zuleeg, Chief Economist at the European Policy Centre. July 15th, 2012
http://www.neurope.eu/blog/transatlantic-single-market “A transatlantic single market?”)
The economic relationship between the US and the EU has certainly not been free of conflict in recent years, be it chlorinated
chickens, alleged favourable treatment for domestic manufacturers such as Airbus or the inclusion of international aviation in
the ETS. Europeans often complain about alleged disregard of health, social and environmental standards while the US
accuses the EU of trying to close its markets. The ongoing increased emphasis on security after 9/11 by the US and more
protectionist rhetoric on both sides in the wake of the economic crisis have recently also weighed on this relationship.
Currently, the US is exasperated by the failure to get the Eurocrisis under control and is looking increasingly to China while
the Europeans still see the US as an obstacle for international financial sector reform and for decisive action to combat
climate change. Reading this list of grievances - and there are many more – might suggest that there is something
fundamentally wrong in the relationship of the US and the EU. In fact, the opposite is true: the EU-US transatlantic economic
space is the most important engine of the global economy, bar none. Not only are there huge trade and investment flows
between the US and the EU, by and large they share common values and economic interests at the global level. This
transatlantic relationship generates significant economic activity on both continents, generating jobs and growth which both
the US and the EU desperately need.
96
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: Politics-Defense
Obama has already spent his capital on next gen-any backlash is accounted for and non-unique
Barkowski 2012- Pepperdine Law Review, J.D. Candidate, Pepperdine University, 2010; B.A. in Economics, University
of California, Berkeley, 2007; Instrument-Rated Private Pilot Certificate, 2008. (Justin B. 2/2/2012 ""Managing Air Traffic
Congestion Through the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Satellite- Based Technology, Trajectories, and Privatization?"" Volume 37 | Issue 1 Article 3 ) PHS
In 2007, "congested skies brought a 10 percent spike in delays," and with projections of air travel demand more than
doubling by 2025, the need for an air transportation infrastructure to efficiently accommodate demand has never been more
important. The current system is running primarily on air traffic control (ATC) 4 technology developed in the 1940s,
resembling "something that was used to guide the Beatles during their first trip to America."' Over half of a century later,
Congress has finally called for the creation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), and nearly every
political constituency is heavily anticipating the transformation, including President Barack Obama's Secretary of
Transportation, Ray LaHood, who has called NextGen the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) next priority.7
97
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: Politics-Thumpers
Both the House and Senate have passed bills in support of Next Gen-all that is needed is stable
funding
Gibbons 2011, Glen. “Air Traffic Control Modernization: FAA, NextGen, GNSS, and Avionics Equipage”
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2582/
In between partisan confrontations around the 2011 federal budget and raising the U.S. debt limit, prospects are improving
for federal legislation that would provide the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with a regular full-year budget for the
first time since Fiscal Year 2007 — including support for completing the transition to a GNSS-driven air traffic control
(ATC) system known as NextGen and a “public-private partnership” to equip aircraft with the needed avionics. Short for
“Next Generation,” the program calls for equipage of ground ATC facilities, airports, and private aircraft with the capability
for generating, displaying, and communicating real-time situational awareness using precise positions of all aircraft operating
in the surrounding air space. During the past five weeks, the U.S. Senate and House passed different versions (S. 223 and
H.R.658, respectively) of a Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act that would expedite
implementation of NextGen. The primary goals of NextGen are to enhance the safety, reliability, and efficiency of air
transportation while reducing aviation’s adverse effects on the environment. It represents the first makeover of the U.S. air
traffic management system in 60 years, first augmenting and then replacing the radar and voice-communications–based ATC
system of today. But it won’t come cheap. The original estimate for implementing NextGen by 2025 — ground
infrastructure, airport equipment upgrades, aircraft avionics, and so forth — was $40 billion . The FAA projected that the
agency’s total spending over the first 10 years would range from $8 billion to $10 billion, and from $15 to $22 billion
through 2025. A recent analysis, commissioned by the FAA’s Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) overseeing
NextGen implementation, modeled a variety of scenarios that assumed different levels of ground capability and aircraft
capability over the long term. According to this analysis, implementing the highest performance levels envisioned in the
NextGen Integrated Work Plan for ground and aircraft capabilities by 2025 could increase NextGen’s costs significantly
beyond $40 billion.The payoff comes in improved efficiencies and throughput in the national air space. According to the
latest FAA estimates, by 2018 NextGen air traffic management (ATM) improvements will reduce total delays, in flight and
on the ground, about 35 percent compared with what would happen if the modernization does not occur. The reduction in
delays will provide $23 billion in cumulative benefits from 2010 through 2018 to aircraft operators, the traveling public and
the FAA, saving about 1.4 billion gallons of aviation fuel during this period and cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 14
million tons.
More ev-Congressional support for next gen now
BOYLE 2012, Rebecca writer for Popsci, via NPR. “Drones Will Be Admitted to Standard US Airspace By 2015”
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-02/under-newly-authorized-airspace-rules-drones-will-fly-alongside-pilotedplanes-2015
Air Traffic Control The FAA's NextGen update is finally being funded. The overhaul of the nation's airspace system will
include different landings for passenger planes and room for drones in human-piloted airspace. FAA
The skies are going to look very different pretty soon, and it’s been a long time coming. Congress finally passed a spending
bill for the Federal Aviation Administration, allocating $63.4 billion for modernizing the country’s air traffic control systems
and expanding airspace for unmanned planes within three and a half years.
By Sept. 30, 2015, drones will have to have access to U.S. airspace that is currently reserved for piloted aircraft. This applies
to military, commercial and privately owned drones — so it could mean a major increase in unmanned aircraft winging
through our airspace. That’s airspace to be shared with airliners, cargo planes and small private aircraft. As it is now, drones
can only use some pieces of military airspace and they can patrol the nation’s borders. Some 300 public agencies can also use
drones, according to the AP, but they must be at low altitudes and away from airports. The FAA has spent years planning
its NextGen upgrade, a new system designed to streamline traffic at airports, save fuel and reduce air travel headaches.
NextGen is a behemoth program that consists of several complementary systems, notably the Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast, or ADS-B in airspace lingo. This system uses GPS to determine aircraft location, and it will enable
planes to land in a more efficient, steep glide, rather than the fuel-wasting stair-step descents of the past and present. This is
already being rolled out in some places, but the new bill requires the FAA to set up new arrival procedures at the country’s 35
busiest airports. Eventually, planes will all have GPS that can update a plane’s location every second, instead of the six to 12
seconds it takes with current radar systems, AP points out. This will allow pilots to know where their planes are relative to
each other, and this could help ease congestion and make for smoother taxi procedures. NextGen has been planned and
debated for years, and the modernization plan has been stymied by Congressional wrangling since 2007. This new bill, which
now goes to President Obama for his signature, will finally get things moving again.
98
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
99
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: Politics-Thumpers
Massive support in the Senate for the plan-existing vote counts prove and thump the DA
Lowry 2012 Joan “Congress passes bill authorizing $63 billion for FAA, including $11 billion for NextGen development”
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/congress-passes-bill-authorizing-billion-for-faa-including-billionfor/article_ce75d2de-5135-11e1-b11a-001871e3ce6c.html
A bill to speed the nation's switch from radar to NextGen, an air traffic control system based on GPS technology being
developed in Egg Harbor Township, received congressional approval Monday.
The bill, which will also open U.S. skies to unmanned drone flights within four years, passed the Senate 75-20 . Passage
came despite labor opposition to a deal cut between the Democratic-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House
on rules governing union organizing elections at airlines and railroads. The House had passed the bill last week, and it now
goes to President Barack Obama for his signature. The bill authorizes $63.4 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration
over four years, including about $11 billion toward the air traffic system and its modernization . It accelerates the
modernization program by setting a deadline of June 2015 for the FAA to develop new arrival procedures at the nation's 35
busiest airports so planes can land using the more-precise GPS navigation. Specifically, that $11 billion will be funneled into
the FAA's NextGen program at the William J. Hughes FAA Technical Center in Egg Harbor Township. Instead of timeconsuming, fuel-burning, stair-step descents, planes will be able to glide in more steeply with their engines idling. Planes will
also be able to land and take off closer together and more frequently, even in poor weather, because pilots will know the
precise location of other aircraft and obstacles on the ground. Fewer planes will be diverted. Last summer, a partisan standoff
resulted in a two-week partial shutdown of the FAA. More than 4,000 FAA employees were furloughed, including 650
people at the technical center. Work was halted on more than 100 airport construction projects and the government lost an
estimated $350 million in airline ticket taxes. Although the Next Generation Aviation Research and Technology Park in Egg
Harbor Township has been stalled, Monday's vote complements the local branch of the NextGen project. Eventually, FAA
officials want the airline industry and other aircraft operators to install onboard satellite technology that updates the location
of planes every second instead of radar's every six to 12 seconds. That would enable pilots to tell not only the location of their
plane, but other planes equipped with the new technology as well - something they can't do now. The system is central to the
FAA's plans for accommodating a forecast 50 percent growth in air traffic over the next decade. Most other nations already
have adopted satellite-based technology for guiding planes, or are heading in that direction, but the FAA has moved
cautiously. The U.S. accounts for 35 percent of global commercial air traffic and has the world's most complicated airspace,
with greater and more varied private aviation than other countries.
The bill is "the best news that the airline industry ever had," Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said. "It will take us into a new
era." The FAA is also required under the bill to provide military, commercial and privately-owned drones with expanded
access to U.S. airspace currently reserved for manned aircraft by Sept. 30, 2015. That means permitting unmanned drones
controlled by remote operators on the ground to fly in the same airspace as airliners, cargo planes, business jets and private
aircraft.
Currently, the FAA restricts drone use primarily to segregated blocks of military airspace, border patrols and about 300
public agencies and their private partners. Those public agencies are mainly restricted to flying small unmanned aircraft at
low altitudes away from airports and urban centers. Within nine months of the bill's passage, the FAA is required to submit a
plan on how to safely provide drones with expanded access. The bill's passage culminates a five-year struggle by Congress to
pass a long-term FAA authorization bill. The last long-term operating authorization for the agency expired in 2007. The
agency has continued to limp along under a series of 23 short-term extensions, but its ability to commit to decisions on major
acquisition programs that extend over many years, like air traffic modernization, was hindered by the uncertainty over how
much it could spend and by a lack of direction from Congress.
100
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: Politics-Turns
Broad bipartisan support for next gen
Jensen 2012, Bart Jensen is a writer for USA today. “Chamber of Commerce: NextGen must be 'a top priority'”
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2012/01/chamber-of-commerce-wants-nextgen-to-be-a-top-priority/602014/1
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports an extension of Federal Aviation Administration policy, which is important for
building the next generation of air-traffic control equipment, as one of its top legislative priorities this year. But chamber
President Tom Donohue voiced doubt at a news conference that disputes which have blocked the legislation for years will be
resolved before the latest temporary extension expires Jan. 31. He says it's more likely for Congress to finish a highway bill
by the end of March than the FAA bill by the end of this month. Bruce Josten, the chamber's top lobbyist, says the chamber
would support dropping a labor provision that has prevented action on the legislation, in order to pass a bill. "I think we
would be happy if we went back to where things were on the labor bill," Josten says. "That means get rid of that provision."
Josten meant that the legislation should return labor policy to what it was before the National Mediation Board change,
according to a Chamber spokeswoman. Congress has reached broad consensus on FAA policy because of support for
updating air-traffic control equipment. "A new NextGen air traffic control system must be a top priority," Donohue says. "It
will ease delays, conserve fuel, create jobs and save lives." But the labor dispute remains the most difficult hurdle for the
legislation that has been temporarily extended more than 20 times since 2007. The National Mediation Board has made it
easier for airline workers to organize. House Republicans would like to undo the board's action with a provision in their
version of FAA legislation, but Senate Democrats have opposed that effort. The two key committee chairmen – Sen. Jay
Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. – say disputes will be resolved by chamber leaders. But because of the
few legislative days before the end of the month, even a compromise on policy might force at least one more short extension
to allow the legislation to move through both chambers. "It appears that the FAA part is the easy part," Josten says. "This, as
I understand, was kicked upstairs at the end of the year to the speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate to resolve the
labor issue. I haven't heard anything subsequent to that."
Congressional support for next gen-it’s shielded from budgetary fights
AIA 2012 “2012 Strategic Plan”
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/about_aia/strategic_plan/
Noting that large commercial aircraft orders and business and general aviation aircraft sales are still below normal, 2011 saw
a marked improvement over 2010 in commercial and business jet orders. AIA is taking steps to ensure that the industry is
positioned to take advantage of new growth when it occurs in 2012 and beyond.
In 2011, AIA continued its focus on educating legislators, policymakers and the general public on the economic and
environmental importance of accelerating NextGen, also part of our message under the Second to None campaign. The
president and Congress support civil airspace infrastructure investment and despite an austere federal budget environment,
continue to fund NextGen programs at levels sufficient to assure on time implementation . In 2012, AIA will continue to
support NextGen equipage funding incentives and will work closely with the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO) to promote harmonized development of satellite-based air traffic management systems worldwide. Through AIA’s
chairmanship of the International Coordinating Council of Aerospace Industries Associations (ICCAIA), we will monitor and
help shape global policy decisions created in United Nations related organizations such as the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change, ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection and the World Radio Conference. Cyber
security, emissions restrictions and spectrum are global concerns and require global advocacy. We will advocate for
continued funding for NASA’s research into environmental mitigation technology and FAA’s CLEEN program and
Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAFFI). We will work with FAA, DHS and other agencies to ensure a civil
aviation regulatory environment supporting continued innovation and a global level playing field. AIA’s efforts in these
areas, and our engagement with FAA to integrate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the NextGen Implementation
Plan, must be continued in close cooperation with regulators and air navigation service providers worldwide. By working
across borders to secure global harmonization of standards and regulations, we will ensure an international marketplace for
our products.
101
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: Politics-Turns
Next gen is extremely popular-momentum for passage now
Babbit 2011 ,J Randolph FAA administrator “Next Gen implementation plan”
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/media/ng2011_implementation_plan.pdf
NextGen is enjoying forward momentum right now, and that means all of us – the FAA
and the entire aviation community – need to continue to work to sustain this exciting progress. That means more than new
technology and procedures; it means a new approach to the way we do business in the NAS. Within the FAA, I’ve launched
Destination 2025, a vision for both transforming our national aviation system and the agency responsible for making it
happen. We’re taking a hard look at how we do things, and making changes to ensure the FAA can meet the demands of a
new century of aviation. We’ve elevated the executive leadership of NextGen to the deputy administrator level. With his
confirmation last June, Michael Huerta became the highest ranking official with overall responsibility for NextGen in the
federal government.
Congressional reauthorization of next gen testing thumps the DA and proves it popular
Huerta 2012, Michael. “Next Gen and PPP’s”
http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/news_story.cfm?newsId=13613&omniRss=speechesAoc&cid=104_Speeches
Reauthorization
As you are aware, Congress passed, and the President has signed, a four-year reauthorization for the FAA that puts an end to
four-and-a-half years of stop-gap extensions.It brings us through fiscal year 2015. The reauthorization provides the FAA the
continuity and focus for our critical tasks – and this, of course, includes the implementation of NextGen. With reauthorization
come many new requirements, from Unmanned Aircraft Systems to NextGen procedures and equipage. Other requirements
are nearly completed or are well underway. The new authorization also includes 23 new rulemakings on safety and other
issues. We are all aware of the challenging budget environment we are now facing. Authorized funding levels remain flat
over the next four years. In line with the President’s direction on efficient spending, we are taking a critical look at what we
do, and identifying ways to do it more efficiently. The reauthorization emphasizes the implementation of new Performance
Based Navigation procedures, and mandates development of these procedures at America’s 35 busiest airports by 2015. We
are already working on this at several airports as part of our Metroplex initiative. There are also new deadlines for ADS-B
In, and additional performance metrics and streamlining of environmental processes that support NextGen. As I mentioned,
the legislation also addresses Unmanned Aircraft. These systems certainly have become a particular interest with the public
and the legislature. These systems are cutting edge technology, and we are committed to safely integrating them into our
national airspace. There is a lot of interest in unmanned aircraft, and a lot of work remains to be done. We’ve established the
FAA UAS Integration Office to lead that work, and we’re identifying six test ranges that will support the integration of
Unmanned Aircraft. And, we continue working on a rule for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems.
House GOP support for next gen
Fox News 2012 “House passes FAA bills over labor objections”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/03/house-passes-faa-bill-over-labor-objections/
A four-year blueprint for aviation programs that hastens the transition to a new air traffic control system based on GPS
technology was given final approval by the House on Friday despite last-minute objections from organized labor. The
compromise agreement between the House and Senate authorizes $63 billion for Federal Aviation Administration programs
through the 2015 federal budget year. It was passed on a 248-169 vote. Final Senate action is expected Monday, culminating
a five-year struggle that included a partial shutdown of the FAA last summer. Lawmakers said the legislation will provide
certainty and stability to programs that are critical to the health of the commercial aviation industry, which accounts for about
5 percent of U.S. economic output. That stability is also important for the FAA's NextGen program, a transition from an air
traffic control system based on ground radar to a system based on GPS technology. The system is central to FAA's plans for
accommodating a forecast 50 percent growth in air traffic over the next decade. The bill requires the FAA to accelerate its
development of new arrival procedures for planes using the more-precise GPS navigation. Instead of time-consuming, fuelburning stair-step descents, planes will be able to glide in more steeply with their engines idling. Aircraft will be able to land
and take off closer together and more frequently, even in poor weather, because pilots will know the precise location of other
aircraft and obstacles on the ground. Fewer planes will be diverted.
102
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: Politics-Turns
Chamber of Commerce supports the plan
ATW 2012 (Air transportation World)
US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Thomas Donohue called on Congress to make transitioning to a satellitebased, NextGen air traffic control (ATC) system "a top priority." Delivering his annual "State of American Business" address
in Washington Thursday, the influential business lobbyist said upgrading ATC should be part of a "broader effort to
modernize the nation's entire physical platform."
103
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: Politics-Winners Win
And, winners win
Singer 2009 3/3 (Jonathan, MY DD [Direct Democracy], http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428)
Peter Hart gets at a key point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent that's true. But
it's important to note, too, that political capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a President expends a great
deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to enact and then succeeds, he can build up more capital. Indeed, that appears
to be what is happening with Barack Obama, who went to the mat to pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed
despite near-unanimous opposition of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the American public as a
result. Take a look at the numbers. President Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in the NBC-WSJ poll, his highest
ever showing in the survey. Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent) view him very positively. Obama's Democratic Party
earns a respectable 49 percent favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing in
the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56
percent place the onus on the Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24
percent blame Congressional Democrats, and a mere 11 percent blame the Obama administration. So at this point, with
President Obama seemingly benefiting from his ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking further and further as a result
of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda, there appears to be no reason not to push forward on anything from universal
healthcare to energy reform to ending the war in Iraq.
The turn outweighs the link-wins overwhelm costs
Lincoln Mitchel, Assistant Professor in the Practice of International Politics, Columbia University, 18 June 2009 (Time
for Obama to Start Spending Political Capital, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/time-for-obama-to-starts_b_217235.html)
Throughout his presidential campaign, but more notably, during his presidency, President Obama has shown himself to have
an impressive ability to accumulate political capital. During his tenure in the White House, Obama has done this by reaching
out to a range of constituencies, moderating some of his programs, pursuing middle of the road approaches on key foreign
policy questions and, not insignificantly, working to ensure that his approval rating remains quite high. Political capital is
not, however, like money, it cannot be saved up interminably while its owner waits for the right moment to spend it. Political
capital has a shelf life, and often not a very long one. If it is not used relatively quickly, it dissipates and becomes useless to
its owner. This is the moment in which Obama, who has spent the first few months of his presidency diligently accumulating
political capital, now finds himself. The next few months will be a key time for Obama. If Obama does not spend this
political capital during the next months, it will likely be gone by the New Year anyway. Much of what President Obama has
done in his first six months or so in office has been designed to build political capital, interestingly he has sought to build this
capital from both domestic and foreign sources. He has done this by traveling extensively, reintroducing to America to
foreign audiences and by a governance style that has very cleverly succeeded in pushing his political opponents to the
fringes. This tactic was displayed during the effort to pass the stimulus package as Republican opposition was relegated to a
loud and annoying, but largely irrelevant, distraction. Building political capital was, or should have been, a major goal of
Obama's recent speech in Cairo as well. Significantly, Obama has yet to spend any of his political capital by meaningfully
taking on any powerful interests. He declined to take Wall Street on regarding the financial crisis, has prepared to, but not yet
fully, challenged the power of the AMA or the insurance companies, nor has he really confronted any important Democratic
Party groups such as organized labor. This strategy, however, will not be fruitful for much longer. There are now some very
clear issues where Obama should be spending political capital. The most obvious of these is health care. The battle for health
care reform will be a major defining issue, not just for the Obama presidency, but for American society over the next
decades. It is imperative that Obama push for the best and most comprehensive health care reform possible. This will likely
mean not just a bruising legislative battle, but one that will pit powerful interests, not just angry Republican ideologues,
against the President. The legislative struggle will also pull many Democrats between the President and powerful interest
groups. Obama must make it clear that there will be an enormous political cost which Democrats who vote against the bill
will have to pay. Before any bill is voted upon, however, is perhaps an even more critical time as pressure from insurance
groups, business groups and doctors organizations will be brought to bear both on congress, but also on the administration as
it works with congress to craft the legislation. This is not the time when the administration must focus on making friends and
being liked, but on standing their ground and getting a strong and inclusive health care reform bill. Obama will have to take
a similar approach to any other major domestic legislation as well. This is, of course, the way the presidency has worked for
decades. Obama is in an unusual situation because a similar dynamic is at work at the international level. A major part of
Obama's first six months in office have involved pursuing a foreign policy that implicitly has sought to rebuild both the
image of the US abroad, but also American political capital. It is less clear how Obama can use this capital, but now is the
time to use it. A cynical interpretation of the choice facing Obama is that he can remain popular or he can have legislative
and other policy accomplishments, but this interpretation would be wrong. By early 2010, Obama, and his party will, fairly or
104
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
not, be increasingly judged by what they have accomplished in office, not by how deftly they have handled political
challenges. Therefore, the only way he can remain popular and get new political capital is through converting his current
political capital into concrete legislative accomplishments. Health care will be the first and very likely most important, test.
105
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: Elections
The public supports spending on next gen
The Examiner 2011
Reportedly, the public supports spending on aviation safety. A poll conducted in early March shows 68 percent of Americans
support new technologies to improve air safety. Furthermore, 65 percent favor maintaining or increasing FAA funding levels.
Only 19 percent polled favor cutting FAA's budget. Finally, a majority of Americans knowledgeable about FAA's satellitebased NextGen air traffic control system support its timely implementation. "Americans support improving our aviation
system," Blakey said. "Funding NextGen is important. It will make our safe skies safer, reduce congestion and delays and
improve aviation's environmental stewardship."
Public massively in favor – cheaper and faster travel
Frasinelli 2009 (Mike Frasinelli, staff writer for the New Jersey Star Ledger, “Lower air fares, reducing delays are top
concerns at Newark
NEWARK -- A new public opinion poll on airports in the New York metropolitan region, including Newark Liberty
International, confirmed with numbers what travelers already have confirmed with bleary eyes and tired feet: Flight delays
are bad and getting worse. "Reducing flight delays" was listed by 92 percent of respondents as an important air travel concern
in the region. The only concern that received a greater percentage was "keeping the price of air fares as low as possible," at
95 percent. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research polled 812 adults in a 31-county, three-state New York metropolitan region,
including 252 respondents from New Jersey. Residents from New York and Connecticut were also polled. The poll was
conducted Aug. 20-27 by the Regional Plan Association, a transportation advocacy group in the midst of a major study on
ways to relieve congestion and delays at Newark Liberty, La Guardia and JFK International airports. The association’s goal is
to research ways to relieve congestion in the next year and recommend which plans of action make the most sense. Jeffrey
Zupan, the study director and a senior fellow at the association, said delays caused by air traffic congestion can damage the
region’s economy. "Consider a business that flies a lot, and they are thinking about relocating in New York," he said. "Why
would they relocate in New York if flying remains a hassle and they see no solution on the horizon?"Zupan said he was
encouraged by the support respondents gave to potential solutions, including better rail alternatives, investment in a modern
air traffic control system known as NextGen and redesign of air traffic flight patterns."What I found most important is that
people were positive about a whole range of things that could be done," he said. After air fares and flight delays, the other top
concerns were "making it easier and faster to check luggage and get your boarding" and "making the security lines easier and
faster," both deemed important by 87 percent of respondents, and "making it easier and faster to get from the security area to
the gate" (86 percent). It was the association’s first poll to gauge public input on the region’s three major airports. The Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates Newark Liberty, La Guardia and JFK airports, called NextGen
satellite technology essential to long-term reduction of flight delays in the region. "The public’s encouraging support for this
modernization will be critical to obtaining the necessary federal funding," the agency said in a statement. "We have been
making runway and taxiway improvements at our airports to improve the movements of planes on the ground, but airspace
and air-traffic control improvements are essential to minimizing gridlock in our skies
Public wants new investment in NextGen – reduces travel cost and delays
Better Airports 2009 (betterairportsnow.org, “NEW POLL: BIG CONCERNS ABOUT NYC METRO AIRPORT
DELAYS” http://www.betterairportsnow.org/2009/09/new-poll-big-concerns-about-nyc-metro-airport-delays.html)
Regional Plan Association today released the results of a public opinion poll on airports in the New York - New Jersey Connecticut metropolitan area. The poll shows that, except for the cost of air travel, the public believes flight delays are the
biggest problem plaguing travel, and that many solutions are heavily supported including better rail alternatives, use of
Stewart Airport in Orange County for more flights, investment in modern air traffic control systems known as NEXTGEN
and redesign of air traffic flight patterns.
106
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: Elections
61% of the public is in favor of NextGen
Better Airports 2009 (betterairportsnow.org, “NEW POLL: BIG CONCERNS ABOUT NYC METRO AIRPORT
DELAYS” http://www.betterairportsnow.org/2009/09/new-poll-big-concerns-about-nyc-metro-airport-delays.html)
There is wide-ranging support for potential solutions. Four ideas received at least 20 % more favoring than opposed. (See
Appendix A: Congestion Proposals.) These include speeded up intercity rail service - 69 % favor and only 27 % oppose; use
of Stewart Airport in Orange County for more flights to relieve the three airports - 64 % favor to 32 % oppose; investment in
modern air traffic control systems known as NEXTGEN - 61 % favor to 34 % oppose, and redesign of air traffic flight
patterns - 58 % favor to 35 % oppose.
Obama will lose the election if he doesn’t boost aerospace infrastructure
Thompson 2011 Dr. Loren B. Thompson is Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief
Executive Officer of Source Associates, a for-profit consultancy. He holds doctoral and masters degrees in government from
Georgetown University and a bachelor of science degree in political science from Northeastern University. May 13, 2011
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/obama-mis-steps-on-aerospace--defense-could-lose-election?a=1&c=1171
The White House has decided not to comment on a looney complaint brought by the National Labor Relations Board that
argues Boeing shouldn’t be allowed to open an aircraft plant in South Carolina because building such a facility in a right-towork state could undercut the bargaining position of labor unions in Washington State. It’s an absurd argument that has
reawakened every fear businessmen harbored about the president being a closet socialist. Speaking as an independent who
voted for Obama in 2008 and expects to vote for him again, I’m embarrassed by the whole affair. But what really worries me
is that if the White House keeps making bad calls on major aerospace and defense issues, the electoral fallout could destroy
its re-election chances. Mr. Obama is by no means a shoo-in for reelection, because his election in 2008 was largely the result
of a promise to end the unpopular war in Iraq and his approval ratings since being elected have seldom managed to rise above
50 percent. Personally, I think he made the right calls on bailing out Detroit and reforming healthcare. But he can’t afford to
offend any of the swing states that will probably decide the outcome of the 2012 election — states like Florida, Iowa and
Ohio — and lately his subordinates seem to be working overtime to do just that. Take the National Labor Relations Board
effort to block the opening of the aircraft plant in South Carolina. The NLRB is sure to lose if the case goes to a federal court,
but in the meantime, thousands of people in South Carolina who might have secured good-paying jobs at the new Boeing
plant will have to keep searching just because they live in a right-to-work state. Obama wasn’t going to win South Carolina
anyway, but how are people going to react to this crazy case in other right-to-work states like Arizona, Iowa and Virginia?
Not by voting for the president. Why doesn’t the White House just admit the NLRB made a mistake and drop the case? Or
take the administration’s inept handling of NASA’s human spaceflight program. Thousands of NASA employees in the
critical swing state of Florida are losing jobs because the Space Shuttle is retiring and the White House decided to cancel a
successor program called Constellation. Voters in Florida’s central region around Cape Kennedy hold the electoral balance of
power between the state’s conservative north and more progressive south, so wiping out thousands of jobs there with a poorly
conceived plan to restructure the manned spaceflight program could kill Obama’s prospects in the Sunshine State. Is it
possible that White House political operatives don’t recall how a few thousand votes in Florida delivered the White House to
Bush in 2000? And then there’s Ohio, the one state that candidates must carry to win the White House. I can’t fault the
administration on pushing to kill an extra engine for the F-35 fighter that would have been built in Ohio, because the engine
was a total waste of money. But to also propose closing the nation’s only tank plant, which is also located in Ohio, is just
plain dumb — dumb as a management strategy (the Army wants to reopen it three years later), dumb as a security policy (we
need at least one warm production line for heavy armor), and dumb as an electoral move (Ohioans can’t help noticing that
they always seem to be in the cross-hairs of administration budget cutters). When is this White House going to wake up to the
fact that the aerospace and defense industry is one of the last big concentrations of organized labor left in the private-sector
economy — an industry whose workers could provide the margin of victory in swing states like Colorado and Missouri and
Pennsylvania and Virginia? I’m not saying the administration should be backing bad ideas just to win votes, but on NLRB,
NASA and the tank plant, it is doing foolish things that alienate millions of voters. A few more mistakes like these and we
could end up with Governor Christie as president in two years.
107
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: Spending DA
Next gen saves tons of money
Bart Jansen [USA Today], 4/4/2012
(Report: Air traffic control improvements would save money,
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2012/04/nextgen/664954/1)
Improvements to the air-traffic control system could save hundreds of millions of dollars each year by consuming less fuel
and reducing flight delays, according to an industry analyst's report released Wednesday. But airlines remain leery that the
Federal Aviation Administration will follow through on improvements that justify buying more expensive equipment for
planes, according to the report by Sakib bin Salam, a fellow at the Eno Center for Transportation, a nonpartisan Washington
think tank. FAA has estimated that its program for improving air-traffic control, which is nicknamed NextGen, will make
flight routes more precise by tracking planes with a satellite global-positioning system. Routes that are more precise could be
shorter, reduce congestion and burn less fuel, saving airlines and passengers money. But according to bin Salam, FAA hasn't
released how it estimated that the program would cost $15 billion to $20 billion to build through 2025, or how it estimated
potential savings that eclipse those figures. To nail down estimates, bin Salam calculated that burning 1% less fuel would
have saved U.S. airlines $229 million in 2010, when fuel was much less expensive than today. Reducing flight delays by 1%
would save $39 million per year, based on the cost of flights and the length of delays, bin Salam said. The FAA projects
much larger savings in fuel and delays. "Even at a minimum, the savings could be significant," bin Salam told industry
experts at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Congress recently approved four-year legislation for FAA, but airlines remain
skeptical that lawmakers will continue funding the equipment and training for NextGen as budgets tighten. Options for
specifying money for the project, such as raising a passenger tax or a fuel tax, would meet fierce opposition on Capitol Hill.
"There is a lot of uncertainty in the industry about how much NextGen might cost," bin Salam said. His report was released
on the same day that FAA officials unveiled NextGen improvements in Houston. Acting FAA Administrator Michael Huerta
said Houston flights are projected to fly 648,000 miles less per year and reduce carbon emissions 31,000 metric tons. For
example, he compared landing now to walking down a flight of steps of descents and accelerations, while under the new
system planes will glide almost at idle like sliding down a banister. "Through NextGen, the FAA and members of the aviation
industry are teaming up to make some of the most complex airspace in the country some of the most efficient," Huerta said.
Next gen is a drop in the bucket and it will be split by the government and the airlines.
Bloomberg News, 2010 (Bloomberg News. “FAA Tries to Accelerate Air Traffic Conversion”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/business/28air.html)
The government is seeking to speed up the installation of a new air-traffic network ahead of a 2020 deadline. The system,
called the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, by the Federal Aviation Administration, uses satellites to
direct aircraft rather than ground-based radar. The upgrade of the network is intended to increase safety, cut delays and save
fuel. It will cost $2.1 billion to $4.1 billion, which will be shared by the government and airlines, Randy Babbitt, the agency’s
administrator, said Thursday in a conference call with reporters. The Obama administration has considered offering
incentives to airlines as a way to install the satellite navigation equipment sooner, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said
in the call, without offering details. “We have the White House’s attention on this, significant enough people where there
could be some opportunities for us to be helpful to them along the way,” Mr. LaHood said. “If we want the airlines to be a
part of it, we have to move things along.” NextGen will reduce total flight delays by about 21 percent by 2018, according to
the agency’s Web site. The installation of new equipment in airplanes, required by an F.A.A. rule announced in 2007, is one
step in the 20-year upgrading of the network that controls the nation’s airspace. On Wednesday, the agency awarded Boeing,
General Dynamics and the ITT Corporation contracts to help integrate new procedures and technologies into the air-traffic
system, the F.A.A. said. The contracts are worth as much as $4.4 billion in the next 10 years, it said. Mr. Babbitt said he did
not expect resistance from airlines to the performance standards for the equipment announced. “They clearly see the benefit,”
he said. “The business case for NextGen becomes clearer daily.” James C. May, the chief executive of the Air Transport
Association, the trade group for airlines, said it was “carefully reviewing” the rule given its cost.
108
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: Spending DA
Next gen saves billions in a very short amount of time
JPDO, 2006 (Joint Planning and Development Office. “Next Generation Air Transportation System”
http://www.jpdo.gov/library/in_Brief_2006.pdf)
As a part of developing NextGen’s portfolio, JPDO is using model- ing and simulation to measure and assess the benefits
created by the new system. For example, as various NextGen capabilities become available, delays will drop substantially,
and fuel use and emissions will be reduced. In optimum weather conditions, delays at roughly the midpoint of NextGen
development are reduced by half, and this reduction becomes even more substantial as the initiative matures. Delay reduction
in adverse weather conditions, a major issue in today’s operating environment, produces equally impressive results. These
improvements, when NextGen reaches its final, system-wide transformation phase, will result in large scale benefits. NextGen improvements on the ground at airports could create benefits ranging from $328 million to $1.3 billion a year. In the low
altitudes around airports, as NextGen moves to maturity, benefits could range from $6.5 billion to $19.7 billion a year.
Benefits accrued through NextGen based operations in the high- altitude cruising environment could yield annual benefits of
between $5.5 billion to $11.1 billion. With such substantial economic benefits to the nation, it is clear that the investment in
NextGen is worthwhile. In addition to the financial benefits, the environment also benefits as emissions, noise and fuel
consumption are all reduced.
Next gen will save hundreds of billions
Forbes 2012
According to the FAA, “This evolution is vital to meeting future demand, and to avoiding gridlock in the sky and at our
nation’s airports.” If fully implemented, FAA analysts indicate that NextGen is expected to save $123 billion in costs by
2030.
109
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: General CPs-Fed Funding Key
Federal funding is key to sustainable development
Warm 2011. David “feds are key to sustainable development”
http://crosscut.com/2011/12/18/real-estate/21695/Feds-are-key-sustainable-development/
Across America, regional communities are actively envisioning and investing in new patterns of sustainable growth and
development that aim to promote economic competitiveness, environmental integrity and social opportunity. For the most
part, these efforts are homegrown, prompted by a host of new market forces, social realities and environmental constraints. In
recent years, the federal government has stepped up its role in this process, bringing engaged leadership, yet also prompting
questions about whether it should be involved in this arena. From my perspective, the answer is clear: federal leadership in
fostering sustainable development is important to both the interests of the federal government and to the health of the nation.
There is a clear and compelling federal interest in promoting sustainable development as a proactive strategy to target and
leverage federal investments in infrastructure, innovation, and human capacity, as a protective strategy to guard the efficacy
of federal assets and investments, and as a preemptive strategy to minimize the need to expend federal resources to mitigate
the environmental, social and economic consequences of inefficient and unsustainable development practices. Progress in
almost every federal policy area — transportation, air quality, water resources, public health, agriculture, education,
management of federal lands and military bases, housing, social welfare, workforce development — is advanced if federal
investments are aligned with sound strategies for the sustainable development of the places in which investments are made.
In addition, the federal government has a direct interest in creating a more competitive economy. The nation’s economic
performance is essentially determined by the health of metropolitan and regional economies. Regions that grow in ways that
are fiscally sustainable, have effective infrastructure systems, and minimize social disparities perform better and contribute
more to national performance. Yet, few formal structures or mechanisms exist for creating and implementing effective
regional growth strategies. American regions are ill-equipped to address the complex challenges of our national future —
challenges that range from energy independence, climate change, and global competition to concentrated poverty, traffic
gridlock, and the housing market collapse. All of these issues are interrelated, and all of them are profoundly affected by how
regions grow. It is imperative to our national future that American regions grow better. We need to build regions that waste
fewer natural resources, create more opportunity, and develop more efficient places that are economically competitive. To
achieve this, federal leadership is both necessary and effective. Federal leadership helps drive policy innovation, promulgate
best practices, create networks across regions that broaden awareness and consensus, and align policies, plans, and programs.
Competitive federal planning grant programs consistently demonstrate that even small levels of funding are powerful
incentives for complex regions to develop cooperative strategies that transcend political and institutional boundaries. Of
course, it is important that the federal government not only supports sustainable development, but that it does so in ways that
are effective. The Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Sustainable Communities Initiative is a thoughtful and promising
approach. It promotes community-driven planning processes and community-generated solutions. It emphasizes outcomes
over means, and it fosters integration of interrelated but traditionally isolated policies in areas such as land use,
transportation, workforce and economic development, and infrastructure investments. The HUD program mandates nothing,
but supports regional communities striving to find solutions that achieve local aspirations, make sense to local markets, and
are embraced by local political values. The HUD program is a low-cost, high-impact approach. It enables regions to move
local priorities farther and faster, to take risks that would be difficult without federal support, to overcome complex structural
barriers, and to create and implement new, authentic visions for sustainable places that support social, environmental and
economic vitality. Moreover, the HUD program articulates principles that have helped multiple federal agencies coalesce
around common objectives and align their programs and policies to be more mutually supportive. If the federal role in this
arena is diminished, regional progress will be slower and less effective and America will suffer. Certainly federal planning
funds are very helpful in supporting work that is hard, if not impossible, to fund otherwise. But federal policy leadership is
even more important. Federal policy affects how regions work in dozens of ways, and regions need the federal agencies — all
of them, not just HUD — to help align their investments and policies with one another and with those made at the state,
regional and local levels. If the federal government is not present, regions cannot make good decisions. Their efforts are
thwarted and enervated by the absence of the most influential player, and the federal funds spent in dozens of areas are not
spent strategically and are often counter-productive. Engaged federal leadership in sustainable development makes sense for
the federal government and it makes sense for America.
110
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: General CPs-Fed Funding Key
More ev-federal funding key
Caruso 2009. Lisa “funding the aviation industry’s conversion to nextgen” National Journal Subscriber.
http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2009/08/funding-nextgen-air-traffic.php
Legislation to reauthorize Federal Aviation Administration programs now moving through Congress would provide
considerable funding to pay for the FAA's part in upgrading management of the national air space to the satellite-based
NextGen system. However, the costs to aircraft operators of adopting the necessary technology are significant, and NextGen
cannot provide the full benefits it promises of a safer, more efficient and environmentally friendly system if only some
operators are properly equipped. The FAA's current NextGen implementation plan calls for giving air space priority to the
"best-equipped, best-served" operators as an incentive to spur early adoption of NextGen avionics. Is this the best approach?
Or should the airlines and other aviation system users get funding assistance from the government, or greater freedom to raise
their own revenues, to fund the cost they will need to bear?
Stable funding needed to solve
Meehan 2012. “Meehan Says NextGen Air Traffic Control Investment Key to Regional Economy”
http://meehan.house.gov/latest-news/meehan-says-nextgen-air-traffic-control-investment-key-to-regional-economy/
Urges President to Sign New FAA policies That Will Improve Safety, Decrease Congestions at PHL PHILADELPHIA –
U.S. Rep. Patrick Meehan (PA-07) today urged President Obama to sign the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization
bill, saying key investments in the bill like the NextGen air traffic control system will boost our regional economy and
improve the safety of our skies. Meehan made the comments while touring the air traffic control tower and meeting with
controllers at the Philadelphia International Airport. VIDEO: Watch Rep. Meehan discuss FAA reauthorization and NextGen
technology. Meehan, a member of the House Aviation Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
was joined by Don Chapman, a facility representative with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, and Mark Gale,
CEO of the Philadelphia International Airport. “This bipartisan bill means faster and safer travel, lower emissions, and an
increase in private sector jobs,” said Meehan. “It will also advance badly needed modernization of our air traffic control
system, which is essential in our congested mid-Atlantic airspace that sees one out of every six flights in the world. This is
particularly important here at Philadelphia International – no airport in the northeast sees more takeoffs and landings.”
Meehan said the FAA reauthorization legislation will advance the modernization of the country’s air traffic control system to
a GPS-based system known as NextGen. This will help ease congestion, decrease delay times and reduce fuel waste.
NextGen technologies are expected to bring a net $281 billion to the overall U.S. economy. The FAA authorization bill
contains no earmarks and does not raises taxes or passenger facility charges. The bill provides long-term stability for the
aviation industry, which accounts for $1.3 trillion in economic activity, and as much as 11 percent of GDP. The FAA
authorization law expired five years ago and is currently on its 23rd short-term extension. The bill, which authorizes funding
for four years, has been passed by the House and Senate and is awaiting signature from the President.
111
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: States CP-Solvency
Even if there’s a paradigm shift, fed is key to overcome the costs to airlines
Stephen Goldsmith Harvard Kennedy School, Zachary Tumin Harvard Kennedy School, and Fred Messina Booz Allen
Hamilton, March, 2010 (“Assuring the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation System A New Strategy for
Networked Governance,” http://www.ash.harvard.edu/extension/ash/docs/nextgen.pdf)
The historic paradigm—and current practice—says that airlines pay for planes; government pays for infrastructure .
Government has always underwritten air traffic control infrastructure—towers and runways, for example—as public benefits.
The airlines have always equipped the planes. “Clearly,” one respondent observed, “government needs to pay for the FAA’s
infrastructure or the infrastructure that’s necessary to deliver the service.” This includes radars, transmitters, ground
infrastructure, and controllers who operate the system. The NextGen paradigm arguably shifts this equation: under NextGen,
public benefit infrastructure relocates from the ground to the cockpit. With infrastructure moving to the cockpits, many
believe that government should fund the capital improvements. After all, the very virtue of NextGen is that avionics in the
aircraft are not just serving the airlines or the airplane operation anymore. They are serving the system—making it more
capable and providing benefits across the board. This then became a case of supporting an important public benefit
infrastructure that has moved from the ground to the plane. If the airplane is to become a central cog in the air traffic control
system, should government not subsidize the required technology on par with subsidies for ground-based air traffic control
equipment? In today’s fiscal climate, those investments are dear, whether by government or industry. One airline executive
asserted that equipping his fleet would cost $80 million to $100 million.
Federal leadership and initiation is key to collaboration-that’s key to solve
FAA 2012
(http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/accomplishments/collaboration/media/NextGen%20Engagement%20Proposal%205-28-10.pdf)
Building NextGen will require collaboration and investment among the FAA, other federal government agencies and a wide
range of participants, including commercial, private, and government flight operators; airport operators, labor, researchers,
the manufacturing community, and local communities. The breadth and complexity of NextGen, however, means that there is
no one-size-fits-all approach to engaging with the community or individual organizations. Overall, engagement needs can be
described in three general categories: Executive-Level Engagement: The FAA needs community input on establishing overall
priorities across capabilities, locations, and timeframes. This input needs to be from executives who can represent their
organizations’ needs and interests. Implementation Engagement: Implementing specific NextGen capabilities requires joint
planning and investments with members of the community to be successful. For these capabilities, the FAA needs to work
with aviation community members who understand operations and technologies to fully define a capability; especially with
stakeholders who need to invest money, resources, and human capital. Dialogue on Performance Metrics: The FAA is
committed to keeping lines of communication open between the agency and the aviation community. The FAA needs to
create a performance management framework that assists future conversations.
112
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: States CP-Solvency
The Courts will strike down the CP-only the Federal government can authorize airport
regulations
AP 2008 (“Appeals court rejects passenger bill of rights” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23795241/ns/travelnews/t/appeals-court-rejects-passenger-bill-rights/#.UAG7TvUVKdY)
A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down a state law requiring airlines to give food, water, clean toilets and fresh air to
passengers stuck in delayed planes, saying the measure was well-intentioned but stepped on federal authority. The 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals said New York’s law — the first of its kind in the country — interferes with federal law governing
the price, route or service of an air carrier. The law was passed after thousands of passengers were stranded aboard airplanes
for up to 10 hours on several JetBlue Airways flights at Kennedy International Airport on Valentine’s Day last year. They
complained they were deprived of food and water and that toilets overflowed. A month later, hundreds more passengers of
other airlines were stranded aboard planes at JFK after a daylong ice storm. The law was challenged by the Air Transport
Association of America, the industry trade group representing leading U.S. airlines. The court said that while the goals of the
law were “laudable” and the circumstances prompting its adoption “deplorable,” only the federal government has the
authority to pass such regulations. “If New York’s view regarding the scope of its regulatory authority carried the day,
another state could be free to enact a law prohibiting the service of soda on flights departing from its airports, while another
could require allergen-free food options on its outbound flights, unraveling the centralized federal framework for air travel,”
the court wrote. Assemblyman Michael Gianaris, the prime sponsor of New York Airline Passenger Bill of Rights, said in a
statement that the ruling “is a disappointment to anyone who has suffered at the hands of airlines that care more about profits
than their customers.” “This is far from over,” the Democrat said. Options for proponents of the law include an appeal, a new
law or putting pressure on the federal government to create similar rules for long-delayed flights. In a statement, the air
transport association said the ruling vindicates its position that airline services are regulated by the federal government and
that a “patchwork” of state and local measures would not benefit customers.
Government investment necessary to spur sustainable private investment
AIA 2009, Aerospace Industries Association (AIA 2009 ""NextGen: The Future of Flying"" http://www.aiaaerospace.org/assets/brochure_aia_nextgen.pdf )PHS
How To Accelerate NextGen NextGen is a national transportation infrastructure priority. The Transportation Department and
the White House are looking at ways to accelerate NextGen implementation by up to eight years. This will only be possible
with robust federal funding support — not just for FAA programs and infrastructure, but also for avionics equipment in the
aircraft that will transport passengers and cargo around the United States and the world. The civil aviation industry — both
commercial and general aviation — is experiencing the worst economic period in its history. For less than the cost of one
high-speed rail project, every aircraft that flies into and out of the 35 busiest airports in the United States could be equipped
with the avionics needed to transition to NextGen. And many NextGen capabilities, such as performance-based navigation,
can be implemented in the short term while the full array of services and technologies of the air traffic system of the future
are certified and produced. Timely implementation of these capabilities will not only improve the business case for operators’
investment, but will vastly improve the overall flying experience for the public.
113
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: States CP-Solvency
Regional coordination across airports is key to solve
Smith 2009 (James F. Smith, professor of environmental, emergency, and disaster management at American Public
University System, “REGIONAL COOPERATION, COORDINATION, AND COMMUNICATION AMONG AIRPORTS
DURING DISASTERS”
http://www.airportstudy2008.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/jfsmith2009finalreport072709.pdf)
Analysis of the interview results and workshop discussions, clarified through review and correction by study participants, led
to a number of recommendations. Starting with the consensus that increasing regional cooperation, coordination, and
communication among airports and between regional groups of airports and other responding or regulatory agencies are
highly desirable goals, it was found that different regions of the country employ different methods, but none are fully
optimized. Interstate mutual aid among airports has different issues than intrastate arrangements; the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact among the states gives liability and reimbursement cover for interstate efforts, but
intrastate arrangements may need new state legislation or expansion of scope of existing state programs. New England’s
airports have extensive cooperation in place and seem interested in a New England Airport Disaster Operations Group 3;
similarly, the Minnesota airports and Kansas City International Airport support a renewed effort to establish a Midwest
Airport Disaster Operations Group. In Florida, the Florida Emergency Management Agency already provides strong
coordination among counties and local agencies, including airports. In New England, the primary interest is interstate, not
intrastate. A yet-unformed national umbrella organization could coordinate assistance requests and volunteer responses
among the regional DOGs; it could also serve as EMAC's aviation coordination function. Within Minnesota, considerable
interest exists in an intrastate mutual aid system among airports, perhaps based on the Minnesota Council of Airports and an
extended application of existing Minnesota state statutes. Of particular interest in the workshops were comments by federal
agencies regarding evolving policies to cooperate with airports, airlines, and local agencies in disaster preparedness,
response, and recovery involving airports. TSA, FAA, CDC, and the National Guard contributed significantly to the
workshops. On June 19, 2009, the FAA issued Advisory Circular 150/2300-31C revising airport emergency plans to require
full implementation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and much enhanced two-way relationships with
communities and their emergency response agencies, opening a strong opportunity to expand regional airport cooperation and
airport(s)-community preparedness. Indeed, regional cooperation and coordination among airports and EMAs is a powerful
and cost-effective form of mitigation against all types of hazards. The 2008 study described best management practices,
innovative preparedness measures, and gaps in preparedness for non-aviation disasters. Airports and their surrounding
communities can effectively enhance preparedness by minimizing or eliminating weaknesses, developing benefits, and
building on existing strengths.14 Documented benefits of cooperation between airports and EMAs include efficiency of
communications; leveraging personal relationships; mutual trust and mutual respect; rapid response; minimization of red
tape; shared experiences building shared expertise; and interoperability and interchangeability of skills and equipment. A lack
of “diagonal” awareness is an issue, where "diagonal" refers to information that jumps organizational levels between different
agencies. Such a lack can create the potential for poor coordination within an airport or an agency and a potential for mixed
signals and crossed communications. The 2008 research also included a preliminary substudy of regional cooperation among
airports during disasters. This substudy's results have been repeated in this 2009 final report, and reanalysis in conjunction
with information from New England, Minnesota, and Louisiana allows significant extension and generalization of the
original conclusions.
114
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: States CP-Keynes DA
And aviation growth spills over to all sectors of the economy
Airlines for America 2012 (airlines.org, “Equipping Aircraft Will Create Jobs and Achieve Environmental and Safety
Benefits Now”)
In September 2008, passenger airline employment fell to 397,400, marking the first plunge below 400,000 since the Bureau
of Transportation Statistics began maintaining these figures in 2003. It also marked a decline of 22,400 jobs from December
2007 and 68,300 jobs since 2003. The jobs created will be high paying jobs - -both manufacturing jobs and jobs created by
the installation and maintenance of the equipage. A viable aviation sector enhances economic activity in a wide number of
industries outside aviation including, among many others, travel and tourism and industries that rely on just in time global
inventories and shipping capability.
Specifically next gen is key to Keynesian stimulus success
JPDO, 2012 (“Next Generation Aitr Transportation System: In Brief, http://www.jpdo.gov/library/in_Brief_2006.pdf,
accessed 7/17/12)
These improvements, when NextGen reaches its final, system-wide transformation phase, will result in large scale benefits.
NextGen improvements on the ground at airports could create benefits ranging from $328 million to $1.3 billion a year. In
the low altitudes around airports, as NextGen moves to maturity, benefits could range from $6.5 billion to $19.7 billion a
year. Benefits accrued through NextGen based operations in the high- altitude cruising environment could yield annual
benefits of between $5.5 billion to $11.1 billion. With such substantial economic benefits to the nation, it is clear that the
investment in NextGen is worthwhile.
115
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: States CP-Keynes DA
And the states can’t solve
Klein, columnist at the Washington Post, 2010 (Ezra, “The Federal Government Has to Step in With Aid For States”, June
18, 2010, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/18/the-anti-stimulus.html, accessed 7/17/12)
Some 46 states are facing budget gaps that will require them to cut spending or raise taxes (Vermont is the only state in the
union that can run a deficit). The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that in 2011, the states will have to make
up a total of $180 billion. This fiscal massacre at the state level is only just starting to attract notice at the federal level. But
it’s a huge deal, the equivalent of a massive anti-stimulus being conducted by the states and which some experts believe has
overwhelmed the $787 billion stimulus passed by the federal government in 2009. Bruce Bartlett is a conservative economist
who worked for Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Jack Kemp, among others. So he’s not normally a fan of more
government spending. But then, these are not normal times. “When the history of the current crisis is written, much of the
blame will be placed on the sharp fiscal contraction of state and local governments,” he says. “I think economists will view
this as a preventable error equivalent to the Fed’s passive shrinkage of the money supply in the early 1930s.”His argument
goes to the very role of stimulus in the economy. People understand perfectly well that boom times feature economies that
seem to be better than they really are. But the reverse is true for busts: They’re worse than they actually need to be. In a
recession like the one we’re in, there’s a lot of labor and productive capacity (machines, shopfloors, etc.) that could be
working, but aren’t. That’s because the economic scare of 2007 has left businesses and families cowering. They don’t know
what to expect in the future, so they spend less now. The role of the government is to take their place and keep the economy
moving until they feel comfortable consuming again.That’s what the federal stimulus was supposed to do. It might have been
too small, and there’s plenty to argue over in its composition, but most private analysts think it did essentially what it
promised: IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers, and Moody’s Economy.com all estimate it created around 2.5
million jobs. The problem is that it wasn’t alone.Unlike the federal government, most states can’t deficit spend. So when the
economy crashed in 2007, they went down with it. First, their tax revenue dried up because their residents got a lot poorer.
Second, some of their expenses went up because there were more unemployed people who needed help. The states with the
most responsible budget practices had reserve funds and tricks that could hold them over for one year, and maybe even two.
But three years in, they’re all up against the wall. And because they can’t deficit spend, they’re cutting services and raising
taxes. Using the data we have from 2009 and 2010, and then projecting for 2011 and 2012, the Center for Budget and Policy
Priorities expects the total state shortfall will amount to $610 billion.That’s almost as big as the stimulus, and because every
dollar of it has to be offset, while not every dollar of the stimulus got spent, it might, in the end, wipe out the federal stimulus
completely. Or you can think about it in reverse: Nick Johnson, who directs the State Fiscal Project at CBPP, says that “the
effect of the federal stimulus was to wipe out the negative effect of the state contraction.”Either way, the net stimulus from
government spending has been a lot less than most of us think it was. Worse, the federal stimulus money is going to thin
dramatically this year, but the state budget problems are sticking around. And with unemployment sitting stubbornly at 9.7
percent, we’re not in any shape to let the federal stimulus peter out and the state anti-stimulus drag us down.
116
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: States CP-California DA
CA budget stabilizing now
San Francisco Public Press 7/17 (“Krugman: California Represents the Worst of Current U.S. Economic Crises”
http://newamericamedia.org/2012/07/krugman-california-represents-the-worst-of-current-us-economic-crisis.php )
The budget pain facing California this year is not California’s fault, said Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist
who has been among the most outspoken writers critiquing the government’s response to what he calls an economic
“depression.” The state budget Gov. Jerry Brown signed Wednesday at least on the surface bridges a $15.7 billion potential
deficit — by far the highest shortfall faced by any state this year. As tax revenues continued to fall below expectations in a
suffering economy, California state and municipal governments continue to slash spending. The state's $91.3 billion budget
represents the lowest state spending level since 1999. “Gov. Brown faces political constraints that, if anything, are even
worse than those faced by President Obama, because of the craziness of California’s constitutional setup,” Krugman said at a
recent appearance at the Commonwealth Club of California. He said Proposition 13, the state’s requirement of a legislative
supermajority to pass tax increases, was the main culprit. More than tax hikes are needed to help ailing states, he said.
Federal aid to state and municipal governments to rehire workers is paramount to ending the crisis.
New spending is paid for by taxes that collapse the economy
Norman 7/17 (Jan Norman, staff writer for the Orange County Register, “Tax hikes would cut Calif. economy by $26.3
billion, study says” http://www.ocregister.com/articles/billion-364095-report-tax.html )
Higher tax rates on top of U.S. wage earners would reduce U.S. output by $200 billion and the workforce by 710,000 jobs
over a decade, according to a report released Tuesday by the National Federation of Independent Business. California's
economy would be $26.3 billion less and statewide employment would be reduced by 76,400, according to the report,
authored by Robert Carroll, a principal at the Ernst & Young accounting firm. The report addresses: Raising the top two
federal income tax brackets from 33% to 36% and from 35% to 39.6%;
Reinstating the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers; Taxing dividends as ordinary income from 15%
to as high as 39.6%; Raising capital gai.s tax rate from 15% to 20%; Increasing the Medicare tax on high-income taxpayers
from 2.9% to 3.8%; Adding a new 3.8% tax on investment income including business income, interest, dividends and capital
gains The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that the short-term effect of these tax increases plus scheduled cuts
in federal spending would be a 1.3% reduction in the U.S. economy in the first half of 2013. The NFIB report focuses on the
long-term macroeconomic impact.
That collapses the US and global economies
San Diego Union Tribune 2009 (“Yes: The State means too much to the Nation”
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/jun/05/lz1e5ross21510-bailout-california/ )
Yet the rest of the country cannot afford to stand by idly as the Golden State drowns in red ink. In the same way that the
federal government has deemed Chrysler, General Motors and the nation's largest banks and financial corporations too big to
fail, California – the world's eighth largest economy – is too big and too important to the nation for failure to be an option.
Since World War II, the state has been an economic driver of the country. A fiscal meltdown in California would have
reverberations throughout the country and the world.
117
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: States CP- California DA Extensions
California key to the US economy
Williams 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/29/californias-ailing-econom_n_222616.html#
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California faces a $24 billion budget shortfall, an eye-popping amount that dwarfs many states'
entire annual spending plans. Beyond California's borders, why should anyone care that the home of Google and the Walt
Disney Co. might stop paying its bills this week? Virtually all states are suffering in the recession, some worse than
California. But none has the economic horsepower of the world's eighth-largest economy, home to one in eight Americans.
California accounts for 12 percent of the nation's gross domestic product and the largest share of retail sales of any state. It
also sends far more in tax revenue to the federal government than it receives _ giving a dollar for every 80 cents it gets back
from the government_ which means Californians are keeping social programs afloat across the country. While the deficit
only affects the state, California's deepening economic malaise could make it harder for the entire nation's economy to
recover. When the state stumbles, its sheer size _ 38.3 million people _ creates fallout for businesses from Texas to Michigan.
"California is the key catalyst for U.S. retail sales, and if California falls further you will see the U.S. economy suffer
significantly," said retail consultant Burt P. Flickinger, managing director of Strategic Resource Group. He warned of more
bankruptcies of national retail chains and brand suppliers. Even if California lawmakers solve the deficit quickly, there will
likely be more government furloughs and layoffs and tens of billions of dollars in spending cuts. That will ripple through the
state economy, sowing fear of even more job losses. Californians have already been scaling back for months as the state's
unemployment rate has climbed to a record 11.5 percent in May. Increases to the income, sales and vehicle license taxes
approved by lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in February acted as a further drag on spending. Personal income
declined in California in 2008 for the first time since the Great Depression, and income tax revenue fell by 34 percent during
the first five months of this year. The decrease in spending is especially evident in automobiles. California is the nation's
largest single auto market, and sales are down 40 percent from last year. Auto dealers see little hope of a quick turnaround,
especially after a 1 percentage point increase in the state sales tax and hike of the vehicle license fee. State agencies also
canceled contracts for hundreds of new vehicles, retroactive to March, said Brian Maas, director of government affairs for the
California New Car Dealers Association. Because California's $1.7 trillion annual economy is so important, the state's
treasurer has asked for federal help _ in the form of a guarantee that would allow California and other states to take out shortterm loans at lower interest rates. A federal guarantee would cut the interest rate on the state's borrowing by as much as half,
saving California taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. "It's not that California got itself into trouble and wants the
federal government to bail it out," said Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Los Angeles. "California wants the federal government to do
for a fee that which Wall Street would do for a fee if Wall Street wasn't broken." But some members of Congress worry about
setting a precedent for bailing out local governments. "You've got many states throughout this country, you've got many
cities that are in tough financial problems, so they will all come for help," explained Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield.
Any extra federal assistance is sure to be a hard sell in Washington and elsewhere because of California's free-spending
image. That may have been true before the recession, but the state cut $15 billion in government spending in February and
plans to solve most of the $24 billion deficit through even more cuts. Government workers face the possibility of three-day-amonth furloughs, teachers are being laid off, lower-income college students stand to lose their grants and hundreds of
thousands of poor children could go without health care. The recession is behind this fiscal turmoil. Some 1 million jobs are
expected to be lost in California in two years and unemployment is estimated to peak at 12.3 percent in early 2010, said Jeff
Michael, director of the Business Forecasting Center at the University of the Pacific in Stockton. Schwarzenegger has
repeatedly stressed that he hasn't asked for a bailout and doesn't want any special treatment for California _ though he likely
wouldn't reject more stimulus funding if it came his way. Economist Stephen Levy, director of the Center for the Continuing
Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto, has argued for another nationwide stimulus package to help all states avoid
further cuts to social programs intended to help vulnerable people. "If we are the bellwether, I would have Californians reach
out to other states and really make a plea for national assistance," Levy said. "The recession is not our fault."
118
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: States CP- California DA Extensions
California can’t spend any more money—they’re on the brink of collapse as is
Klein, columnist at the Washington Post, 2010 (Ezra, “The Federal Government Has to Step in With Aid For States”, June
18, 2010, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/18/the-anti-stimulus.html, accessed 7/17/12)
California has an unemployment rate of more than 12 percent. Most economists would tell you that the Golden State’s next
step is very simple: the government needs to step into the breach and spend money in order to get the economy moving again.
But California’s government isn’t doing that. Instead, they’re raising taxes and cutting services. That is to say, they’re cutting
jobs and taking money that businesses could use to create more jobs. It’s like bailing water into the boat rather than out.
They’re not doing this to be cruel. Their budget is in terrible shape, and their constitution doesn’t allow them to deficit spend.
But in an effort to do right by their budget, they’re doing wrong by their economy.
119
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: States CP-Can’t Deficit Spend
They have no more money!
NYT 7/17 New York Times Politics <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/us/in-report-on-states-finances-a-grim-longterm-forecast.html?_r=1&hp>
The fiscal crisis for states will persist long after the economy rebounds as states confront financial problems that include
rising health care costs, underfunded pensions, ignored infrastructure needs, eroding revenues and expected federal budget
cuts, according to a report issued here Tuesday by a task force of respected budget experts. The severity of the long-term
problems facing states is often masked by lax state budget laws and opaque accounting practices, according to thereport, an
independent analysis of six states released by a group calling itself the State Budget Crisis Task Force. The report said that
the financial collapse of 2008, which caused the most serious fiscal crisis for states since the Great Depression, exposed a
number of deep-set financial challenges that will grow worse if no action is taken by national policy makers. “The ability of
the states to meet their obligations to public employees, to creditors and most critically to the education and well-being of
their citizens is threatened,” warned the two chairmen of the task force, Richard Ravitch, the former lieutenant governor of
New York, and Paul A. Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve. The report added a strong dose of fiscal
pessimism just as many states have seen their immediate budget pressures ease for the first time in years. It also called into
question how states will be able to restore the services and jobs that they cut during the downturn, saying that the loss of jobs
in prisons, hospitals, courts and agencies had been more severe than in any of the past nine recessions. “This is a fundamental
shift in the way governments have responded to recessions and appears to signal a willingness to ‘unbuild’ state government
in a way that has not been done before,” the report said, noting that court systems had cut their hours in more than a dozen
states, delaying actions including divorce settlements and criminal trials. The report arrived at a delicate political moment.
States are deciding whether or not to expand their Medicaid programs to cover the uninsured poor as part of the new health
care law — an added expense some are balking at even though the federal government has pledged to pay the full cost for the
first few years and 90 percent after that. Many public-sector unions feel besieged, as states and cities from Wisconsin to San
Jose, Calif., have moved to save money on pensions. And Washington’s focus on deficit reduction — and a series of big
budget cuts scheduled to take place after the fall election — has made cuts to state aid inevitable, many governors believe. If
federal grants to the states were cut by just 10 percent, the report calculated, the loss to state and local government budgets
would be more than $60 billion a year — which it said would be nearly twice the size of the combined tax increases that
states enacted from 2008 to 2011 in response to their deepest fiscal crisis in more than 50 years. Things are worse than they
appear, the report contends. Even before the recession, Medicaid spending was growing faster than state revenues, and the
downturn has led to even higher caseloads — making the program the biggest single share of state spending, as many states
have cut aid to schools and universities. States do not have enough money set aside to cover the health and retirement
benefits they owe their workers. Important revenue sources are being eroded: states are losing billions of sales tax dollars to
Internet sales and to an economy in which much consumer spending has shifted from buying goods to buying lightly taxed
services. Gas tax revenues have not kept up with urgent infrastructure needs. And distressed cities and counties pose
challenges to states. While almost all states are required by law to balance their budgets each year, the report said that many
have relied on gimmicks and nonrecurring revenues in recent years to mask the continuing imbalance between the revenues
they take in and the expenses they face in the short term and long term — and that lax accounting systems allow them to do
so. The report focused on California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Virginia, and found that all have relied on
some gimmicks in recent years to balance their budgets. California borrowed money several times over the past decade to
generate budget cash.New York delayed paying income tax refunds one year to push the costs into the next year and raided
state funds that were supposed to be dedicated to the environment, wireless network improvements and home care. New
Jersey borrowed against the money it received from its share of the tobacco settlement and, along with Virginia, failed to
make all of the required payments to its pension funds. Texas delayed $2 billion worth of payments by a month — pushing
those expenses into the next fiscal year. Illinois has billions of dollars of unpaid bills and borrowed money to invest in its
severely underfunded pension funds. When desperate budget officials go looking for money to balance their budgets, they
often see public pension funds as an almost irresistible pool of money. One common way of “borrowing” pension money is
to not make each year’s required government contribution. Most places use actuaries to calculate how much money they must
set aside each year to cover future payments — a number known as the “annual required contribution.” But despite the name,
there is usually no enforceable law that the state or locality must pay it. As a result, the task force found that from 2007 to
2011, state and local governments had shortchanged their pension plans by more than $50 billion — an amount that has
nothing to do with the market losses of 2008, which caused even more harm. When money is withheld from a pension fund,
the arrears can start to snowball, because most states count on the money compounding at a rate of about 8 percent.
Eventually the unfunded liability grows unmanageable, given all the other fiscal pressures on states and cities. In addition to
pensions, America’s states and municipalities are estimated to have promised well more than $1 trillion in health benefits —
that most have not started saving for — to their retirees. (The health costs became apparent only a few years ago, when an
accounting rule was changed.) Mr. Ravitch became deeply concerned about the fiscal problems of the states in 2009, after he
120
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
won an emergency appointment as New York’s lieutenant governor during that year’s budget impasse. As he dug into
financial records to devise a fiscal plan, he said, he began to see the extent to which officials had been using one-offs and
accounting gimmicks year after year to make the budget seem balanced. His plan was rejected. Mr. Ravitch spent the
remainder of his 17-month term investigating New York State’s finances on his own and trying to compare what he found
with the problems emerging in other states. But he could not find what he considered an adequate source of information to
document the problem, so he and Mr. Volcker decided to raise money to create one of their own. Last week, Mr. Ravitch was
in Washington, presenting the task force’s initial findings and recommendations to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner,
Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke, and others.
State and local governments can’t fund new infrastructure projects
Khimm 2012 (Suzy Khimm, the Economist, Newsweek, Slate, Foreign Policy, the Wall Street Journal Asia, the Christian
Science Monitor, and Los Angeles Times. BA in literature from Yale University. July 16th, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/16/local-infrastructure-spending-hasnt-come-back-in-fourcharts/ “Local Infrastructure Spending Hasn’t Come Back, in Four Charts”)
State and local budgets are slowly beginning to improve from the worst of the recession. But their spending on infrastructure
projects — schools, sewers and police stations — is still a long way from recovery. According to the Commerce Department,
state and local spending on public construction fell to $242.6 billion in May. That’s the lowest figure in nearly seven years,
notes Governing by the Numbers: “Just two years ago, government funds accounted for 39 percent of all construction
spending. That share has now dropped to less than one-third.” The 2009 stimulus provided a boost to certain infrastructure
projects, including highway and bridge construction and clean water projects. But it was a temporary increase that ultimately
didn’t solve the deep fiscal problems that state and local governments have been facing. Budget cuts hit some types of
spending much harder than others. Spending on education construction — for example, new schools — took an especially big
hit, Governing by the Numbers notes, down 29 percent since 2009. Another target has been spending on sewage and waste
disposal projects, where construction spending has also been steadily falling. One area, however, has been much more
recession proof: After taking a hit in 2010, spending on health care infrastructure has bounced back considerably. That
shouldn’t be a surprise, as health-care spending and employment have continued to grow in spite of the rest of the economy.
121
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: PPP CP
Perm Solves Best
ENO 2012- a neutral, non-partisan think-tank that promotes policy innovation and provides professional development
opportunities across the career span of transportation professionals., (ENO 2012 ""NextGen Aligning Costs, Benefits and
Political Leadership"" http://www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/downloadables/NextGen-paper.pdf )PHS
The private sector could also potentially be a driving force behind funding NextGen. Private sector modernization efforts
could be in the form of a full-fledged privatized ATC system to a public-private financing partnership. Privatization of ATC
is a controversial topic. Proponents of privatization invoke free-market competitive efficiencies and optimal pricing that
alleviates congestion and is self-sufficient in raising adequate operating revenues without need for bureaucratic delays and
the appropriation process. Some have argued for privately funding NextGen by separating ATC from the FAA and funding
its operations by charging private user fees to all aviation users. 51 The idea is that the long-term trend of declining ticket
prices due to increased market share for low-cost carriers means that the passenger ticket tax cannot be relied on as a source
of funding for NextGen. Furthermore, political stagnancy is a hindrance to bringing about changes in a timely fashion.
Finally, there are examples of successful privatized ATCs from countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom.
Arguments against privatizing ATC make the general case that the private sector might not cater to an outcome that is in the
interest of society. A privatized ATC would still require some form of government oversight to ensure safety standards are
met and pricing practices are fair.
CP links to politics
ENO 2012- a neutral, non-partisan think-tank that promotes policy innovation and provides professional development
opportunities across the career span of transportation professionals., (ENO 2012 ""NextGen Aligning Costs, Benefits and
Political Leadership"" http://www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/downloadables/NextGen-paper.pdf )PHS
Making a case for or against privatization is not the focus of this paper, as it deserves more thorough analysis. In any case,
due to its controversial nature, privatization talks in Congress would likely cause more friction than fluency towards
modernization efforts.
Federal funding is key to bring along private investment
Bogdan 2010 Reporter at The Press of Atlantic City http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/communities/eht/uncertaintyabout-benefits-funds-hurting-next-generation-air-transportation-system/article_606a1c4a-86a1-11e1-9a37001a4bcf887a.html
“The problem is there has not been the leadership necessary to bring the private sector along effectively and to move forward
with the technology from the FAA’s perspective,” Schank said. “You need someone who will say, ‘Here are the promises
we’re going to make to the private sector. This is how we’re going to meet the deadlines and performance objectives.’ The
private sector does not want to invest when it’s not clear who’s in charge or how it’s going to get done.”
PPPs fail-development stagnation, risk and no innovation
Rodridge 2009
However, like most initiatives where governments are involved, there are unintended consequences, implying a difference
between the expected and the real outcomes. The two most prominent unintended consequences of a PPP involve
undermining innovation and risk : Innovations. Since a PPP results in less competition as the private company is securing an
intrinsic monopoly, there are limited incentives to innovate, particularly for the purpose of reducing operating costs.
Innovations, such as new management methods and new infrastructures, may also be impaired by regulations and conditions
related to the contract. Therefore, as long as the contract remain effective, inertia (status quo) will endure, which means that
long term contracts can become factors delaying innovation. It can also be expected that investment capital commonly the
outcome of the accumulation of profits would come from the public sector. Since governments often put maximum profits
clauses in contracts (windfall profits), there are limited incentives to use innovations to increase productivity and profits
above the arbitrary threshold. Risk. Strategies involved in the exploration of new market opportunities, such as new services
for customers, are common business practices and always involve a level of risk. While a PPP may reduce several risk factors
because of the implicit public support, both from a financial and regulatory perspective (the government retains its potential
to tax and coerce to achieve its goals), the abatement of risks also has unintended consequences. The goal becomes
compliance to government policies at the expense of focusing on new opportunities and mitigating the associated risk. Thus,
the rewards of risk taking are essentially removed. This can be seen as a reverse form of moral hazard where a government
guarantee undermines the risk taking behavior of private enterprises.
122
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: PPP CP
No private interest in investing in next gen
Lippman 2012
When airplanes are delayed, nobody wins. Airlines lose money. Passengers become inconvenienced. Airports get
overwhelmed. That’s why the FAA is touting an effort that it says could reduce delays by 35 percent by 2018. The project,
which aviation administrators began planning in 2003, is dubbed NextGen, and proponents say it would revolutionize air
travel in this country by switching from radar-based to satellite-based flight-tracking technology. That, along with other
technological advances like improved weather forecasting and communication systems, would allow planes to fly more direct
routes instead of following the existing, inefficient flight paths that are arranged like highways in the sky. The result: More
flights in the air at any given time, fewer delays and less wasted fuel. But the cost is enormous. FAA officials say they’ll need
between $20 billion and $27 billion for the project through 2025. The Government Accountability Office says the cost could
actually be as high as $160 billion. Meanwhile, there’s an ongoing debate about what proportion of the cost should be picked
up by the airline industry, which has historically been skeptical of the benefits of government-mandated technologies. A
recent report from the Department of Transportation’s inspector general said the system will likely face delays because the
“FAA has not made critical, longer-term design decisions on NextGen ground and aircraft systems.” To complicate matters,
the FAA has spent more than four years without a long-term funding bill, thanks to congressional inaction. That’s made it
difficult to pursue larger projects like this one. A long-term bill signed earlier this year should help on that front, but the
funding for the effort is still in question. The president’s 2013 budget calls for just over $1 billion for NextGen, which is a
drop in the bucket. In a Congress focused on spending cuts, launching something like NextGen could be tough. “I’m guessing
we’ll muddle along,” says David Plavin, an aviation consultant. “They won’t provide the big, incremental investment …
that’s ultimately necessary.”
More ev-feds key and no private interest in next gen now
KIRK 2009 Specialist in Transportation Policy Congress Research Services
<http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40608.pdf>
The AIP is one of five major sources of funding for airport development and improvement. Airports also fund capital projects
using tax-exempt bonds, passenger facility charges (PFCs; a local tax levied on each boarding passenger), state and local
grants, and airport revenue. Different airports use different combinations of these sources depending on the individual
airport’s financial situation and the type of project being considered. Small airports are more likely to be dependent on AIP
grants than large or medium-sized airports. The larger airports are also much more likely to participate in the tax-exempt
bond market or finance capital development projects with the proceeds generated from PFCs. Each of these funding sources
places differing legislative, regulatory, or contractual constraints on airports that use them. Bonds, AIP, and PFCs are the
primary sources of funding for airport capital projects. Based on 2001-2005 data, the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO), found that the airport system received an average of $13 billion per year from all sources for capital development. Of
this amount, bonds accounted for 50%, AIP for 29%, PFCs for 17%, state and local contributions for 4%, and airport revenue
for 4%. The average amounts made available for AIP and the average An increase in AIP funding of the size of the AIR21
increase, faces a number of obstacles in the 111 th Congress, that are discussed later in this report, including deficit reduction
efforts, enforcement of pay-as-you-go rules, and the spending of limited available funds on other initiatives such as air traffic
control modernization. For more see, CRS Report 98-579, Airport Finance: A Brief Overview, by Robert S. Kirk. Airport
revenue sources include airfield area fees/landing fees, terminal area concessions and rent, airline leases, parking, etc. PFCs
are sometimes referred to as a “head tax.” Government Accountability Office, Airport Finance: Observations on Planned
Airport Development Costs and Funding Levels and the Administration’s Proposed Changes in the Airport Improvement
Program (Washington: GAO), (continued...) Airport Improvement Program (AIP): Reauthorization Issues for Congress
Congressional Research Service 6 annual PFC collections have been significantly higher since FY2001 (because of the
AIR21 increase in AIP funding and the raised PFC ceiling). Bonds, however, remain the largest source of funding for airport
capital projects. Of the 3,356 airports in the NPIAS, all but 102 are public sector enterprises that usually operate under a city,
county, or state department or a specially created organization such as an airport or port authority. Generally, airports can do
little to influence their financial relationship to their governmental sponsors. On the other hand, airports that handle
commercial service aircraft are able to negotiate the terms and conditions of their agreements with their major users and
creditors. The source of airport development funds sets the different limitations and obligations that influence how project
money can be raised and spent. The availability and conditions of one source of funding may also influence the availability
and terms of other sources of funding. The two financing sources for airports with the most significant federal involvement
are the AIP and PFC programs. As mentioned above, the dependence on AIP to pay for capital needs varies greatly according
to airport size categories, with the smaller airports being more dependent on AIP funding. Large and medium-hub airports
finance much of their capital expenditures by using bonding and PFCs, and rely on AIP for only 16% and 29%, respectively,
123
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
of their total capital spending. For small-hub airports the dependence on AIP grants rises to 51%. For non-hub commercial
service airports AIP dependence rises to 89% and for other non-hub airports to 94%.
124
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: PPP CP
Federal funding sources are key to stability-that’s key to solve
KIRK 2009 Specialist in Transportation Policy Congress Research Services
<http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40608.pdf>
The structure of AIP funds distribution reflects legislatively set national priorities and objectives of assuring airport safety
and security, stimulating capacity building, reducing congestion, helping fund noise and environmental mitigation costs, and
financing small state and community airports. There is less federal involvement in the four other sources of airport
development funds. The main financial advantage of AIP to airports is that, as a grant program, it can provide funds for a
known range of capital projects without the financial burden placed on airports by bond or other debt financing.
More ev
KIRK 2009 Specialist in Transportation Policy Congress Research Services
<http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40608.pdf>
Airports’ grant applications are conditioned on assurances regarding future airport operations. Examples of such assurances
include making the airport available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination; charging air
carriers making similar use of the airport substantially comparable charges; maintaining a current airport layout plan; making
financial reports to the FAA; and expending airport revenue only on capital or operating costs at the airport. Within the AIP
context, assurances are an important means of guaranteeing the implementation of federal policy. When airport managers or
interest groups express concerns about federal regulation and the “strings attached” to AIP funding, they are usually referring
to AIP grant assurances.
Prefer our comparative ev-federal funding solves best-it’s not just a question of sufficiency but of
necessity
GAO 2011 United States Accountability Office, Congressional center for infrastructure regulation and research reports <
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11358t.pdf>
Additionally, the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee recently proposed to the Secretary of Transportation that the
federal government undertake a significant financial investment to accelerate efforts to equip aircraft and train staff to use
key NextGen technologies and operational capabilities, including performance-based navigation (PBN), automatic dependent
surveillance—broadcast (ADS-B), ground-based augmentation system (GBAS) and data communications. The amount of
investment required will depend on how any financial incentives are structured. Financial assistance can come in a variety of
forms, including grants, costsharing arrangements, loans, loan guarantees, tax incentives, and other innovative financing
arrangements. One financing option proposed by the NextGen Midterm Implementation Task Force to encourage the
purchase of aircraft equipment is the use of equipage banks, which would provide federal loans to operators to equip their
aircraft. Another financing option, proposed in various forms by a variety of stakeholders, would involve setting up an
equipage fund using private equity backed by federal loan guarantees. While the details of different proposals vary, they
would all allow operators who purchase equipment through the fund to defer payments on the equipment until FAA makes
improvements required for the operators to benefit from the equipment. As we have previously reported, prudent use of
taxpayer dollars is always important; therefore, any financial incentives should be applied carefully and in accordance with
key principles. For example, mechanisms for financial assistance should be designed so as to effectively target parts of the
fleet and geographical locations where benefits are deemed to be greatest, avoid unnecessarily equipping aircraft (e.g., those
that are about to be retired), and not displace private investment that would otherwise occur.
No private company will cooperate with any federal direction-means the CP fails
Stephen Goldsmith Harvard Kennedy School, Zachary Tumin Harvard Kennedy School, and Fred Messina Booz Allen
Hamilton, March, 2010 (“Assuring the Transition to the Next Generation Air Transportation System A New Strategy for
Networked Governance,” http://www.ash.harvard.edu/extension/ash/docs/nextgen.pdf)
Mandates. From FAA’s perspective, mandates are appropriate only when there is not—or never will be—sufficient incentive
for operators to equip. However, mandates have the effect of reducing business uncertainty—which some operators might
prefer, if intelligently applied and matched by government action. If, for example, FAA mandated the purchase of equipment
of a certain level in order to operate in New York Class B airspace, this would be—according to one observer—“a no brainer.
I can walk into my board meeting and get approval in 15 minutes.”
125
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: PPP CP
Privatization fails the air sector
Lippman 2012 Contributer to “Governing” Magazine http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov5-biggest-us-infrastructure-projects-plus-5-at-risk.html
When airplanes are delayed, nobody wins. Airlines lose money. Passengers become inconvenienced. Airports get
overwhelmed. That’s why the FAA is touting an effort that it says could reduce delays by 35 percent by 2018. The project,
which aviation administrators began planning in 2003, is dubbed NextGen, and proponents say it would revolutionize air
travel in this country by switching from radar-based to satellite-based flight-tracking technology. That, along with other
technological advances like improved weather forecasting and communication systems, would allow planes to fly more direct
routes instead of following the existing, inefficient flight paths that are arranged like highways in the sky. The result: More
flights in the air at any given time, fewer delays and less wasted fuel. But the cost is enormous. FAA officials say they’ll need
between $20 billion and $27 billion for the project through 2025. The Government Accountability Office says the cost could
actually be as high as $160 billion. Meanwhile, there’s an ongoing debate about what proportion of the cost should be picked
up by the airline industry, which has historically been skeptical of the benefits of government-mandated technologies. A
recent report from the Department of Transportation’s inspector general said the system will likely face delays because the
“FAA has not made critical, longer-term design decisions on NextGen ground and aircraft systems.” To complicate matters,
the FAA has spent more than four years without a long-term funding bill, thanks to congressional inaction. That’s made it
difficult to pursue larger projects like this one. A long-term bill signed earlier this year should help on that front, but the
funding for the effort is still in question. The president’s 2013 budget calls for just over $1 billion for NextGen, which is a
drop in the bucket. In a Congress focused on spending cuts, launching something like NextGen could be tough. “I’m guessing
we’ll muddle along,” says David Plavin, an aviation consultant. “They won’t provide the big, incremental investment …
that’s ultimately necessary.”
More ev-foreign cases don’t translate
Sclair 2010 Professor at Columbia
http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/PitfallsofATCPrivatization.pdf
Advocates are often fond of looking to foreign cases when expounding the benefits of privatization. This is certainly true in
the case of ATC privatization.5 Even a cursory 4 On November 19, 2001, President Bush signed legislation creating a federal
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which, among other things, employs and manages federal employees who
conduct airport security screenings. 5 See, for example, Poole, Robert and Viggo Butler, “How to Commercialize Air Traffic
Control,” Reason Public Policy Institute, Policy Study 278, February 2001. Review of private ATC provision in foreign
countries, however, demonstrates the inherent dangers of the monumental change the U.S. is being urged to make. Three
different “types” of privatization have been attempted abroad: (1) sell-off to a for-profit entity, (2) a private entity wholly
owned by the government, and (3) establishment of a non-profit entity managed by a “stakeholders board”. These are
reflected by cases of privatization in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada respectively. Reviews of international cases
of each type directly contradict the ability of privatization to effectively address any of the blanket concerns expressed by
advocates – price, technology, or funding. Privatization advocates often presume a private “efficiency” advantage. Several
ATC privatization efforts have been successful at reducing total costs. However, the “at what price?” question is rarely asked.
Evidence from Canada and Australia suggests that the price is safety and employee satisfaction, both of which bring new
costs. In Canada, NAV CANADA has been successful at keeping costs low by negotiating with Controllers to keep flexible
schedules. As a result, fewer Controllers need to be hired and labor costs are kept low. The second result of this cost
containment strategy has been an operational irregularity rate of two per 100,000 aircraft movements – over twice that of the
American rate for a system 7% of our size.6 Controllers in Canada are stretched to the point of being unable to perform their
jobs.7 Cost saving work rules have so infuriated controllers in Australia that a series of strikes have crippled air traffic
movement for hours at a time at a high cost to Australians as a whole. 8 In both of these cases, cost savings strategies have
translated to new, more serious problems with safety and efficiency. A second claim of privatization advocates is that public
bureaucracies have a poor record of providing modern technology and that private ATC systems would be innovative and
speedy adapters of new technology. The Canadian, Australian, and British cases all demonstrate that this is in fact not the
case. Technological “innovation” in Canada has consisted of waiting for the U.S. to develop new technology and then
importing it. Cases where private ATC providers have attempted to hastily implement novel technology in response to
“incentives” are even more disconcerting. In Australia, implementation of Airservices Australia’s, The Australian Advanced
Air Traffic System (TAAATS) has led to several technological failures, including a twelve minute radar blackout.9 In the
United Kingdom, introduction of new software has caused severe disruptions and system shutdowns.10 Controllers in a new
London area facility have been unable to make out the call numbers of planes on their new Sony screens, which is a major
safety hazard. Anecdotal evidence from newspaper reports has suggested major inefficiency and safety hazards associated
with private implementation of new technology in this vital piece of national infrastructure. Far from supporting the argument
126
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
that privatization brings better technology quicker, international cases demonstrate a substantial risk of technological failure.
The third blanket claim common to most privatization proposals is that the funding stream associated with a private ATC
provider would keep costs to users down, and isolate the government from the risk of escalating provision costs. Review of
the Canadian and British cases both demonstrate cost escalations and increased user fees. In Canada user fees have increased
several times since NAV CANADA’s inception, and particularly since the traffic downturn of the past year. The system is
structured in such a way that even when the control fee charged to airlines decreases, passengers end up paying more. By
2002, the average fee per-traveler increased from $12 to $22.11 The user fee system in Canada has definitely hit travelers as
ticket prices have increased dramatically. 9 Daily Telegraph, July 8, 2000 10 Daily Mail, March 28, 2002 11 The Toronto
Star, July 8, 2000 11The situation in the United Kingdom is even more problematic. The British privatized their ATC
services by selling a 46% stake to a consortium of seven airlines, and an additional 5% to employees. The government
retained 49% plus an extra “golden share.” Over the past year the government has had to bail out the new National Air
Traffic Services (NATS) twice, to the tune of $131 million – about two thirds of the original sale price. The private sector
holds 46% percent of the equity in NATS, but as the recent government bailouts have demonstrated, the private sector is
assuming none of the risk. Air traffic control is a vital public service, one in which a shutdown or catastrophic failure would
cripple the nation. Regardless of technical or legal responsibility, the government will always be in a position of having to
ensure continuing service. As has been made clear by the British case, market-based privatization of the air traffic control
system means that the government surrenders its vital assets, but continues to assume the costs and final responsibility for
ensuring continuing service. This situation could not possibly be described as “stabilized.”
127
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: PPP CP
Privatization has empirically failed
Robert Poole Jr., Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow and Director of Transportation Policy at the Reason
Foundation, April 2012 (“Annual Privatization Report 2011: Air Transportation,”
http://reason.org/files/aviation_annual_privatization_report_2011.pdf)
There have been two major developments in U.S. airport screening in 2011, the year of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11
terrorist attack. One concerns the future of the program under which airports are allowed to outsource passenger and baggage
screening to firms certified by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The other concerns an apparent shift by the
TSA towards a more risk-based approach to aviation security, with the launch of a Trusted Traveler program. A. Passenger
and Baggage Screening When Congress enacted the Aviation & Transportation Security Act (ATSA) in November 2001, it
had to reconcile two very different approaches. The Senate bill called for complete “federalization” of airport screening, in
which a new federal agency (the TSA) would take over all passenger and baggage screening at all air-carrier airports, using a
new federal workforce of well-trained people. The House bill called for replacing the former system (in which the FAA
required airlines to hire screening firms for each airport concourse) with a new system in which the airports would be
responsible for screening, which they would do under federal supervision, either with a workforce of their own (meeting
federal training and performance standards) or from security contractors that met federal training and performance standards.
Because the White House had announced it would not veto a bill based on the Senate’s highly centralized approach, the final
bill was mostly the Senate’s approach. In a concession to the House, it permitted five airports to opt out initially, as a pilot
program. After 2004, all other airports in theory would be allowed to opt out. In the years since then, no airport that already
had a large TSA screener workforce in place chose to “kick out” the TSA screeners—though all five original opt-out airports
(including San Francisco and Kansas City) have chosen to remain with contract service. The only airports that have taken
advantage of the post-2004 opt-out provision have been small airports—either ones just beginning to offer scheduled air
service at the level that requires airport screening or a few where TSA had difficulty matching its screener workforce levels
to large seasonal variations in passenger traffic.
Perm is key—empirically outsourcing from the perspective of the government avoids congress
Robert Poole Jr., Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow and Director of Transportation Policy at the Reason
Foundation, April 2012 (“Annual Privatization Report 2011: Air Transportation,”
http://reason.org/files/aviation_annual_privatization_report_2011.pdf)
A more recent example of outsourcing is the Flight Service Station program. This set of facilities that provide flight plan
filing and weather briefing services to private pilots was technologically outdated and very costly to operate. In 2005
Lockheed Martin won a competitive contract to modernize and consolidate FSS facilities. Thanks to a significant investment
in automation and displays, this labor-intensive and facility-intensive program has been reduced from 58 sites to just six
(three hubs and three satellite facilities) and from around 2,000 people to just over 600. FAA’s monitoring reports find that
the program is meeting or exceeding all 20 customer service performance metrics. The most recent example of service
outsourcing concerns one of the key building blocks of the NextGen ATC modernization program. Called ADS-B, it’s a way
of keeping track of aircraft locations using GPS position information, which is far more accurate than radar for this purpose.
Rather than simply purchasing, installing and operating the hardware for the nationwide network of ADS-B ground stations,
the ATO put out to bid the service of procuring, installing, operating and maintaining the entire network. The winning bidder
was ITT, and the installation of the ground stations nationwide is proceeding on schedule. Finally, ATC governance reform
seems to be going into reverse as of 2011. In fall 2010 the FAA commissioned Monitor Group to do an organizational review
of the entire FAA. Perhaps because the ATO’s creation has never been fully accepted within some quarters of the FAA, the
report picked up on differences within the organization and ended up recommending creation of “One FAA Culture.” It also
identified areas of “duplication” between the ATO and the rest of FAA, and its number-one recommendation was to
“optimize shared services”—which would strip the ATO of its own information technology, finance and acquisitions
functions. That, in effect, would dismantle the ATO as the platform from which a self-supporting ANSP could be created, as
envisioned by numerous commission and consulting reports, including two from the Clinton administration plus the Mineta
Commission. Since the consolidation of functions that created the ATO was authorized by Congress, undoing it will also
require congressional approval—which may or may not be forthcoming.
128
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: PPP CP-Monopolization Turn
Air privatization is unstable and leads to monopolization
Elliot Sclar 2010, Professor, an economist and urban planner, is the Director of graduate programs in Urban Planning at
Columbia, won the Louis Brownlow Award for the Best Book of 2002 from the National Academy of Public Administration
and the 2001 Charles Levine Prize from the International Political Science Association, February 2003 (“Pitfalls of Air
Traffic Control Privatization,” http://www.controladoresaereos.org/wp-content/uploads/pitfalls-of-atc-privatization.pdf)
Privatization advocates point to cases of air traffic control privatization in other countries to highlight the potential value of
privatization for the United States (U.S.). However, an independent review of three prominent international privatizations,
Australia, Canada, and Great Britain demonstrate the dangers of privatization and the inability of private air traffic controller
(ATC) monopolies to effectively deliver positive results in any of the three criteria that prompt privatization consideration:
reducing cost, increasing the speed of modernization, or stabilizing funding. Further, the case reviews demonstrate that
privatized air traffic control systems tend to impose greater costs on users, are prone to technological failure as well as
disruptive labor disputes, and privatizers ultimately rely on government backing, to costly effect. In Canada, the privatized
system has led to massive increases in user fees for passengers, and dangerous understaffing in towers. In Australia,
excessive demands on controllers have led to a series of strikes, while failures with new technologies led to actual radar
blackouts and major traffic disruptions. In the United Kingdom, the newly privatized National Air Traffic System (NATS)
has been forced to go to the government for financial bailouts valued to date at two thirds of the original sale price, while
technological failures have led to multiple system shutdowns and operational irregularities. Evaluation of the nature of air
traffic control provision suggests that privatization cannot address the efficiency concerns advanced by its advocates. ATC
cannot be competitively bid. The profit making market based incentives for efficiency and economy that are supposed to
motivate a private provider do not easily align with the government’s abiding interests in safety and security. Moreover, cross
subsidy, which maintains geographic diversity in service provision, is not sustainable under the proposed user fee system.
The labor intensive, and inherently monopolistic nature of air traffic control provision undermines effective private provision.
Monopolistic, revenue-driven organizations, regardless of profit or not-for-profit status, have little incentive to keep fees at a
minimum. “Efficiency” in a labor-intensive service necessarily consists of staff minimization strategies, which tend to be
contrary to the safety principle that lies at the heart of ATC work. More importantly, as more and more private enterprises
have access to the vital air traffic control information as a result of the increased use of contractors and subcontractors, the
U.S. is more exposed to the potential threat of terrorist activities.
That causes massive inefficiencies that turn the case
Elliot Sclar 2010 Professor, an economist and urban planner, is the Director of graduate programs in Urban Planning at
Columbia, won the Louis Brownlow Award for the Best Book of 2002 from the National Academy of Public Administration
and the 2001 Charles Levine Prize from the International Political Science Association, February 2003 (“Pitfalls of Air
Traffic Control Privatization,” http://www.controladoresaereos.org/wp-content/uploads/pitfalls-of-atc-privatization.pdf)
Any serious commitment to improve the performance of the ATC system must start with a clear analysis of the problem and
then link proposals for change directly to the problem. Cost and modernization issues at the FAA are not problems of
bureaucratic incompetence. Rather they are multidimensional problems with far more powerful proximate causes. Among
other factors, the pure scale of the enterprise, unmanaged growth in air travel, lack of adequate institutional support, and
restructuring of the airline industry impact air traffic control efficiency. The ability of the FAA to respond is certainly a
consideration, but it is not the determining consideration. Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to conclude that public
management was the critical issue, any solution must reflect full cognizance of the nature of air traffic control work as a
delivered service and the way in which an organizational change such as privatization would impact that work over time.
That has not been done in any of the studies the Project Team reviewed. Instead the studies simply imply that a restructuring
of economic incentives such as landing fees paid to a new agency, bonuses, and other rewards for employees will serve to
alter bureaucratic behavior and cause the agency to handle more air traffic, more efficiently, and at a lower cost. While that is
one possible outcome, it is equally, if not more, plausible that the incentives will distort behavior so that safety and security
are jeopardized in the name of efficiency, that user costs will skyrocket, that the government will be forced into a massive
financial bailout due to the inability to fully transfer associative risk with an air traffic control privatization, that the cost of
the FAA’s remaining security and safety responsibilities will swell as independent entities become responsible for
implementation of safety standards, and that technological fixes will be implemented without adequate testing, bringing
chaos to the air traffic control system.3 In general, privatization is a blunt instrument of organizational change. In many
ways it is at variance with much of the general consensus in the management literature that effective organizational change is
a process of continual improvement focused upon the actual work of service delivery. To make a case for privatization it is
necessary to demonstrate that the problem is so extreme that incremental improvement is unworkable. Privatization
proponents assert that to be the case, but they never identify the specific basis within the FAA for this conclusion. Typically,
privatizations are aimed at improving efficiency by introducing competitive behavior to a marketplace. It is clear to all
129
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
parties, however, that there is no potential for competition in the air traffic control market. Air traffic control is too
infrastructure dependent, and far too vital to our national interest to set up multiple competitive systems. Services cannot be
rebid at any level of frequency if we hope to maintain continuity in a knowledge-dependent industry. Privatization advocates
would agree with this assessment of the inherent impossibility of inserting competition into the air traffic control market.
However, they turn to general notions found in privatization theory that assert that, because private organizations can provide
economic rewards to employees who further the profit or surplus generating potential of the organization, it will become
more efficient in fulfilling its mission. The privatization literature also suggests that public agencies are entrenched and
intractable to change. However there is also management literature that demonstrates that public agencies are as amenable to
improvement as private ones as long as the problem is properly specified.
130
Harvard Debate Workshop
Wave 2
Next Generation Airport Aff
Name
A2: PPP CP-Links to Net Benefit
National security hawks hate the CP
GSN, Government Security News, February 8, 2012 (“Senate homeland security leader lambastes security privatization
measure in FAA bill,” http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/25603)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said in the hours before the bill’s passage, that while he supports the overall bill, the SPP measure
is particularly troubling, because TSA has proven that privatized operations aren’t as cost-effective as TSA’s screening,
weakens security and won’t eliminate the pat-downs, scanners and material restrictions that have angered the public and
some in Congress. “At stake is TSA's management of the Screening Partnership Program (SPP), which allows a limited
number of airports around the country to replace Transportation Security Officers (TSO) with private contractors to screen
passengers and their baggage,” said Lieberman. “TSA has implemented this program at airports where, due to low traffic
volume, full time, year-round federal staff is unnecessary. A handful of larger airports take part in the program so TSA can
measure and assess its performance and cost effectiveness against the private contractors. It is telling that TSA's assessment
after comparing the two systems is that it can secure airports more economically than private screeners can.” Lieberman
called the measure’s backing by other House and Senate members “regrettable” and it “undermine (s) the TSA -- and
therefore airport security itself - by advocating for the pre-9/11 system of screening by private contractors. My response to
that is: how quickly we forget,” he said. “I know it is fashionable in some quarters to criticize TSA,” said Lieberman.
“Understandably, people are unhappy with pat-downs, body scans, and invasions of privacy. But TSA establishes its policies
for a reason. They are a direct response to real terrorist threats,” he said. The agency has evolved to suppress the evolution of
terror threats, from shoe bombs, to liquid explosives, he said, castigating House and Senate members for wishful thinking.
“They are real incidents and the reason that TSA makes so many demands on the flying public. And we should not delude
ourselves or the American people into thinking that adopting a contract workforce will eliminate the need for body scanners,
pat-downs or any other security procedure TSA determines is necessary to secure air travel; regardless of whether an U.S.
airport uses federal screeners or private ones, the security procedures implemented are the same.” Lieberman said the
provision lowers the bar for airports looking to implement private screeners. “Right now, airports must demonstrate that a
private screening workforce would be more effective, secure, and efficient, than the TSA,” he said. “The standard tucked into
this bill, however, ‘would only require airports to demonstrate that using private screeners would not compromise security or
detrimentally affect the cost-efficiency or the effectiveness of screening.’”
131