USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
1/77
EB STEM AFF
EB STEM Aff ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1AC PLAN TEXT ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1AC Nanoweapons Adv – 1/2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1AC Nanoweapons Adv – 2/2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1AC Competitiveness Adv – 1/3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
1AC Competitiveness Adv – 2/3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
1AC Competitiveness Adv – 3/3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 8
1AC RMA Adv – 1/2 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
1AC RMA Adv – 2/2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10
1AC Science Diplomacy Adv – 1/2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
1AC Science Diplomacy Adv – 2/2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
1AC Aerospace Adv – 1/2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13
1AC Aerospace Adv – 2/2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14
1AC Semiconductors Adv – 1/3 .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
1AC Semiconductors Adv – 2/3 .............................................................................................................................................................. 16
1AC Semiconductors Adv – 3/3 .............................................................................................................................................................. 17
1AC Defense Industrial Base Adv – 1/3 .................................................................................................................................................. 18
1AC Defense Industrial Base Adv – 2/3 .................................................................................................................................................. 19
1AC Defense Industrial Base Adv – 3/3 .................................................................................................................................................. 20
1AC Heg Impacts – 1/3............................................................................................................................................................................ 21
1AC Heg Impacts – 2/3............................................................................................................................................................................ 22
1AC Heg Impacts – 3/3............................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Inherency – Backlogs Now ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Inherency – Foreign Students Deterred.................................................................................................................................................... 25
Inherency – Worker Shortage Now ......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Inherency – Worker Shortage Now ......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Inherency – Worker Shortage Now ......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Nano Adv – Link to Semiconductors ....................................................................................................................................................... 29
Nano Adv – Solvency .............................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Competitiveness Adv – Uniqueness ........................................................................................................................................................ 31
Competitiveness Adv – Perception Key .................................................................................................................................................. 32
Competitiveness Adv – Reverse Brain Drain .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Econ Adv – Uniqueness (No Growth Now) ............................................................................................................................................ 34
Econ Adv – Growth 2AC 1/2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Econ Adv – Growth 2AC 2/2 ................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Econ Adv – Solvency............................................................................................................................................................................... 37
RMA Adv – Heg 2AC ............................................................................................................................................................................. 38
RMA Adv – Terror 2AC .......................................................................................................................................................................... 39
RMA Adv – China/NK Add-on 1/2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 40
RMA Adv - China/NK Add-on 2/2.......................................................................................................................................................... 41
RMA Adv – Link to Nanotech ................................................................................................................................................................. 42
RMA Adv – AT: Tech Reliance Bad ....................................................................................................................................................... 43
RMA Adv – AT: Impact Turns (RMA Bad) ............................................................................................................................................ 44
Science Diplomacy Adv – Econ Link ...................................................................................................................................................... 45
Science Diplomacy Adv – Egyptian Relations ........................................................................................................................................ 46
Science Diplomacy Adv – Arctic Conflict ............................................................................................................................................... 47
Science Diplomacy Adv – Solvency ........................................................................................................................................................ 48
Aerospace Adv – Key to Heg .................................................................................................................................................................. 49
Aerospace Adv – GLASS Extensions ...................................................................................................................................................... 50
Aerospace Add-On 2AC – Airpower 1/2 ................................................................................................................................................. 51
Aerospace Add-On 2AC – Airpower 2/2 ................................................................................................................................................. 52
Aerospace Add-On 2AC – Key to Econ .................................................................................................................................................. 53
Semiconductors Adv – Econ Add-on....................................................................................................................................................... 54
Warming Add-On 2AC 1/2 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 55
Warming Add-on 2AC 2/2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 56
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Boomsticks Aff
Gonzo
2/77
Warming Adv – AT: CO2 Fertilization ................................................................................................................................................... 57
Warming Adv – AT: Ice Age 1/2............................................................................................................................................................. 58
Warming Adv – AT: Ice Age 2/2............................................................................................................................................................. 59
Warming Adv – AT: SO2 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 60
Infrastructure (Engineers) Add-On 2AC .................................................................................................................................................. 61
Federal Budget Add-On 2AC – 1/2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 62
Federal Budget Add-On 2AC – 2/2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 63
Federal Budget Add-On – Heg Impact .................................................................................................................................................... 64
Broadband Add-On 2AC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Deterrence Add-On 2AC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 66
Pharma Add-On 2AC – 1/2...................................................................................................................................................................... 67
Pharma Add-On 2AC – 2/2...................................................................................................................................................................... 68
Nuclear Industry Add-On 2AC ................................................................................................................................................................ 69
Cyberdefense Add-On 2AC ..................................................................................................................................................................... 70
Solvency – Visa Caps Key ....................................................................................................................................................................... 71
Solvency – AT: Export Regulations (Can’t Work in Defense) ................................................................................................................ 72
Solvency – AT: H1Bs Better ................................................................................................................................................................... 73
Solvency – AT: Crowd Out Grad Students .............................................................................................................................................. 74
Random – AT: Math Bad ......................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Random – AT: Angent CP ....................................................................................................................................................................... 76
NEG – Visas Not KEy ............................................................................................................................................................................. 77
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
3/77
1AC PLAN TEXT
Plan: The United States Federal Government should exempt foreign nationals with advanced degrees in science, technology,
engineering, and/or mathematics from numerical limits on the total number of available employment-based visas. We’ll
clarify.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
4/77
1AC NANOWEAPONS ADV – 1/2
Advantage One is Nanoweapons
Nanotech is inevitable – the arms race is already happening and the US is falling behind
Salvi 8 (Aatish, Vice president of the NanoBusiness Alliance. “A global technology race the U.S. must win,” 12/25,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-salvi-kimbrell25feb25, 0, 5524858.STORY)
A common misconception about nanotech is that it is a single technology. Unlike biotechnology (which focuses on genes and DNA)
or information technology (which focuses on microchips and software), nanotechnology encompasses a collection of methods and
tools for dealing with all matter at the nano scale. It is best thought of as a new approach to building things. Working at the nano
scale allows us to manufacture with unparalleled precision and efficiency. Rather than mining tons of ore at a great cost to the
environment to find a handful of diamonds, nanotechnologists can start with carbon and build a flawless diamond one atom at a time.
Because they are so precise, nanotech processes waste less material, consume less energy and produce better results. Nanotechnology
is the frontier of innovation; given its potential, it is not surprising that it is the focus of a global scientific race. The prize for winning
this race is leadership in the production of renewable energy, clean water, cancer cures and next-generation computing. The U.S.
government took an early lead in 2002 with the 21st Century Research and Development Act, which pledged $5 billion over four
years to become a leader in nano science. That lead has steadily been eroded. Japan announced an equivalent initiative within
months of ours. Since then, France, Germany, Britain, Russia, China, Taiwan, India and Singapore have stepped up to the plate
with significant investments. The 21st Century Research and Development Act expires this year, and we have not been in a
technology race this close since the Apollo project. Given what is at stake and the degree to which the U.S. relies on innovation to fuel
its economy, nanotechnology is a global competition that America can ill-afford not to win.
Nanotech leadership is critical to winning humanity’s most important arms race – the losers face total annihilation
John Robert Marlow, 4, Interview on the Superswarm Option Nanotechnology Now, February, http://www.nanotech- now.com/JohnMar...view-Feb04. htm
Marlow's 2nd Paradox As stated in the Nano novel, Marlow's Second Paradox is this: "Nanotechnology must never be developed,
because it is too dangerous a thing to exist; nanotechnology must be developed-because it is too a dangerous a thing to exist in the
hands of others." The first rationale-Bill Joy's relinquishment option-will be ignored. The second will drive the race for
nanosuperiority. The first nanopower will, if it plays its cards right, remain unchallenged for the foreseeable future-assuming there
remains a future to foresee. This is so because it will be possible to use the technology itself to prevent all others from deploying
it, or to simply annihilate all others. In the entire history of the human race, there has never been such a prize for the taking, and
there likely never will be again. We are embarked upon what is quite possibly Mankind's final arms race. Caution may not be a factor,
because the losers in the nanorace will exist only at the whim of the winner, and many will see themselves as having nothing to
lose, and the world to gain.
Nano arms race is the most likely for extinction - regulating military nanotech is impossible—a nanoevent would be inevitable
– prefer our evidence
Marlow, 4 (John Robert, nanotechnology author, “Interview with John Robert Marlow on the Superswarm Option,” Nanotechnology
Now, http://www.nanotech-now.com/John-Marlow-Superswarm-interview-Feb04.htm)
First, there's the issue of enforcement: who's in charge here-and who will watch the watchers? Who's going to tell the United States:
"Hey-you can't do that…?" Self-regulation may be a bit optimistic when dealing with something which can destroy the planet if
mishandled. Active shields might be one approach; the superswarm option is another. A second potential problem is the prohibition on independently-functioning
subassemblies, which are crucial to superswarm implementation. Lastly, there are the proposed prohibition on self-replication in open environments, the proposed
restriction on self-evolution, and the requirement that replicating nanites be dependent upon one of three things: a) an artificial energy source; b) an artificial vitamin,
or; c) a broadcast transmission. All of these seem quite rational at first glance-though such restrictions would make superswarm implementation (as currently
envisioned) impossible. The problem is that wars do not take place in sealed laboratories, and no military establishment is going to pay
much attention to these guidelines because following them renders nanoweapons useless. If nanites cannot replicate on the battlefield, they
will be less effective than those which can, and become vulnerable to destruction; if they rely upon an artificial vitamin or energy source, their battlefield usefulness is
compromised or destroyed, and they will be inferior to those operating with no such hindrance; if they depend upon a broadcast signal, that signal can be duplicated or
jammed. Further, the development of such safeguards, even if desired, would slow deployment-for which reason they're not likely to be
implemented. So the military-ours as well those of other nations-is basically going to throw this guidebook out the window. Which is
not to say it doesn't have its uses; it does. But the most likely source of a large-scale nanoevent is nanoweaponry-and the
institutions developing it are precisely those which are least likely to concern themselves with cumbersome safeguards. They
are also those most likely to be conducting research and development activities under the all-concealing cloak of national security.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
5/77
1AC NANOWEAPONS ADV – 2/2
Foreign talent is the lynchpin of successful nanotech innovation – absent the plan, multiple competitors will surpass the US in
nanotech research
PCAST 3/25 (President?s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, an advisory group of the Nation?s leading scientists and
engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and
from cabinet departments and other Federal agencies) 2010: REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ON THE THIRD
ASSESSMENT OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE,?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-nano-report.pdf
Education and workforce development—Over the course of the past decade, the United States has educated more of the world’s
science and engineering workforce than any other country, largely through research and development funds provided through the NNI.
However, the current rate of retention of highly trained non-U.S. citizens hampers the Nation’s ability to capitalize fully on the
opportunities created by nanoscience and nanotechnology. Consider the following statistics: From 2004–2007, 26,035 Ph.D.
degrees were granted in science and engineering by U.S. universities to citizens from China, South Korea, and India. This figure
represents 55 percent of all nonresident Ph.D. degrees, and 18 percent of total science and engineering Ph.D.s in that time period. Of
these students, 87 percent indicated intent to stay in the United States after completing their degrees. Ultimately, however, only 57
percent of those indicating such intent remained in the United States. Thus, it can be inferred that on the order of 9,700 of these
highly trained individuals were lost to the U.S. workforce during this time. The NNAP believes that the numbers for
nanotechnology mirror these for science and engineering as a whole. U.S. national laboratories and companies that must hire
U.S. citizens to conduct R&D in certain nanotechnology areas are especially handicapped by a severe shortage of qualified
personnel. Relatively few students from foreign countries are naturalized while in graduate school, so the percentage of non-U.S.
citizens graduating is probably the same as those entering. Overall nanotechnology growth—Taking into account the above metrics, as
well as the technology development capabilities of nations based on additional factors such as the percentage of gross domestic
product (GDP) derived from high technology, R&D spending as a percentage of GDP, and trained workforce development (in addition
to education and retention of science and engineering Ph.D.s), the United States remains the leader in nanotechnology R&D.
However, Japan, Germany, and South Korea are closing the gap.14 As of 2008, Japan ranks second with consistent strong investment
in corporate R&D and numerous government initiatives. There has been explosive growth of nanotechnology R&D in Germany over
the past several years as a result of its own investments combined with significant funding from the European Commission Seventh
Framework Programme. In fact, German nanotechnology R&D has now surpassed that of the rest of the European Union. South Korea
ranks third in corporate spending on nanotechnology and is perhaps better positioned to capitalize on nanotechnology than any other
Asian nation, despite its small relative size. China is poised to capture manufacturing activity in value-added nanomaterials as
applications grow and commoditization ensues. It is likely to develop a strong position in the low-cost manufacture of nanomaterials
such as carbon nanotubes, nanofibers, and nanopowders. However, China is also improving its capabilities in areas not reliant solely
on lowcost manufacturing by ramping up its homegrown scientific research and workforce talent pool. The inescapable conclusion is
that the United States cannot assume that it will continue to be the world nanotechnology leader.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
6/77
1AC COMPETITIVENESS ADV – 1/3
Advantage Two is Heg
We isolate three internal links – I recommend you get three sheets of paper
First – Competitiveness is key to power projection. International developments in R&D will decimate U.S. leadership if left
behind.
Adam Segal 4 (Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations) Nov/Dec.: Is America
Losing its Edge?? http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60260/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge
The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone
else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity
and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely
followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is
coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology
(S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations . The
percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly
becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients
around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China
has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of
manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is
exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a
potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals
from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be
easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.
Now is the key time, backlogs in visa applications are causing a reverse brain drain.
Vivek Wadhwa et al. 7 (Executive in Residence Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University Wertheim Fellow, Harvard Law School. Guillermina JassoProfessor Department of Sociology New York University): Intellectual Property, the Immigration Backlog, and a Reverse Brain-Drain.?
http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/reverse_brain_drain_101807.pdf
A Reverse Brain-Drain? Approximately 120,120 permanent resident visas are available annually for employment-based
principals and
their family members in the three main employment visa categories (EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3). Additionally, the number of visas that can be issued to immigrants from any one of
the major sending countries—China, India, Mexico, and Philippines—is less than 10,000 per year (7 percent of the total pool of 120,120 available visas per country). Our estimates indicate that there
are more than 1 million individuals waiting in line for legal permanent resident status. The wait time for visas for countries with the
largest populations, like India and China, ranged to four years in June 2007—not counting visa processing time—and may be even higher
when visas are again available in October 2007. This backlog is likely to increase substantially, given the limited number of visas available . Evidence from the
“New Immigrant Survey” indicates that approximately one in five new legal immigrants and about one in three employment principals either plan to leave the United States
or are uncertain about remaining. Moreover, media reports suggest that increasing numbers of skilled workers have begun to return home to
countries like India and China where the economies are booming. Given the substantial role of foreign-born residents in the United States in
international patent creation, and the huge backlog in granting visas to employment-based principals, the potential exists for a reverse braindrain of skilled workers who contribute to U.S. global competitiveness.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
7/77
1AC COMPETITIVENESS ADV – 2/3
And the current recovery isn’t sustainable; it will delay the inevitable economic collapse due to low high-tech productivity
Haseltine, 8/24/10 - Neuroscientist, Former Head of Science and Technology for US Intelligence Community, (Eric, "Why America's
Economy is On the Brink of Going Down the Tubes...for Good," The Huffington Post, August 24,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-haseltine/why-americas-economy-is-o_b_688483.html)
But our scramble to reduce the impact of the latest disaster distracts us from addressing the deep-seated problems that
inexorably create the next disaster, and the one after that. Why waste energy on the distant future, we reason, when we'll never get
to that future if we don't solve the problem staring us in the face? We all focus on addressing here-and-now emergencies because we
have no choice. What limits our options are not outside events, such as economic downturns, but internal events that go on inside our brains. As a neuroscientist, I've learned that our
brains are hardwired to avoid near term threats and to ignore long term opportunities , because our brains are identical to those of our distant ancestors who faced a daily struggle for survival.
When our brains evolved into their present form, about 50,000 years ago, the environment was incredibly harsh and risky, limiting life expectancies to 20-25 years. Diverting attention from
day-today survival in those Paleolithic times would have invited disaster. Neuroscientists call this hard-wired preference for quick fixes over long range pursuits temporal myopia: everything
past the immediate future looks fuzzy, or even invisible, and is therefore irrelevant. Unless we overcome our temporal myopia, we'll continue to put band-aids on this economy and it will
continue to deteriorate: in other words, we'll continue to treat symptoms and never go for a complete cure. And what would such a cure look like? Let's start by looking at disease that afflicts
The fundamental problem with America's economy is a decline in the capabilities and motivation of our workforce. True
economic growth -- not the artificial kind spurred by fiscal policy -- stems from innovations such as Google's search engine that create entirely
new businesses and markets. Such innovations grow out of technological advances, which in turn emerge from earlier scientific
discoveries. Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, reinforced this idea when he said " Capitalism expands wealth primarily
through creative destruction -- the process by which the cash flow from obsolescent, low-return capital is invested in high-return,
cutting-edge technologies." And where do cutting-edge technologies come from? Modern But the National Academy of Science report, "Is America Falling off a
Flat Earth?" points out that science, technology and math education of the American workforce has been in steep decline for decades,
as students now choose careers in business, law or media over the high tech jobs that were so attractive in the post-Sputnik 60's and 70's. In stark
contrast, workforces of countries such as China are becoming much more tech savvy, such that China now rivals the US and Europe in
patents and technical publications. S. James Gates, a physicist who served on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology said, "If you
look at U.S. performance on various international metrics, depending on which one you use, we come out something like 24th or 25th
in the world." In my own informal survey of middle school and high-school students, conducted during school speaking engagements to increase the allure of science, most kids tell me
us.
that they plan to steer clear of science because it's "way too hard." Other kids observe that "scientists are nerdy." As a result of these widespread attitudes -- nurtured by Hollywood's portrayal
of scientists as socially clueless eccentrics -- innovation-fueled
economic growth will increasingly take place outside America's borders, and
our economy will spiral into relative decline for the foreseeable future. We can pull out of this dive, however, if we see through our
temporal myopia to some hard facts: we will never motivate the majority of America's youth to give up "cool" careers that promise to
make lot of money for "nerdy," un-cool science and technology careers that require hard work in school . We have simply grown too comfortable as
a society and lost the fire in our belly. During World War II, and right after Sputnik, did students, teachers and parents let the prospect of hard work learning science, math and engineering
deter them? No, because we faced obvious crises. Harvard Business School Professor, John Kao, author of Innovation Nation: How America is Losing Its Innovative Edge, Why It Matters and
How We Can Get it Back said, ""Fifty
years ago the Soviet satellite Sputnik burst the nation's bubble of complacency and challenged America's
sense of global leadership. But we rose to the challenge with massive funding for education, revamped school curricula in science and
math, created NASA and put a man on the moon." Today we face a brain race vs. a space race that is every bit as problematic for
America as the first Russian satellite, but this crisis amounts to a "silent Sputnik" that flies under America's radar. Out of sight, out of mind.
I believe that Americans are unlikely to notice, let alone react to such a stealth threat. The only answer is to reach out to motivated Americans, in
places like China and India, who don't yet know they're going to be Americans. Let's gear up a recruiting system that combs
secondary schools in China, India, Russia, Europe and South America for top science and technology talent, just as college football programs look
for the best high school athletes. We'll offer these kids -- who do have fire in their bellies because they've grown up in countries that haven't gotten
complacent -- full scholarships to American colleges and a fast track to US citizenship once they complete their studies. This will, in the long run,
inject new vitality into our workforce and our economy and help cure our deep economic ills.
Economic collapse causes nuclear war- extinction
Broward 9 ((Member of Triond) http://newsflavor.com/opinions/will-an-economic-collapse-kill-you/ AD: 7-7-09 )ET
Now its time to look at the consequences of a failing world economy. With five offical nations having nuclear weapons, and four
more likely to have them there could be major consequences of another world war. The first thing that will happen after an
economic collapse will be war over resources. The United States currency will become useless and will have no way of securing
reserves. The United States has little to no capacity to produce oil, it is totatlly dependent on foreign oil. If the United States stopped
getting foreign oil, the government would go to no ends to secure more, if there were a war with any other major power over oil, like
Russia or China, these wars would most likely involve nuclear weapons. Once one nation launches a nuclear weapon, there would
of course be retaliation, and with five or more countries with nuclear weapons there would most likely be a world nuclear war.
The risk is so high that acting to save the economy is the most important issue facing us in the 21st century.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
8/77
1AC COMPETITIVENESS ADV – 3/3
And plan is critical to retain foreign nationals that sustain a competitive U.S. workforce and save the economy.
Ajay Malshe 10 (Cornell Law School J.D. 2009; Goodwin Procter Fellow at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition in
Washington D.C.) “FROM OBSOLETE TO ESSENTIAL: HOW REFORMING OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS CAN STIMULATE AND STRENGTHEN THE
UNITED STATES ECONOMY”. Albany Government Law Review. 2010. http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/files/Malshe.pdf
To revitalize and strengthen the U.S. economy, it is necessary to recruit the best and brightest foreign workers. These are the
immigrants who will complement the native labor force, stimulate innovation and production, and create jobs for Americans .
While these workers typically arrive in the United States through the H-1B visa program, the majority of them will attempt to obtain permanent residency while they are
here. To end the current recession and strengthen the U.S. economy, Congress must begin by simplifying the process for immigrant
workers. This is why Congress should exempt certain high-priority workers in fields of great importance from the employment-visa
quota and preference category system. The employment-visa exemption would apply primarily to immigrants with advanced degrees
in STEM fields that are crucial to this country’s attempt at economic recovery. The CIR Bill of 2006 also suggested this mechanism, exempting
from the immigrant visa scheme aliens with certain advanced degrees in the STEM fields that had been working the previous three years in the United States as
nonimmigrants.179 When necessary, the Department of Labor can also exempt immigrants that work in fields of critical shortage.180 The Department of Labor should
have little difficulty identifying fields of critical shortage through employment surveys and monitoring fields that traditionally suffer from shortages of native labor.
However, critical shortages vary from time to time and should not be part of the permanent cap-exempt structure.181 Other bills have suggested creating a new category
of immigrant visas for STEM professionals rather than an exemption.182An exemption, however, is preferable. A new visa category would not go far enough to
revitalize the economy—it would still be subject to the quota system, resulting in oversubscription. Highly skilled workers who are already working in the
United States should be encouraged to make a commitment to the United States by becoming permanent residents and eventually
citizens. Immigration policy must prioritize long-term interests, which means attracting and retaining highly skilled workers so that
they can continue to contribute to the economy. The per-country quota system that prevents the government from effectively issuing
immigrant visas to those who want them must be reformed. The quota system has always been the subject of much contention, even dating back to the
enactment of the original Immigration & Nationality Act in 1952. 183 The current law allows only approximately 9,800 individuals from any country to obtain an
employment-based immigrant visa each year.184 This creates a remarkably inefficient immigration scheme that profoundly inhibits the
nation’s ability to retain the immigrants it needs to compete in the global economy.
And immigration is the ONLY barrier to competitiveness
Paschal O. Nwokocha 8 (1996 cum laude graduate of William Mitchell College of Law. Immigration Law): American Employment-Based
Immigration Program in a Competitive Global Marketplace: Need for Reform. 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 38. William Mitchell Law Review 8
In the past, skilled migrants had few options but to tolerate restrictive U.S. immigration policies.226 Many European countries
had similarly rigid immigration restrictions and countries such as China and India were underdeveloped and had restrictive
policies as well.227 Today, these countries are reforming their immigration policies and opening their borders while the United
States appears to be closing its borders.228 Emerging markets with growing economies are now competing for skilled migrants, and as the surveys above
demonstrate, traditional competitors such as Europe and Canada are re-working their immigration systems to attract global talent.229 The United States is
fortunate in that it already possesses most of the elements that attract both skilled migrants and the multinational companies that
seek to hire them, namely, a dynamic economy, a world-class higher education system, a record of upholding human rights, and a
transparent and stable political and social system. All of the elements but one, the immigration system, is in place to make the
United States a top competitor for global talent. The immigration system has to be made resoundingly receptive to immigrants and
their contributions.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
9/77
1AC RMA ADV – 1/2
(__) – Skilled immigration key to military R&D dominance – key to RMA and stops tech diffusion from undermining
hegemony.
Robert L. Paarlberg 4 (Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College, and Associate at the Weatherhead Center for International
Affairs at Harvard University): Knowledge as Power?, International Security 29.1 (2004) 122-151
The key to this revolution in military affairs (RMA) has been the application of modern science and engineering—particularly in
fields such as physics, chemistry, and information technology (IT)—to weapons design and use. It is the international dominance of
the United States in these fields of science and technology that has made possible U.S. military dominance on the conventional
battlefield.10 It thus becomes important to judge the magnitude and durability of U.S. scientific hegemony. In the sections that
follow, I first measure the U.S. lead in S&T relative to the capabilities of potential rival states by using a variety of science output and
resource input indicators. By every indicator, the current lead of the United States is formidable. Then I judge the durability of the
U.S. lead by examining two possible weaknesses within its foundation. The first is the greater speed with which scientific
knowledge can diffuse (perhaps away from the United States) in the modern age of globalization. The second is the poor science
preparation still provided by so many U.S. public schools in grades K-12. Upon examination, these two factors need not present a
significant threat to the U.S. global lead in science and technology, assuming the United States can remain a large net importer
of scientific talent and knowledge from abroad. Preserving this vital net inflow of scientific assets has been made more difficult,
however, by the homeland security imperatives arising from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It should be the policy of the
United States to devise a homeland security strategy that does not impair the nation's access to foreign science talent. One part of this
strategy should be to contain the further [End Page 125] growth of terrorist threats by avoiding conventional military campaigns that
create determined new political adversaries abroad. Victories that bring resentment will breed resistance, most easily expressed in the
form of asymmetric threats against soft targets, including homeland targets. Another part of this strategy should be a more effective
mobilization of the nation's massive S&T capacity when responding to the asymmetric threats that do arise. The United States is
uniquely capable of innovating new "smart" technologies to protect soft homeland targets against unconventional threats. The current
Fortress America approach risks undercutting the nation's lead in science by keeping too many talented foreigners out.
And that’s key to terrorism- long range strikes and information awareness prove
Sloan, 2 Defence Analyst with the Directorate of Strategic Analysis at Canada's National Defence Headquarters (Elinor, assistant
professor in the Department of Political Science at Carleton University, The Revolution in Military Affairs: Implications for Canada
and nato, p. 52)
Simply put, the United States can be expected to speed up those elements of the U.S. military's force transformation program that fit
with or advance America's ability to combat terrorism. Many elements are relevant here. They include, above all, developing the
smaller, more rapidly mobile, deployable, and lethal ground forces that have figured centrally in RMA doctrine from the outset. A
particular emphasis is placed on special operations forces. However the force transformation efforts begun by the U.S. army in 1999
will also be essential. Not surprisingly, the QDR of 2001 calls on the secretary of the army to accelerate the introduction of forwardstationed interim brigade combat teams. In addition, the army is exploring ways it can accelerate the development of its future combat
systems.51 Strategic sea and air lift will also be important, as will combat helicopters for battlefield mobility. Heavy platforms, like
main battle tanks, are likely to become even more outdated in the new strategic environment. A second key RMA capability central
to the war against terrorism is long-range precision strike. Associated platforms and weapons include stealthy 15-2 bombers
equipped with satellite-guided joint direct attack munitions, u-i bombers equipped with satellite-guided launched cruise missiles, and
submarines equipped with satellite-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles. Short-range tactical aircraft, dependent as they are on overseas
bases, carriers, and refuelling aircraft, are less likely to be a platform of choice for military planners and political leaders. Finally,
combatting international terrorism will depend to a significant degree on advanced battlespace awareness and control
capabilities. "Our highest priority right now is situational awareness," argued one high-level Pentagon official in the weeks following
the terrorist attacks of September 2001.51 Unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator and the Global Hawk will be particularly
important, as will advanced command, control communications, computing and intelligence (C41) systems. Consistent with
these trends, the Pentagon is using its share of the emergency funding provided after the terrorist attacks on New York and
Washington to accelerate the development of unmanned aerial vehicles, precision munitions, and C41 programs.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
10/77
1AC RMA ADV – 2/2
And War on Terror key to stop Al-Qaeda bioweapons attack – such an attack overwhelms our health care system
Julia Bodeeb 7/28 (Over a decade of staff experience as reporter, managing editor, and book acquisitions) 2010: Is Al Qaeda Using
Black Death Germs to Develop Biological Weapons?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5632324/is_al_qaeda_using_black_death_germs_pg2.html?cat=5
About 40 alleged members of the AQLIM sect of al Qaeda died after becoming infected with the Black Death bubonic plague in
Algeria. The Daily Mail reports that the plague was found in the body of one of the al Qaeda terrorists. AQLIM stands for al-Qaeda in
the Land of the Islamic Maghreb. Biological Weapons of Destruction Thus it seems obvious that al Qaeda is actively working to
build biological weapons of destruction. This ominous news brings to mind images of long ago plagues that the world hopes will
never be experienced again. There are concerns that this plague may have already spread to other terrorists, such as the Taliban in
Afghanistan, who may have contact with U.S. and British soldiers there, among other allied forces. Black Death Plague Kills within
Hours This plague has a horrific history. In the 1300s it spread rapidly throughout the world. Fleas and rats carry this disease and
transmit it to humans. It is also sometimes spread via an airborne route. This disease spreads rapidly and kills quickly, usually
within a few hours. The Black Death got its name due to the spots that develop on the skin during this disease. The spots start out red
and then turn black, notes The Middle Ages.com. This disease killed about 25 million people during a 5-year period from 1347 to
1352. A biological weapons expert from Georgia University stated that "Al Qaeda is known to experiment with biological weapons.
And this group has direct communication with other cells around the world" reports the Sun. If al Qaeda plans to use the Black
Death germs as a weapon of mass destruction in Western cities it would probably spark a medical crisis so severe hospitals
would not in any way be prepared to handle it. It is hard to imagine Americans flooding emergency rooms with symptoms of the
Black Death plague, but I guess now it must be accepted that someday it could be a reality. Does America have Antibiotics Stockpiled
to Treat Black Death? This news of al Qaeda experimenting with the Black Plague germs just gives government officials working to
prevent terrorism a realistic view that this sort of weapon is under active research with al Qaeda. This disease is treated with
antibiotics. It would be interesting to know if the American government has enough stock piled to treat a massive breakout of Black
Death plague. Is America prepared for the use of biological weapons against our populace? Al Qaeda no doubt is always
experimenting with new ways to kill Americans and other people world wide. They are fond of spectacular attacks. There must be
many scientists around the world trying to stay ahead of al Qaeda and develop methods to handle any type of attack they might come
up with. Al Qaeda has probably already infiltrated many university laboratories and drug companies around the world. Who
knows what they may be doing to develop new routes of spreading disease in a terrorist attack. Let's hope we never see a Black
Death attack by al Qaeda come to fruition. Keep dropping those drones in Pakistan President Obama. Let's try to wipe out al Qaeda
leadership before they attack us again.
Bioterror causes extinction.
Steinbruner 97 (John, Foreign Policy, December 22, L/N)
That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the
damage occurs immediately. The after effects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable
manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and
the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a
pathogen by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological
agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be effective weapon. But for a few
pathogens – ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile
use – the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread form one victim to another would be
capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918
influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global catagon of this sort but not necessarily the outer limit.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
11/77
1AC SCIENCE DIPLOMACY ADV – 1/2
(__) – Science and tech leadership allows for effective diplomacy which limits potential for conflict and solves every major
impact.
Dr. Nina Federoff 8 (USAID Administrator) April 2: International Science And Technology Cooperation, Statement before the
Committee on House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, CQ Congressional Testimony)
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss science diplomacy at the U.S.
Department of State. The U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology. Our scientific strength is both a tool of
“soft power” – part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal – and a basis for creating partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic and
social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the Secretary’s transformational diplomacy initiative, because science and
technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening failed and fragile states . S&T advances have immediate and enormous
influence on national and global economies, and thus on the international relations between societies. Nation states, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational
corporations are largely shaped by their expertise in and access to intellectual and physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as S&T advances of
our modern era provide opportunities for economic prosperity, some also challenge the relative position of countries in the world order, and influence our social
institutions and principles. America must remain at the forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge, and leading the way internationally through
science diplomacy and engagement. The Public Diplomacy Role of Science Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens
political relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles
Americans cherish: transparency, meritocracy, accountability, the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation. Science is
inherently democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep
political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of
communication and cultural understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of ideologically
divergent societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the increasingly transnational and global problems confronting
humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing recognition that science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies
of the 21st century. Science and technology provide an immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by bringing scientists and students here, especially from developing countries, where they see
democracy in action, make friends in the international scientific community, become familiar with American technology, and contribute to the U.S. and global economy. For example, in 2005,
over 50% of physical science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral researchers trained in the U.S. have been foreign nationals. Moreover, many foreign-born scientists who were
educated and have worked in the U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold influential positions in ministries and institutions both in this country and in their home countries. They also
contribute to U.S. scientific and technologic development: According to the National Science Board’s 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators, 47% of full-time doctoral science and
engineering faculty in U.S. research institutions were foreign-born. Finally, some types of science – particularly those that address the grand challenges in science and technology – are
inherently international in scope and collaborative by necessity. The ITER Project, an international fusion research and development collaboration, is a product of the thaw in superpower
relations between Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible new and viable energy source by
bringing a star to earth. ITER serves as a symbol of international scientific cooperation among key scientific leaders in the developed and developing world – Japan, Korea, China, E.U., India,
Russia, and United States – representing 70% of the world’s current population.. The recent elimination of funding for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes at an inopportune
time as the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project had entered into force only on October
2007. The elimination of the promised U.S. contribution drew our allies to question our commitment and credibility in international cooperative ventures. More problematically, it jeopardizes a
even at the height of the cold war, the United States used science diplomacy
as a means to maintain communications and avoid misunderstanding between the world’s two nuclear powers – the Soviet Union and
the United States. In a complex multi-polar world, relations are more challenging, the threats perhaps greater, and the need for
engagement more paramount. Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security Objectives The welfare and stability of countries and
regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries
fragile and cause states to fail. Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide economic
opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well, the world faces common
threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental degradation,
poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats can undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and indirectly.
Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world
and the scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges demands common solutions
and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of
American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the
private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy. There are also important
challenges to the ability of states to supply their populations with sufficient food . The still-growing human population, rising affluence in emerging
platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with key states. It should be noted that
economies, and other factors have combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edible oils and grains. Encouraging and promoting the use of contemporary
An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The
creation of economic opportunity can do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a
war about rationalism as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing
ideas and opportunities that improve people’s lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for the United States to achieve our
diplomatic and developmental goals. Additionally, the Department continues to use science as a means to reduce the proliferation of the
weapons’ of mass destruction and prevent what has been dubbed ‘brain drain’. Through cooperative threat reduction activities, former
weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific
fields. In addition, new global efforts focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and implementing
best scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase global partnerships, and create sustainability.
molecular techniques in crop improvement is an essential goal for US science diplomacy.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
12/77
1AC SCIENCE DIPLOMACY ADV – 2/2
We’ll get some of these to extinction – first is Environment collapse leads to extinction.
Diner ‘94—Major David, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more
stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is
connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a
whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems . As biologic simplicity increases,
so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild
examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined
affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic
removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
Next, food shortages lead to World War III
William Calvin 98, theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, Atlantic Monthly, January, The Great Climate Flip-Flop, Vol 281, No. 1, , p. 47-64
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful countries to try to take over their
neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the
borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources,
driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a
worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the
Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely
grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
Next, water wars unleash 60,000 nukes
Weiner ’90 – Pulitzer Prize winning author (Jonathan, “The Next One Hundred Years”, p. 270)
one
explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle East, from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over
dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. A climate shift in that single battlescarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60,000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the Change Bomb. And in a world as interlinked as ours,
And high skilled workers are key to science diplomacy
Pickering 10 (Thomas R., Advisory Council – Civilian Research and Development Foundation, and Dr. Peter Agre, Director – Johns Hopkins Malaria Research
Institute and President – American Association for the Advancement of Science, “More opportunities needed for U.S. researchers to work with their foreign
counterparts”, Partnership for a Secure America, 2-9, http://www.psaonline.org/article.php?id=634)
Science, an international enterprise that relies on a lively exchange of ideas and data, can help build trust and expand understanding when
government-to-government contacts may be strained. The North Korea visit, plus the first-ever U.S. science envoys, represent a fine beginning to a new
era of international research cooperation. But the White House, the State Department and Congress must do far more to bolster science
diplomacy. In particular, the U.S. government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas being
approved for specialized foreign workers such as doctors, scientists and engineers. Their contributions are critical to improving human welfare as
well as our economy. Foreign scientists working or studying in U.S. universities also become informal goodwill ambassadors for
America globally - an important benefit in the developing world, where senior scientists and engineers often enter national politics.
More broadly, we urgently need to expand and deepen links between the U.S. and foreign scientific communities to advance solutions
to common challenges. Climate change, sustainable development, pandemic disease, malnutrition, protection for oceans and wildlife,
national security and innovative energy technologies all demand solutions that draw on science and technology. Fortunately, U.S.
technological leadership is admired worldwide, suggesting a way to promote dialogue with countries where we otherwise lack access
and leverage. A June 2004 Zogby International poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute found that only 11 percent of Moroccans surveyed had a favorable
overall view of the United States - but 90 percent had a positive view of U.S. science and technology. Only 15 percent of Jordanians had a positive overall view, but 83
percent registered admiration for U.S. science and technology. Similarly, Pew polling data from 43 countries show that favorable views of U.S. science and technology
exceed overall views of the United States by an average of 23 points. The recent mission to North Korea exemplified the vast potential of science for U.S. diplomacy.
Within the scientific community, after all, journals routinely publish articles co-written by scientists from different nations, and scholars convene frequent conferences
to extend those ties. Science demands an intellectually honest atmosphere, peer review and a common language for professional discourse. Basic values of transparency,
vigorous inquiry and respectful debate are all inherent to science. Nations that cooperate on science strengthen the same values that support
peaceful conflict resolution and improved public safety. U.S. and Soviet nongovernmental organizations contributed to a thaw in the
Cold War through scientific exchanges, with little government support other than travel visas. The U.S. government is off to a good start in
leveraging science diplomacy, with 43 bilateral umbrella science and technology agreements now in force. The Obama administration
further elevated science engagement, beginning with the president's June speech in Cairo. Then, in November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed
three science envoys to foster new partnerships and address common challenges, especially within Muslim-majority countries. She also announced the Global
Technology and Innovation Fund, through which the Overseas Private Investment Corporation will spur private-sector investments in science and technology industries
abroad.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
13/77
1AC AEROSPACE ADV – 1/2
Plan maintains US aerospace dominance
Thompson 9 (David, President – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, “The Aerospace Workforce”, Federal News
Service, 12-10, Lexis)
Aerospace systems are of considerable importance to U.S. national security, economic prosperity, technological vitality, and global
leadership. Aeronautical and space systems protect our citizens, armed forces, and allies abroad. They connect the farthest corners of
the world with safe and efficient air transportation and satellite communications, and they monitor the Earth, explore the solar system,
and study the wider universe. The U.S. aerospace sector also contributes in major ways to America's economic output and hightechnology employment. Aerospace research and development and manufacturing companies generated approximately $240 billion in
sales in 2008, or nearly 1.75 percent of our country's gross national product. They currently employ about 650,000 people throughout
our country. U.S. government agencies and departments engaged in aerospace research and operations add another 125,000 employees
to the sector's workforce, bringing the total to over 775,000 people. Included in this number are more than 200,000 engineers and
scientists -- one of the largest concentrations of technical brainpower on Earth. However, the U.S. aerospace workforce is now facing
the most serious demographic challenge in his 100-year history. Simply put, today, many more older, experienced professionals are
retiring from or otherwise leaving our industrial and governmental aerospace workforce than early career professionals are entering it.
This imbalance is expected to become even more severe over the next five years as the final members of the Apollo-era generation of
engineers and scientists complete 40- or 45-year careers and transition to well-deserved retirements. In fact, around 50 percent of the
current aerospace workforce will be eligible for retirement within just the next five years. Meanwhile, the supply of younger aerospace
engineers and scientists entering the industry is woefully insufficient to replace the mounting wave of retirements and other departures
that we see in the near future. In part, this is the result of broader technical career trends as engineering and science graduates from our
country's universities continue a multi-decade decline, even as the demand for their knowledge and skills in aerospace and other
industries keeps increasing. Today, only about 15 percent of U.S. students earn their first college degree in engineering or science,
well behind the 40 or 50 percent levels seen in many European and Asian countries. Due to the dual-use nature of aerospace
technology and the limited supply of visas available to highly-qualified non-U.S. citizens, our industry's ability to hire the best and
brightest graduates from overseas is also severely constrained. As a result, unless effective action is taken to reverse current trends, the
U.S. aerospace sector is expected to experience a dramatic decrease in its technical workforce over the next decade. Your second
question concerns the implications of a cutback in human spaceflight programs. AIAA's view on this is as follows. While U.S. human
spaceflight programs directly employ somewhat less than 10 percent of our country's aerospace workers, its influence on attracting
and motivating tomorrow's aerospace professionals is much greater than its immediate employment contribution. For nearly 50 years
the excitement and challenge of human spaceflight have been tremendously important factors in the decisions of generations of young
people to prepare for and to pursue careers in the aerospace sector. This remains true today, as indicated by hundreds of testimonies
AIAA members have recorded over the past two years, a few of which I'll show in brief video interviews at the end of my statement.
Further evidence of the catalytic role of human space missions is found in a recent study conducted earlier this year by MIT which
found that 40 percent of current aerospace engineering undergraduates cited human space programs as the main reason they chose this
field of study. Therefore, I think it can be predicted with high confidence that a major cutback in U.S. human space programs would
be substantially detrimental to the future of the aerospace workforce. Such a cutback would put even greater stress on an already
weakened strategic sector of our domestic high-technology workforce. Your final question centers on other issues that should be
considered as decisions are made on the funding and direction for NASA, particularly in the human spaceflight area. In conclusion,
AIAA offers the following suggestions in this regard. Beyond the previously noted critical influence on the future supply of aerospace
professionals, administration and congressional leaders should also consider the collateral damage to the space industrial base if
human space programs were substantially curtailed. Due to low annual production rates and highly-specialized product requirements,
the domestic supply chain for space systems is relatively fragile. Many second- and third-tier suppliers in particular operate at
marginal volumes today, so even a small reduction in their business could force some critical suppliers to exit this sector. Human
space programs represent around 20 percent of the $47 billion in total U.S. space and missile systems sales from 2008. Accordingly, a
major cutback in human space spending could have large and highly adverse ripple effects throughout commercial, defense, and
scientific space programs as well, potentially triggering a series of disruptive changes in the common industrial supply base that our
entire space sector relies on.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
14/77
1AC AEROSPACE ADV – 2/2
Aerospace dominance is key to heg and the development of GLASS weapons systems
Wade L. Huntley 2006 (Director of the Simons Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Research at the Liu Institute for Global Issues) WHERE NO BOMB
HAS GONE BEFORE: US Space Weaponization Planning and Its Implications. http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/sites/liu/files/Publications/2Mar2006_WhereNoBombHasGoneBefore_CH1.pdf
US retention of aerospace dominance is the principal objective. "[T]he
half-life of the 'world's last remaining superpower' may be rather short. We will have to work smarter and harder to maintain an advantage in these areas." These
last two aspects are combined to form the core conclusion: The US has an opportunity to achieve integrated dominance to oppose strength with strength to impose
strength on weakness. The key to achieving and maintaining lasting superiority that cannot easily be duplicated by others lies in the integration of information, air, and
space. The successful integration of information, air, and space will provide increased capabilities by enhancing the capabilities of each individual area as well as the combination of them.
Utilizing them will allow the US to achieve dominance in air and space to protect the nation, its assets, and its citizens around the
globe. Integrating these capabilities will provide the capability for achieving and maintaining superiority .15 Of the various systems the study
A third prominent aspect of the Air Force 2025 study is the unquestioned premise that
assessed in the alternative futures of 2025, the final report identified ten "with the highest value for their contribution to achieving air and space dominance in 2025."16 In terms of potential for
weaponization of space, the priority placed on space-based high-energy lasers is particularly noteworthy. Both the chemical- and solar-powered laser systems would be capable of attacking
High-energy laser technology is also envisioned as one of
three elements of the intriguing "Global Area Strike System": The Global Area Strike System (GLASS) consists of a high energy laser (HEL) system, a kinetic energy
ground, air and space targets, as well as serving active and passive imaging roles at lower power levels.
weapon (KEW) system, and a transatmospheric vehicle (TAV). The HEL system consists of ground-based lasers and space-based mirrors which direct energy to the intended target. The KEW
system consists of terminally guided projectiles with and without explosive enhancers. The TAV is a flexible platform capable of supporting maintenance and replenishment of the HEL and
The Global Area Strike System consists of a continental US-based
laser system which bounces high energy beams off a constellation of space-based mirrors. Inherently precise, megawatt-class, light
speed weapons can potentially act within seconds or minutes to impact on events in space, the atmosphere, or the earth's surface. …
The combined system has near instantaneous response capability, a full range of lethality, and global reach and adequate flexibility.
Although it can strike from space, no actual weapons are based in space.18
KEW space assets, and could also be used for rapid deployment of special operations forces.17
GLASS systems solve all scenarios for conflict or terrorism
Lt Col Jamie G. G. Varni Et. Al. 96 (USAF) Space Operations: Through The Looking Glass (Global Area Strike System). http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch14.pdf
The threat-dependent concept of operations for the GLASS is relatively straightforward. Threats could be slowly developing situations, fast developing
crises, or surprise attacks from a country or a terrorist-type group (where some quick retaliatory response is required). In addition, the intensity of
the threat could vary over a broad range from mere intimidation to an isolated terrorist attack, a small war or battle, or (inevitably)
total war. No matter what type of threat or situation develops or what its intensity, the global coverage provided by GLASS will allow
decision makers to direct action that is responsive and timely (i.e., near instantaneous), flexible in terms of the full spectrum of lethality (i.e.,
from “lighting up” the battlefield to destroying platforms and assets), precise (i.e., pinpoint accuracy if necessary), survivable (i.e., dispersion of vulnerable space-based
assets, self-protection capability, and CONUS-basing of the highest-value components), and reliable (i.e., TAV will be able to serve as backup). In summary, GLASS
provides global coverage and a broad range of nearly instantaneous responses without extensive forward basing. In the first instance of
a slowly developing situation involving the US and its allies, the GLASS would be used primarily as a deterrence weapon. However, it
is much more flexible than today’s nuclear-deterrent weapon. The nuclear bomb may well have prevented a catastrophic total world war, but it has
not stopped any of the hundreds of relatively minor conflicts (at all levels) that have continued to rage since 1945. The GLASS, able to project
force across a wide spectrum of outcomes, could actually be employed in scenarios ranging from humanitarian operations (i.e., in its surveillance or
illumination modes) to major regional conflicts (i.e., to disrupt, damage, or destroy the enemy’s strategic assets). These operations do not necessarily
have to be lethal. That is, the US could select a benign target, notify the rogue government of the time and place at which the offending item will be neutralized, and
then disable or destroy the target (and only the target) with a laser beam and/or hypervelocity projectile. After a few demonstrations of this capability, even
the most isolated totalitarian rogue state would realize none of its offensive assets are safe and (just as important) there will be no
collateral damage to show the news cameras. Clearly, in addition to the straight-forward destruction of military targets, the GLASS could be used for
deterrence, intimidation, persuasion, or just to forcefully signal America’s resolve. GLASS could also be put to effective use in the
most fast-developing crisis. For example, suppose a country in northern Africa masses tanks on its border to invade a nearby country and their leadership will not
listen to American or UN requests to reverse this provocative action. A cluster of small projectiles could be dropped from a TAV to destroy a
critical tank concentration while laser beams “from heaven” are burning holes through advancing combat aircraft and blowing up fuel
storage areas and munitions dumps. Even a modern war machine could be stopped dead in its tracks before it even gets started, since
the GLASS can strike strategic, operational, and tactical targets, simultaneously performing strategic attack, interdiction, and even
close support missions. In the third situation, where an attack has already occurred and a response is required, the GLASS could be used in a myriad
of ways to retaliate and with a speed limited only by the time required for US leadership to make its decisions . For example, the mission
may be to eliminate the leadership of a terrorist organization located at a “safe house” in the largest city of a rogue state . A precision
projectile could be dropped from an orbiting TAV that was launched only an hour before and within minutes, the house along with the leadership would be destroyed.
It would not matter if the “safe house” was reinforced with concrete or buried underground; with good intelligence, literally no target on earth
would be safe from the GLASS. More importantly, there would be no political fallout from collateral damage . Current weapon systems must
generally make do with targeting data accurate to one to 10 meters at best.1 This is not the optimum situation for precision-guided or precision-aimed weapons. Such
enormous destructive power must be controlled precisely to avoid unnecessary collateral damage. Acceptable targeting data in 2025 will be measured in centimeters,
not in meters.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
15/77
1AC SEMICONDUCTORS ADV – 1/3
(__) – Expanding employment visas is vital to sustain US semiconductor leadership – the industry will collapse without it
Sweeney, 8 - Senior Vice President, Worldwide Human Resources at National Semiconductor Corporation and the chair of the Semiconductor Industry Association's
Semiconductor Workforce Strategy Committee (Eddie, CQ Congressional Testimony, “NEED FOR GREEN CARDS FOR SKILLED WORKERS”, 6/12, lexis)
The need for a U.S. innovation agenda is becoming more evident every day. Better, faster, and cheaper chips are driving increased productivity and
create jobs throughout the economy. For over three decades the industry has followed Moore’s Law, under which the industry has
doubled the number of circuits on a single chip so that today the cost of making one million circuits is one penny. Given the ubiquity
of semiconductor devices, and its central position in the U.S. economy, it is critical that the U.S. continues to lead in this
technology. Yet, increasingly other nations are challenging along various points in the value chain. For example, in 2002 31
percent of new semiconductor manufacturing equipment was sold in the U.S., an indication that the U.S. was maintaining a reasonable share of
leading edge semiconductor manufacturing capacity. Today, a mere five years later, only 16 percent is sold in the U.S. We are approaching a
critical crossroad. The semiconductor technology advances that have enabled the information age are projected to end around
2020 as we reach the physical and other limits of our ability to pack more circuits on each semiconductor chip using current
technology. At that point, revolutionary new nanotechnologies will be needed. The basic research discoveries on which these new
technologies depend must be made today if the technologies will be available for commercialization about a decade from now. Simply
put, as we approach the fundamental limits of the current technology which has driven the high tech industry, the country whose companies are first to
market in the subsequent technology transition will likely lead the coming nanoelectronics era the way the U.S. has led for half a
century in microelectronics. Immigration reform plays a critical role in ensuring that America earns this leadership position.
With this broader context in mind, I would now like to move to the specifics of the immigration issue, focusing on three specific topics: • The critical role that
immigrants play in maintaining U.S. leadership and how U.S. immigration policy is undermining our ability to compete; • SIA’s work with the IEEE-USA to develop a
consensus position on green card reform, and • SIA’s support for the H.R. 5882, H.R. 5921, and H.R. 6039. Immigrants play a critical role in maintaining
U.S. leadership, yet U.S. immigration policy undermines our ability to compete The number of foreign engineers hired by the
semiconductor industry is relatively small – about 1,628 new H-1B hires (as opposed to lateral hires) in 2007. The number would, of course, be larger if the
H-1B was not subject to a cap, but even in past years when the cap was substantially higher, the industry’s H-1B hires were around 3,000. The relatively small numbers
belie the important role that foreign workers play in the success of the semiconductor companies. Foreign nationals comprise half of the masters and
71 percent of the PhDs gradating from U.S. universities in the engineering fields needed to design and manufacture the complex
circuits that are embodied in silicon chips. They play an important role in performing the research to continue to increase the density
of circuits on each chip, finding ways to lower manufacturing costs, developing and launching new products, and providing
applications expertise to help customers to design-in new semiconductors in their electronic systems. By lending their particular talents, our
foreign employees are creating the jobs in other parts of the company such as administration and production. Since foreign workers are vital to the success of
semiconductor companies, they try to incorporate them as a permanent part of the workforce. SIA’s workforce committee survey found that companies are seeking
permanent resident status for 97% of their HB hires. The caps on green cards are thus a major problem for the industry. The industry is
currently seeking permanent residency for about 3,800 employees. About 20% of these employees were hired four or more years ago.
While waiting, these employees continue to be under the restrictions of the H-1B visas program such as limitations on their ability to
move or be promoted and on their spouse’s ability to work. Needless to say, individuals become frustrated and some seek alternatives
– either with another employer or with the same employer’s offshore operations. One SIA member, LSI Corporation, reported that
within the past year it had six employees leave the country based on the fact that they grew tired of the green card process, several of
whom went to work for another company.
Semiconductors key to heg and military stability
Industrial College of Armed Forces 8 [“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ]ADS
Beyond economics, semiconductors are vital to America’s national defense. The U.S. has long relied on technology to maintain
a military advantage over its enemies and has generally adopted forces founded on technological vice numerical
superiority. The importance of cuttingedge electronics cannot be overstated given America’s Warfighting doctrine that
relies heavily on high-quality, high-technology weapon systems such as AEGIS cruisers, F-22 Fighters, and the “digitized”
M1E3 tank. The critical role of microchips in U.S. weapons, communications, and intelligence platforms make maintaining
a strong domestic semiconductor industry of strategic value. Given the reliance of the U.S. military on semiconductors, the
U.S. must maintain control over development along with life-cycle maintenance and repair of its high technology systems. A
robust domestic semiconductor industry insulates the U.S. from the effects of economic shock and disruption, while at the same
time enhancing the ability to respond to surge and mobilization requirements. Laser guided weapons and stealth technology reduce
a typical first strike package from 132 crewmembers onboard 91 aircraft including tankers, air defense, suppression, escort, and
strike aircraft down to two aircraft, a tanker and stealth bomber, with six crewmen.68 This type of dramatic reduction in aircraft
and personnel translated into huge cost savings with fewer lives placed at risk. Collateral damage is also greatly reduced or
eliminated, which translates into increased political capital. U.S. military dominance is only possible through the technological
superiority driven by semiconductors.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
16/77
1AC SEMICONDUCTORS ADV – 2/3
Visa Restrictions force US trained engineers to return to China- this enables the rise of the Chinese Semiconductor Industry
Brown and Linden, 8, (Clair- Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for Work, Technology, and Society, IRLE at the
University of California, Berkeley and Greg- Research Associate at the Institute for Business Innovation , University of California,
Berkeley 3/5/2008 “
Foreign-born U.S.-educated engineers can help develop the semiconductor industry in their home countries through two
routes—returning to work in their home country or starting a new company in the United States with activities in the home country.
Both of these paths are used by a small but influential number of engineers from India and China.36 Although the lifetime return
rates for engineers is not known, at the time of graduation 80 to 85% of noncitizen PhD graduates planned on remaining in the U.S. to
work.37 However only 60% of the noncitizen graduates, compared to 70% of citizen graduates, had made plans, and this indicates that
perhaps many were having trouble acquiring a visa required to work in the U.S. If we look at engineer BS graduation rates by country,
we see that China and India produce many engineers with a BS degree, but that most of them graduate from low-ranked colleges
(Table 6). The graduation numbers may indicate political and social commitment to advancing technical education rather than actual
capability. Also, these numbers are dynamic because of continuing drives to expand engineering degree programs in India and
especially China. According to a widely-cited Duke University study, the number of new EE-CS-IT bachelor degrees in China in 2004
had reached 350,000 (Gereffi and Wadhwa, 2005), but how long it will take the new programs to develop quality teaching programs is
an open question. Although China and India have large numbers of engineering graduates, the graduates from U.S. universities,
according to our interviews, are better trained, especially in team work on projects and on tools and equipment. For example,
undergraduate students in India and China usually do not have the opportunity to work on automated chip design (EDA) tools, while
EE students in the U.S. do. According to McKinsey, only 10% of Chinese and 25% of Indian engineering graduates are likely to be
suitable for employment by U.S. multinationals (McKinsey Global Institute, 2005).38
Chinese semiconductor production will fuel military modernization and give it the capability to directly challenge the U.S.
US-China Security Review Commission, 02 (2002 Report to Congress, http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2000_2003/reports/ch10_02.htm)
The China market for semiconductor equipment was about $1.2 billion in 1999 and the Semiconductor Industry Association
estimates that it will grow to $7 billion by 2003. China is now the most dynamic and fastest-growing market for such materials
since, at present it produces only about 10 percent of what it needs. Thus, while much of the technology industry has faced steep
downturns in the last year, China launched many new projects.43 Chinese manufacturers are beginning to narrow the gap
between U.S. and Chinese semiconductor manufacturing technology, the direct result of transfers of European, Japanese, and U.S.
integrated circuit production technology to manufacturers in China. China is expected to become the world’s third largest user of
microelectronics by 2005. Though the Mainland’s chip market, at $11.4 billion, is the largest in Asia, current chip production meets
only about 20 percent of demand. Consequently there is a boom in the development of semiconductor manufacturing projects:
Among China’s highest priorities is the development of an indigenous microelectronics industry. According to DOD, "A cutting-edge
domestic microelectronics sector will support both military and commercial modernization in China. China’s increasing
emphasis on development of very large-scale integrated circuits will have direct application in future military systems, for example,
advanced phased-array radars."44
As in other high-tech sectors, China has experienced problems converting its domestic designs into components for reliable weapons
systems. As a result it continues to target sensitive and controlled technology abroad. On May 3, 2001, U.S. Customs and the
Department of Commerce Export Control Enforcement officers raided the Orlando, Florida, office of the firm Means Come. The firm
was investigated for the illegal export of radiation-hardened integrated circuits to China without appropriate export licenses. These
chips are particularly critical for missile and satellite development programs.
National Security Implications
China is engaged in a comprehensive military modernization effort. It has determined which technologies it requires to accomplish its
strategies and missions, and has implemented a program to acquire the capabilities and technologies needed to achieve its goals.
China’s objective is to be self-sufficient in the production of weapons it deems vital to its national interests. A China selfsufficient in the production of state-of-the art power projection systems such as the SU-27 and SU-30MKK, and the continued
acquisition of Kilo-class submarines will seriously affect operational decisions of the U.S. and its allies in the region. In time,
China hopes to be able to effectively exploit several elements of asymmetric warfare and assassin’s mace weapons systems, to counter
U.S. technological superiority. The impact on U.S. operations will be dependent on the ability of the United States to understand
China’s programs and the current success of U.S. research and development programs for countering such programs.
Moreover, China is actively acquiring sensitive technologies to improve its commercial industrial base and to significantly enhance its
military capabilities to better challenge U.S. influence in Asia. While not a current or imminent threat, China will at some point soon
have the capability of seriously degrading U.S. capabilities and its operations in the South China Sea. If China can more
successfully integrate a modern industrial base with interoperable forces and advanced weapons systems and capabilities, U.S.
operational force strategies will have to be scrupulously reexamined.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
17/77
1AC SEMICONDUCTORS ADV – 3/3
Chinese modernization will escalate into a full blown arms race, causing a miscalculated nuclear war
Twomey 09 (Christopher, co-directs the Center for Contemporary Conflict and is an assistant professor in the Department of National Security Affairs, both at the Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, California, Arms Control Association, Chinese-U.S. Strategic Affairs: Dangerous Dynamism, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_01-02/china_us_dangerous_dynamism#Twomey)
China and the United States are not in a strategic weapons arms race. Nonetheless, their modernization and sizing decisions
increasingly are framed with the other in mind. Nuclear weapons are at the core of this interlocking pattern of development. In
particular, China is the only permanent member of the UN Security Council expanding its arsenal ; it is also enhancing its arsenal. The basic
facts of Chinese strategic modernization are well known, if the details remain frustratingly opaque. China is deploying road-mobile, solid-fueled
missiles, giving it a heighted degree of security in its second-strike capability. It is beginning to deploy ballistic missile
submarines (SSBNs). It is researching a wide range of warhead and delivery systems technologies that will lead to increased
accuracy and, more pointedly, increased penetration against ballistic missile defenses. The size of China's deliverable arsenal against
the United States will undoubtedly increase beyond the few dozen that it possessed recently.[1] The pace of growth thus far has been moderate,
although China has only recently developed reliable, survivable delivery systems. The final endpoint remains mired in opacity and uncertainty, although several score
of deliverable warheads seems likely for the near term. These developments on the strategic side are coupled with elements of conventional modernization that impinge
on the strategic balance.[2] The relevant issue, however, is not simply an evaluation of the Chinese modernization program, but rather an evaluation of the
interaction of that modernization with U.S. capabilities and interests. U.S. capabilities are also changing. Under the provisions of START and SORT,
the United States has continued to engage in quantitative reductions of its operational nuclear arsenal. At the same, there is ongoing
updating of warhead guidance and fusing systems. Ballistic missile defense systems of a variety of footprints are being deployed. The U.S. SSBN force now leans more
toward the Pacific than the Atlantic, reversing the Cold War deployment. Guam's capacity to support heavy bombers and attack submarines has been enhanced.
Furthermore, advances in U.S. conventional weaponry have been so substantial that they too promise strategic effects: prompt global strike holds out the promise of a
U.S. weapon on target anywhere in the world in less than an hour and B-2s with highly accurate weapons can sustain strategic effects over a campaign. What are the
concerns posed by these two programs of dynamic strategic arsenals? Most centrally, the development of the strategic forces detailed above has
increasingly assumed an interlocked form. The U.S. revolution in precision guided munitions was followed by an emphasis on
mobility in the Chinese missile force. U.S. missile defense systems have clearly spurred an emphasis on countermeasures in China's
ICBM force and quantitative buildups in its regional missile arsenals.[3] Beijing's new submarine-based forces further enhance the security of
China's second-strike capability in the face of a potential U.S. strike but are likely to lead to increased attention to anti-submarine warfare in the United
States. China's recent anti-satellite test provoked a U.S. demonstration of similar capabilities. Such reciprocal responses have
the potential to move toward a tightly coupled arms race and certainly have already worsened threat perceptions on each side. The potential for
conflict is not simply that of inadvertent escalation; there are conflicts of interests between the two. Heightening threat perceptions
in that context greatly complicates diplomacy. Further, the dangers of inadvertent escalation have been exacerbated by some of
these moves. Chinese SSBN deployment will stress an untested command-and-control system. Similar dangers in the Cold War were mitigated,
although not entirely overcome, over a period of decades of development of personnel and technical solutions. China appears to have few such controls in
place today. U.S. deployment of highly accurate nuclear warheads is consistent with a first-strike doctrine and seems sized for threats
larger than "rogue" nations. These too would undermine stability in an intense crisis.
Extinction
The Straits Times (Singapore), June 25, 2K. “No one gains in war over Taiwan.” l/n
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US
and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on
such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already
told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its
retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set
on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order.
With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be
similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal,
could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the
US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from
military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy,
Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to
resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of
using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing
also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use"
principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow
Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop
it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway
said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the
prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty
above everything else.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
18/77
1AC DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE ADV – 1/3
Plan key to prop up the defense industrial base – another internal link to heg
Terrence R. Guay 2007 (Clinical Assistant Professor of International Business at The Smeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University, where he
teaches international business and the business environment of Europe) GLOBALIZATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB756.pdf
Globalization has impacted labor, too. Highly skilled workers are sought by technology and other high-value-added firms, especially those
in the defense sector. In many cases, globalization has made these workers more mobile than ever before, and in those cases where mobility is restricted, companies have come to
them. There is considerable debate over the extent to which the United States is experiencing a skills gap. According to the National Science Foundation, more than 40 percent of
scientific and engineering talent will leave the U.S. workforce in the next decade or so.91 More then 50 percent of U.S. computer scientists and
nearly a quarter of its science and engineering workforce are from abroad. Entrepreneurs from China and India accounted for almost one-third of high-tech start-ups in Silicon Valley in the
1990s. Currently more than half the graduate students in engineering in the United States are foreign born.92 Half of China’s college graduate earn degrees in engineering, compared with only
5 percent in the United States. South Korea, with one-sixth the population of the United States, graduates about the same number of engineers as U.S. universities do.93 Results from the 2003
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study showed U.S. fourthgraders were outperformed by only three countries (Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore) in both math and science, but
that eighth-graders were outperformed in both fields by seven countries (Chinese Taipei, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Estonia, and Hungary).94 U.S. eight-graders ranked 15th
There seems to be no shortage of reports that the United States is falling behind in its
ability to educate and train its own citizens for the high-tech workplace of the 21st century. Part of the explanation behind the “falling behind”
(out of 45 countries) in math and tied for ninth in science.
scenario is that developing countries have devoted large amounts of resources in recent years to bring up the average education level of their citizens, so U.S. students have not so much been
doing more poorly than previous generations of U.S. students, but students in other countries are catching up quickly to U.S. levels. But the consequence of this shift is that workers
in
other countries will soon become as skilled and trained as U.S. workers, thereby reducing labor advantages that the United
States has long held. On the other hand, other studies suggest that the skills shortage may be less severe. For example, in proportion to its population, the United States conferred 55 percent more computer
science, information technology (IT), and engineering degrees than China, and almost four times more than India.95 A survey by the consultancy McKinsey revealed that the pool of Chinese engineers suitable to work for
multinationals is about 160,000, less than one-third of the graduates.96 Similarly, while three million students graduate from Indian universities each year, only about 25 percent of engineering graduates and 10-15 percent of
general college graduates are considered suitable for direct employment in the offshore IT and business process outsourcing industries, according to a study by India’s National Association of Software and Service
Companies. The consequence of such shortages is that highly skilled workers, particularly in engineering and the sciences, are in high demand everywhere—the United States, Europe, China, and India. The competition
among companies to hire and retain such workers is likely to be fierce in the short to medium term. Regardless of where the United States stands in its ability to generate a highly skilled workforce, it is clear that such talent is
countries, including
Taiwan, Korea, India, and China are trying to retain talented workers and lure expatriates back home by increasing investments in
science and offering better pay and opportunities.97 However, in the United States and most European countries, there has been a
backlash against immigration in recent years. Indeed, the “immigration debate” almost certainly has been the most discussed domestic policy issue in the United States in 2006. According to the National
in high demand throughout the world. Other developed countries, such as Australia and Canada, have become aggressive acquirers of talented immigrants and students. Developing
Science Board, onefourth of all college-educated workers in science and engineering occupations in 2003 were foreign born.98 This figure rises to 40 percent for doctorate degree holders in these occupations, and even higher
Despite these high numbers, it often is difficult for U.S.
firms to hire foreign workers in engineering and the sciences, given the procedures implemented since the 9/11 attacks. Hiring foreign
in some fields like computer science (57 percent), electrical engineering (57 percent), and mechanical engineering (52 percent).
workers, including those attending U.S. universities, is important particularly to technology-oriented firms, since numerous studies show serious math and science deficiencies among native-
it is increasingly difficult to get foreign students into our universities because of security
concerns and improved education options in their own countries.99 Those foreign students who are allowed into the United States
and complete their studies are returning home in ever greater numbers because of visa issues or better employment opportunities.
born U.S. students. Craig Barrett, chairman of Intel, argues that
The H1-B visa program, which provides a process for granting admission or permanent residency to foreign engineers and scientists, currently is capped at 65,000
people per year and is oversubscribed. Intel’s Barrett, among other technology leaders including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, have criticized the
restrictions on foreign workers, including a cap of 140,000 on the number of green cards that allow permanent employment, and
long processing delays meaning waits up to 7 years.100 The defense industry is insulated partly from some of these problems . Many hightech companies, if faced with a lack of engineering and science workers in the United States, can simply go to those locations where such workers are more abundant. But given the
national security concerns associated with the defense sector, it is more difficult (although not impossible) to move research and
development (R&D) abroad. In any case, if there is a limited talent pool within U.S. borders, defense industry firms at the least
will be forced to allocate greater resources to attract and retain such workers. Yet statistics show that where and how R&D funds are spent can be a critical source of
economic competitiveness. According to the National Science Foundation (NSF), federally funded R&D totaled $127.6 billion in 2006, of which $74.8 billion, or 58.6 percent, was allocated for national defense (including
DoD’s military activities, Department of Energy’s [DoE] atomic energy defense programs, and defense-related R&D of Department of Homeland Security [DHS]).101 In its most recent projections, the NSF expected total
R&D in the United States to amount to $312.1 billion in 2004, with $199.0 billion coming from industry, $93.4 billion from the federal government, $11.1 billion from colleges and universities, and $8.6 billion from other
nonprofit institutions.102 R&D expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) have ranged between 2.5-2.7 percent annually over the past decade. As a percentage of GDP over the period 2000- 03, the United
States ranks sixth (behind Israel, Sweden, Finland, Japan, and Iceland) and slightly ahead of South Korea, Switzerland, Denmark, and Germany. The increasing economic influence of Asia is evident in R&D spending.
According to a United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2005 report, Asia’s share of global research spending rose from 27.9 percent in 1997 to 31.5 percent in 2002, the most recent year
for which reliable figures were available.103 Over the same period, Europe’s share fell from 28.8 percent to 27.3 percent, and North America’s from 38.2 percent to 37.0 percent. Finally, according to the European Defense
While
the international comparisons are favorable toward the United States, one important element is where the R&D funds are being spent.
Increasingly, U.S. dollars are being spent overseas in centers in China and India, according to an annual report by the Battelle
Memorial Institute and R&D Magazine.105 While U.S. companies can deduct expenses for R&D to reduce their U.S. tax obligations,
actual research and development can take place anywhere in the world. Thus, companies can deduct expenses for R&D undertaken at
overseas offices and laboratories. IBM opened an “innovation center” in China during 2004 that will double the size of its existing IBM China Research Lab, and about one-third
Agency, participating member countries (all 25 EU members except Denmark) are expected to spend €2.3 billion on defense research and technology in 2006—about 1.3 percent of total defense expenditure.104
of Microsoft’s 700-person research division are located outside the United States. Data on the offshoring of R&D is anecdotal at this point, since data are not available on how much R&D U.S.
companies are conducting abroad. For
companies in the defense industry, this trend is a potential problem since they will be under competitive
pressure to utilize foreign research knowledge but will face significant restrictions by DoD. To the extent that national economic
competitiveness in general, and a thriving defense industry in particular, is built upon a well-educated and skilled workforce,
governments and companies will need to devise policies that ensure they have among the best pool of talent in the world. While the
international mobility of workers has yet to catch up to the mobility of companies, globalization gradually is leveling this playing field.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
19/77
1AC DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE ADV – 2/3
Defense-industrial deters war with China and Russia and solves terrorism
Watts, 8 – Senior Fellow @ The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (Barry D, “The US Defense Industrial Base, Past,
Present and Future,” CBA, http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20081015._The_US_Defense_In/R.20081015._The_US_Defense_In.pdf)
Since the 1950s, the US defense industrial base has been a source of long-term strategic advantage for the United States, just as it was
during World War II. American defense companies provided the bombers and missiles on which nuclear deterrence rested and armed the
US military with world-class weapons, including low-observable aircraft, wide-area surveillance and targeting sensors, and reliable
guided munitions cheap enough to be employed in large numbers. They also contributed to the development of modern digital
computers, successfully orbited the first reconnaissance satellites, put a man on the moon in less than a decade, and played a pivotal
role in developing the worldwide web. Critics have long emphasized President Eisenhower’s warning in his farewell television address that the nation needed
to “guard against the acquisition of undue influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Usually forgotten or ignored has been an earlier,
equally important, passage in Eisenhower’s January 1961 speech: A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms
must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction . Eisenhower’s
warning about undue influence, rather than the need to maintain American military strength, tends to dominate contemporary discussions of the US defense industrial
base. While the percentage of US gross domestic product going to national defense remains low compared to the 1950s and 1960s, there is a growing list of defense
programs that have experienced problems with cost, schedule, and, in a few cases, weapon performance. In fairness, the federal government, including the Department
of Defense and Congress, is at least as much to blame for many of these programmatic difficulties as US defense firms. Nevertheless, those critical of the defense
industry tend to concentrate on these acquisition shortcomings. The main focus of this report is on a larger question. How prepared is the US defense industrial base to
meet the needs of the US military Services in coming decades? The Cold War challenge of Soviet power has largely ebbed, but new challenges
have emerged. There is the immediate threat of the violence stemming from Salafi- Takfiri and Khomeinist terrorist groups and their state
sponsors, that have consumed so much American blood and treasure in Iraq; the longer-term challenge of authoritarian capitalist regimes epitomized
by the rise of China and a resurgent Russia; and, not least, the worsening problem of proliferation, particularly of nuclear weapons. In the
face of these more complex and varied challenges, it would surely be premature to begin dismantling the US defense industry. From a competitive
perspective, therefore, the vital question about the defense industrial base is whether it will be as much a source of long-term advantage in the decades ahead as it has
been since the 1950s.
China and Russia are gearing up to topple the U.S. – no chance of a peaceful rise
Nyquist, 7 – Analyst @ Financial Sense, frmr analyst @ Defense Intelligence Agency, Poli Sci Ph.D. program @ UC Irvine (J.R,
“One Clenched Fist,” http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/past]analysis/2007/0427.html)
Two recent items reveal Moscow’s intentions. First, President Vladimir Putin has announced that he is suspending Russia’s
commitment to follow the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty (CFE). This means that Russia can move tank and motorized
infantry divisions to NATO’s doorstep. Second, Russian radio news broadcasters have been ordered to make 50 percent of their
reporting on Russia “positive,” and that the United States is “from now on” to be described as Russia’s enemy. President Putin’s
intentions are clear. The Cold War is to be renewed. America is the “main enemy” once again. It has been my contention, for many years,
that this was the KGB’s intention from the outset. The collapse of Communism was a staged event. It was a repeat of Lenin’s New Economic
Policy of the 1920s, in which Russia pretended to liberalize and move toward capitalism, drawing investment and technology from the
West. I believe that the political process in Russia, from 1989 to the present, was guided to this end. In 1989 America’s leaders could not see the Kremlin’s intentions
because intentions are invisible to the naked eye. And so America’s leaders were fooled. Now Russia and China will emerge together as “one
clenched fist,” and their intention is to smash America. The Chinese, like the Russians, have carefully crafted their excuse for
enmity. And like the Russians, they will blame the American side. The Chinese government, through its official organ (The People's Daily),
says that U.S. Right-wing forces are determined to destroy a "fragile" Sino-U.S. relationship. The American side has supposedly
manufactured an imaginary "China threat." A typical column published by The People's Daily rhetorically asks: "Why Does U.S. Preach 'China Military
Threat'?" According to Beijing's official organ, the Americans are determined to misread China's intentions. "In the opinion of the United States," says the Daily, "... it
is still the traditional countries [like Russia and China] that constitute strategic threats." The People's Daily has also stated: "U.S. Right-wing forces ... have all along
clung to the Cold War mentality and held fast to the principle of containment in their policy toward China." The People's Daily bitterly complains that the Americans
oppose Chinese military expansion in Asia. Psychologically, the outrage expressed by Beijing inadvertently reveals the malevolence of
China's leaders. After all, why would The People's Daily express outrage at U.S. opposition to Chinese military expansion? Only a would-be aggressor
feels thwarted by the collective security arrangements of neighboring countries. In fact, if we look at recent history we find that China has sent its
armies against at least five neighboring countries since World War II: against Korea and the U.N. forces in 1950; against Tibet in 1950; against India in 1962; against
Russia in 1969; and against Vietnam in 1979. Each instance involved a sudden, unprovoked strike against foreign forces outside China.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
20/77
1AC DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE ADV – 3/3
Failure to check China’s rise causes nuclear war
Farah, 7 – founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily (Joseph, “A U.S.-China war?” LA Times Opinion, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup10oct10,0,1215555,full.story)
China is the Evil Empire of the future. You don't have to be a prophet to see it. You only need to be a student of history. It was just two years ago that a top Chinese military
official said Beijing would use nuclear weapons against the U.S. if Americans defended Taiwan against an invasion from the mainland. "If the Americans draw
their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People's
Liberation Army, said at an official briefing. Chas Freeman, a former U.S. assistant secretary of Defense, said in 1999 that a PLA official had told him China would respond with a nuclear
More recently,
we learned of China's plans for a cyberwar attack on the U.S. to be launched in conjunction with a conventional assault on
U.S. carriers in the Pacific. Code-named "Pearl Harbor II" by the Pentagon, the plan was designed to leave America's key allies
in the Pacific - Japan and Taiwan - virtually defenseless. Does this sound like the work of friends? We have a clear choice before us in dealing with the next great threat
to America's future - follow the policies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, or those of Ronald Reagan. In ignoring China's military expansion, its
threats against Taiwan, its threats even against the United States, we serve only to ensure a costly battle against the expansionist
power in the future. We are making our worst fear a virtual inevitability.
strike on the U.S. in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. "In the end, you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei," Freeman quoted this official as saying.
War with Russia causes extinction
Bostrom, gannon award winner, prof at oxford, 02 [Nick, Professor of philosophy at Oxford University, 2002, (http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html)]
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a
possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and
terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and
that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear
arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day
build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk,
since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely
to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the
21st century.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
21/77
1AC HEG IMPACTS – 1/3
US leadership prevents multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict – prefer it to all other alternatives
Kagan 07 Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [Robert “End of Dreams, Return of History” Policy
Review (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html#n10)]
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 postCold 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 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 only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American power. 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.
[Kagan continues]
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
22/77
1AC HEG IMPACTS – 2/3
[Kagan continued]
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 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.
No risk of a turn--U.S. withdrawal would leave behind a power vacuum, spurring terrorism, economic turmoil and multiple
nuclear wars.
Niall Ferguson 4, July/August “A World Without Power,” FOREIGN POLICY Issue 143
So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age
experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving . The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be
an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous-roughly 20 times more--so friction between the
world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and
the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a
city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital--has raised living standards
throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization-which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought
to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners
seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would
become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in
China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese
empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new
Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to
Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers,
aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could
devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East .
In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of
aids and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these
continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should
frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global
hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they
are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for.
The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. And far
more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
23/77
1AC HEG IMPACTS – 3/3
And U.S. leadership prevents Chinese hegemony
Thayer 07 (Bradley A.; Associate Professor in the Dept. of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University; American Empire: A Debate – Reply to
Christopher Lane: The Strength of American Empire; pg 103)
General Douglas MacArthur said that there was no substitute for victory. Just as there is no substitute for victory, there is no alternative for leadership. For if the
United States does not provide that leadership to its allies by pledging to use all of its power in their defense, then they will provide their own security. If the
United States does not lead the world, another hegemon will rise to replace it. That hegemon will be China. China will then be in
a position to dictate to the rest of world, including the United States. he United States would be far less secure in such a world. This is
because, first, the physical security of the United States would be jeopardized. Due to its military superiority, China would
have the ability to triumph over the United States in the event of war or an international crisis, like the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The
United States would be forced to back down, thus placing China’s interests before its own. China would be able to blackmail the
United States, to coerce it to do Beijing’s bidding. he United States would be relegated to the role of pawn on the international chessboard. Second, the
United States would lose its allies and global influence. As China’s power grew, countries would look to Beijing to be their
ally in order to gain security and assistance. It will be the case that countries long allied with the United States, such as Australia, will no longer be
allies as their interests require them to look to Beijing and away from Washington. Third, the Chinese economy will dominate the global
economy. Worldwide, both countries and businesses will look to China not simply as a market, as they do now, but the economic
locomotive of the world’s economy, as the lender of last resort, and as the stabilizer of economic exchange and the international
trade and monetary regimes. Countries will have to appease China economically or face the consequences of its wrath. Fourth, Chinese will be the
language of diplomacy, trade and commerce, transportation and navigation, the Internet, world sport, and global culture.
Additionally, China will dominate science and technology, in all of its forms—the life sciences, bioengineering, computer
science, and even space exploration. It will be a great blow to the pride of the United States , greater than Sputnik in 1957, when China
travels to the Moon, as they plan to do, and plants the communist lag on Mars, and perhaps other planets in the future.
Specifically, its key to stop Chinese adventurism in Taiwan
Brookes 08 – Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs at The Heritage Foundation. He is also a member of the congressional U.S.China Economic and Security Review Commission (Peter, Heritage, Why the World Still Needs America's Military Might, November 24, 2008)
We know that China is undergoing a major mil-itary buildup , especially involving its power projec-tion forces--i.e., air force, navy, and ballistic missile
forces, all aimed at Taiwan. Indeed, today Beijing has the world's third largest defense budget and the world's fastest growing
peacetime defense budget, growing at over 10 percent per year for over a decade. It increased its defense budget nearly 18 percent annually over the past two
years. I would daresay that military tensions across the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait between Taiwan and China would be much greater
today if not for an implied commitment on the part of the United States to prevent a change in the political status quo via military
means. China hasn't renounced the use of force against its neighbor and rival, Taiwan, a vibrant, free-market democracy. It is believed by many analysts that absent
American military might, China would quickly unite Taiwan with the main-land under force of arms. In general, the system of
military alliances in Asia that the United States maintains provides the basis for stability in the Pacific, since the region has failed
to develop an overarching security architecture such as that found in Europe in NATO.
Extinction
The Straits Times 2K (Singapore), June 25. “No one gains in war over Taiwan.” l/n
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US
and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale
would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan
privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea,
If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end
there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to
redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south
Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase . Will a fullJapan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore .
scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at
the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the
conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of
nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years
The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities.
Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use"
later, short of using nuclear weapons.
principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International
Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the
use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should
that come to pass, we would see
the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan
might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
24/77
INHERENCY – BACKLOGS NOW
EB visa backlogs are massive now – drives the cost and delay of high skilled immigration inhibiting business activity
Seth R. Leech (Partner with Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP and is a member of the Firm’s Immigration and International Trade
and Business Practice Groups and adjunct professor of immigration law at Albany Law School) and Emma Greenwood (Graduate of
the law program at Oxford University in the United Kingdom) 2010. Keeping America Competitive: A Proposal to Eliminate the
Employment-Based Immigrant Visa Quota. Albany Law Review Vol. 3 2010.
http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/files/Spring_Book_Leech.pdf
The major problem faced by U.S. companies as a result of the EB immigrant visa backlogs is that many current and future employees
are being deterred from working in the United States.82 The cost of sponsoring an employee visa is very high, and is made more
onerous by the length of the process, which necessitates repeat expenses of visa renewals and other necessary applications.83 Many
professionals are subject to export control regulations until they receive their green cards. 84 This prevents employing companies from
reaping the benefits that the employee could provide. Under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), releasing 85 restricted
software or technology to a foreign national is deemed an export to the foreign national’s home country, subjecting such release to any
licensing requirement that would apply to an actual transfer to that country.86 In order for companies to ensure that they are not in
violation and to mitigate sanctions if an unintentional violation occurs, they are encouraged to adopt far-reaching and potentially
expensive compliance programs.87 These protective measures isolate foreign nationals, which may significantly diminish their
contributions to a company by preventing them from working on certain projects or by limiting their work to very specific tasks
without providing much context for the work. This inhibits innovation and increases company costs. It is outside the scope of this
article to examine this exceptionally complex area of law in greater detail, but it is pertinent to note that the regulations affect not only
companies which are directly involved in industries such as military defense, but also those involved in medicine, agriculture, biology,
chemistry, and computer science. 88
Current backlogs are huge and reform for high skill workers now is critical to the economy
Ajay Malshe (Cornell Law School J.D. 2009; Goodwin Procter Fellow at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition in
Washington D.C.) 2010 “FROM OBSOLETE TO ESSENTIAL: HOW REFORMING OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS CAN
STIMULATE AND STRENGTHEN THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY”. Albany Government Law Review. 2010.
http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/files/Malshe.pdf
The immigration process in the United States is broken. Poorly designed and ineffectively implemented, the current scheme has
created a quagmire of backlogs and oversubscription. Those seeking admission to the United States face a daunting and sometimes
impossible journey. Employers cannot hire the foreign labor they need to complement the native workforce, boost overall production,
and compete in the global marketplace. Over the years, many companies have resorted to outsourcing portions of their business to
countries with more amicable immigration schemes, just to meet their labor needs.1
Against the backdrop of a broken immigration system, the United States has suffered through one of the worst economic crises in
nearly a century. 2The credit markets are frozen and the fundamentals of the economy are weak. Comprehensive immigration reform
can provide the United States with a tremendous catalyst for recovery. Congress must revise immigration laws to admit highly
qualified foreign workers to the country and keep them here. These immigrants will stimulate innovation and create jobs for
Americans, providing a pathway to economic restoration.
It is in the national interest to have a properly regulated system of legal immigration. A good immigration scheme “enhances the
benefits of immigration while protecting against potential harms.” 3By removing the backlogs, quotas, and oversubscriptions that
plague our current scheme, Congress can strengthen the economy. This article demonstrates that immigration is beneficial and
explains how reform of the current scheme can revitalize the U.S. economy.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
25/77
INHERENCY – FOREIGN STUDENTS DETERRED
Uncertain path to LPR deters foreign students from coming to the US, specifically the best and the brightest
Kato & Sparber 10 Professors of Economics @ Colgate University [Takao Kato (Research Fellow @ IZA Bonn, Research Associate
@ Center on Japanese Economy and Business, Columbia Business School, Research Associate @ Tokyo Center for Economic
Research, University of Tokyo, and Research Associate @ Center for Corporate Performance, Aarhus School of Business). & Chad
Sparber (External Research Fellow @ Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration), Quotas and Quality: The Effect of H-1B Visa
Restrictions on the Pool of Prospective Undergraduate Students from Abroad, IZA - Institute for the Study of Labor, May 2010, pg.
http://www.iza.org/conference_files/amm2010/sparber_c4359.pdf]
Perhaps most importantly, Column (4) presents the results using high school GPA. We again see evidence that restrictive H-1B policy
is reducing the quality of international applicants. The average GPA of international applicants at this university declined by 0.09
points, or 2.8% when measured in logs — a magnitude higher than that of any of the SAT regressions. The estimated effects on
average GPA of restrictive H-1B policy are statistically significant at the 5% level. 5 Conclusion To our knowledge, this paper is the
first to provide rigorous evidence on the effects of restrictive immigration policy on the quality of international applicants to US
tertiary education. The analysis employed two datasets: (i) College Board data on the SAT scores of prospective students; and (ii)
SAT and GPA data on a highly-selective university’s foreign-applicant pool. Both cases generate robust evidence that restrictive
policy is reducing the ability (or quality) of foreign students considering US education. Many US colleges and universities benefit
from the presence of high-quality international students directly and indirectly. For example, classroom experience for domestic
students is often enriched by the presence of well-motivated and well-prepared international students who provide diversity.
Universities and their students therefore suffer an immediate consequence of restrictive immigration policy. Should our results
translate into lower quality foreign-born graduates, however, the US could face even more important macroeconomic consequences.
Many international students continue to work in the US after graduation. Such individuals have proven to be especially effective in
innovative and entrepreneurial activity, boosting aggregate productivity. With lower ability individuals seeking entry into the US, the
country may ultimately sacrifice those aggregate gains. Given recent political developments in public opinion regarding highlyeducated immigrants, it is increasingly important to design policy to maximize the benefit of skill-based immigration. To this end, our
finding suggests that the current H-1B immigration policy (as compared to the policy prior to 2003) may be too restrictive and is
deterring the “best and brightest” of the global talent pool from entering the US. Thus, current policy is failing to maximize the benefit
of skill-based immigration that the majority of the public tend to favor.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
26/77
INHERENCY – WORKER SHORTAGE NOW
Skilled immigrants are needed to solve competitiveness – a graying workforce will destroy numerous industries
Nguyen 08 Aerospace engineer @ Boeing Company (24 years). MS in mechanical engineering from CSU, Long Beach. MBA from
University of La Verne. [Bao Q. Nguyen, ?Tomorrow's workforce: the needs for immigrant workers and strategies to retain them?|
Entrepreneur, Summer, 2008, pg. http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/print/180402412.html]
Corporate decision makers throughout the United States are now facing tremendous challenges in the intensified global marketplace. They have realized that in the new
business environment, people, not machines, have become the best source of sustainable competitive advantage. As Aburdende & Naisbitt stated, "The
corporation's competitive edge is people--an educated, skilled workforce that is eager to develop its human potential while
contributing to the organization's growth." (1) Employees have also been recognized as the driving force behind high performance and profitability. (2) They
enable an organization to achieve customer satisfaction, efficiency, and effectiveness. Successful leaders leverage their people's knowledge, skills, and abilities to reach
company goals and create assets that are truly proprietary. (3) Nevertheless, America's corporations are facing the dual crises of an aging workforce
and a the shrinking pool of talent. (4) Today's workforce includes many baby boomers who are beginning to reach retirement age.
According to federal government data, 40% of all U.S. workers will be 55 years of age or older by 2010. (5) The graying of the American workforce, then, is
not affecting just one or two corporations; rather, it is a systemic problem. (6) Five industries identified by Rappaport, Bancroft, and Okum as facing
acute shortages of skilled workers are aerospace and defense, utilities, health care, insurance and financial services, and public
education. These authors warned that the shortages will become critical if business leaders ignore them and fail to develop action plans for their own organizations.
(7) Kronenwette has bluntly stated that there are going to be wars for attracting labor, and at least one business leader agrees, having said that corporations will be
fighting for the laborers within the next five or six years. (8) Difficulties in replacing retiring workers are likely because, beyond making up for the knowledge of skills
possessed by former employees, future workers will need to be able to perform in a global and highly technological marketplace. (9) The
economies of Asian countries are booming, but American schools teach very little about Asia. Similarly, American students'
performance in math and science continues to fall behind those students in developing countries. A report published by the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) notes that while U.S. fourth graders placed near the top in international
rankings for math and science test scores, U.S. twelfth graders placed near the bottom. (10) As a potential solution to the skilled labor
shortage, many corporations are recruiting immigrants. This trend has been growing for some time, as the American Immigration Law Foundation
reported that of the 12.7 million new jobs created between 1990 and 1998, 38% (5.1 million) were filled by immigrants. Without the immigrants, these positions may
have gone unfilled. (11) Immigrant workers, both citizens and noncitizens, make a positive contribution to the U.S. labor market by filling high and low skilled
positions at large and small firms and increasing demands for goods and services. (12) In addition, immigration has played an important role in the success of America's
free enterprise economy. Phillips indicated that the percent of immigrants employed varies monotonically by firm size, from 18.4% in the smallest firm to 12.5% in the
largest. (13) Another report shows that immigrants are comparable with U.S. born workers in terms of education. In fact, the proportion of the foreign-born worker with
advanced degrees (12%) slightly exceeds that of natives (10%), while about 30% of immigrants and natives hold undergraduate degrees. (14) Without immigrants
filling the gap in labor force, America would have difficulty maintaining its leading position in the global market . (15) While there are
benefits from having immigrants in the workforce, issues related to differences in cultures and values also exist. Therefore, corporations must
develop strategies to effectively recruit and retain highly skilled immigrants in order to grow and compete in the new economy. Literature Review
Holding onto skilled workers is essential to America's economic growth. With the aging of the labor force and unmet need for skilled
younger workers, corporations have begun to realize that there is a labor shortage in this country. Leonard stated that there is not
enough new blood being recruited to avoid a shortage of experienced labor in the near future. She urged business leaders to act now
before it is too late. (16) Aging Workforce Judy and D'Amico have noted that by 2020, almost 20% of the U.S. population will be 65 or older. (17) Similarly, both
Hamm and Potter have pointed out that more than 60 million workers will retire within the next 30 years. (18) These retirements will
definitely put the United States in the position of having a severe shortage of workers, especially skilled workers . In addition, a recent report
on the aerospace industry indicated that 26% of aerospace workers will be eligible to retire in 2008. (19) The average aerospace production worker is 53 years old, and
the average aerospace engineer is 54 years of age. According to another report, there were seven working-age people for every person 65 and older in the United States
in 1950. Currently the ratio of workers to retirees is five to one, and by 2030 it will be three to one. Moreover, in about 15-20 years the working age native population
will actually begin to decline to a lower number than that of the current work force. (20) Lack of Skilled Workers To make the matter worse, prospects for
replacing retiring workers with younger individuals who have equal and greater skills do not look promising. As global competition
continues to intensify, American workers will increasingly need to acquire new skills and aptitudes. America faces a crisis in the
workplace as the gap widens between the inadequate skill level of the nation's emerging workforce and the higher-skill needs of the
changing workplace. Based on his own review of the literature, Chell reported that 60% of the new jobs in the early 21st century will
require skills that are today possessed by only 20% of workers. Making up this skills gap will be a big challenge for American workers
and employers. Chell also predicted that by 2010, as many as 300,000 jobs will be taken abroad because of the lack of appropriately
skilled workers in this country. Moreover, Chell mentioned that the National Association of Manufacturers, along with the Center for Workforce Success, had
released survey results showing that 60% of manufacturers typically reject between one-half and all applicants as unqualified, 62%
manufacturers reported that job applicants have inadequate technical skills, and one-third reported that job applicants have inadequate
reading or writing skills. (21) Although businesses and industries have been sounding the alarm for years, young people in America
are still leaving high school and college without the basic skills they need to become viable new employees.
[continues]
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
27/77
INHERENCY – WORKER SHORTAGE NOW
[continued]
Now, many of them are further handicapped because they do not know how to learn whatever new skills their jobs may require in the future. (22) The rise of new
industries has also meant the rise of new jobs. Knowledge-based jobs requiring postsecondary, vocational, or higher education have grown as a share of total
employment. Atkinson pointed out that there were fewer than 5,000 computer programmers in America in 1960 and more than 1.3 million in 1999. Managerial and
professional jobs have increased as a share of total employment from 22% in 1979 to 28.4% in 1995. Overall, there is an increasing realization across the nation that
firms in a wide range of industries face serious problems hiring workers with needed skills. Education and skills are increasingly becoming the ticket to upward
mobility and increased earnings. (23) The Need for Immigrant Workers Companies rely on immigrants to meet the need for skilled workers. (24) By
definition, immigrants can be classified into two major groups: legal and undocumented. This article is limited to a discussion of the former group, which itself can be
divided into smaller groups of foreign-born people who have U.S. citizenship and of those who are not citizens but hold visas that permit them to live and work in this
country legally. Ramsey has pointed to immigrants as a pool of talent that could to be tapped to meet the workforce challenges . Most leading
supervisors also support the trend because foreign workers bring many valuable traits to the workforce such as skills, work ethic, pride, ambition, new ideas, and
loyalty. (25) According to Potter, not only have immigrants workers provided willing labor to fill the gaps at the lowest skill level, they have
also provided an important resource to meet the growing demand for highly skilled, college-educated managers, technical specialists,
and professionals. For instance, in March 2000, foreign-born workers accounted for a total of 4.4 million (36.5%) of the 12 million persons in the labor force who
were age 25 and older and who had less than a high school diploma. In the same period, foreign-born college graduates accounted for 12.3% of the 37.5 million college
graduates in the U.S. workforce. (26) Benefits of Utilizing Immigrant Workers Grishwold indicated that immigrant workers give America an edge in the
global economy. They bring innovative ideas and entrepreneurial spirit to the United States , most notably in aerospace and other high-technology
industries. They also provide business contacts with other markets, enhancing America's ability to trade and invest profitably abroad. Last, they keep the economy
flexible, allowing American producers to keep prices down and meet changing consumer demands. An authoritative 1997 study by the National
Academy of Sciences concludes with the observation that immigration delivers a "significant positive gain" to native-born Americans of as much as $10 billion each
year. (27)
Current shortage of scientific talent prevents economic recovery – only the plan solves
Seth R. Leech (Partner with Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP and is a member of the Firm’s Immigration and International Trade
and Business Practice Groups and adjunct professor of immigration law at Albany Law School) and Emma Greenwood (Graduate of
the law program at Oxford University in the United Kingdom) 2010. Keeping America Competitive: A Proposal to Eliminate the
Employment-Based Immigrant Visa Quota. Albany Law Review Vol. 3 2010.
http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/files/Spring_Book_Leech.pdf
Bill Gates pointed to immigration as one of the key areas for reform and commented on the enormous value of immigrants to U.S. economic development. 8 He said,
“Now we face a critical shortage of scientific talent, and there’s only one way to solve that crisis today. Open our doors to highly
talented scientists and engineers who want to live, work, and pay taxes here.” 9 Many American employers believe that having a
global talent pool to choose from is critical to their ability to compete in a global economy.10 “Foreign nationals residing in the United States
were named as inventors or co-inventors in 25.6 percent of international patent applications filed from the United States in 2006.”11 It is apparent that in
research and development, these foreign workers are important drivers of innovation and resulting economic growth, even when the
economy begins to slow. “The departure of top talent in technology and science may . . . undercut the prospects for [economic]
recovery . . . .”12 United States companies rely heavily on foreign nationals living in and outside the United States, and for example, the contribution of inventors
with Chinese-heritage names on international patent applications filed from within the United States was 16.8% in 2006.13
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
28/77
INHERENCY – WORKER SHORTAGE NOW
Unprecedented skilled labor shortages within the decade will break the back of US science and tech industries
Sarah Peiker (Has over 17 years recruiting expertise in designing, implementing and delivering recruiting solutions. She joined Manpower Business Solutions in
April 2008 through the acquisition of CRI. a pure-play RPO company, where she led the CRI Consulting business and managed large RPO accounts) 2010:
Optimizing the Talent Pool, April, http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/MAN/1003110873x0x381940/3d54d48e-0198-4621-875e3c5a48eae46c/Optimizing%20the%20talent%20pool.pdf
With the abundance of talent in the marketplace, why has selecting qualified candidates gotten harder? Common myths around current
recruiting efforts include: Myth #1 There is no denying that there are historic numbers of people out of work. The recession took its
toll in the form of job cuts, furloughs, and wage and benefit reductions in just about every industry, and some fields have been hit
harder than others. The construction, manufacturing, retail, real estate and auto industries have been disproportionately affected by the
recession, contributing to significant job loss across those sectors.4 As expected, hiring in those industries has dropped off and many
of those jobs are likely gone for good. For job seekers, this means pursuing other industries or jobs outside their realm of experience.
However, the skill sets available from this population may not necessarily translate to a more widespread talent pool for positions in
other industries. Although there is an abundance of talent available, skill sets may not align with the needs of industries that are
predicted to experience rebound or growth such as education, health services, government, and business and professional services.5
According to Manpower’s annual Talent Shortage Survey, the top five positions employers are having most trouble filling globally
remain unchanged: skilled manual trades people, sales representatives, technicians (technical workers in the areas of
production/operations, engineering and maintenance), engineers and management/executives.6 Changing population demographics
and the number of baby boomers exiting the workforce have also impacted the availability of talent. The U.S. Census Bureau forecasts
that the 65-and-over population will rise from 38.7 million in 2008 to 88.5 million by 2050.7 Similarly, several industrial nations,
including Germany, Japan, Austria, Spain, Italy, Sweden, and Greece will also experience a contraction of their working populations.
The decline of baby boomers in the global workforce has led some economists to predict labor shortages of 10-15 million in the
coming decade.8 Market research firm IDC predicts that in the U.S. by 2016 there will be a three million person shortfall to satisfy
workforce needs.9 Escalating numbers of college graduates are entering the workforce, but they will not possess the same knowledge
and skills as aging workers. This requires organizations to invest in training and development to cultivate a workforce with the skills
they require. T ake away: If you are looking for a foreman or automotive mechanic, there might be plenty of candidates available.
However, the specialized skills possessed by this demographic will not necessarily increase the talent pool for organizations seeking
knowledge workers. For example, a Manpower Business Solutions client that is seeking an operations technician received 238
applicants. Of those, 22 met the minimum qualifications. In contrast, a position requiring more specific skills netted 34 candidates
with only one candidate meeting the minimum requirements.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
29/77
NANO ADV – LINK TO SEMICONDUCTORS
Winning the nano race is key to semiconductors – It provides the basis for necessary innovations and that boosts the economy
AZoNano 2005, Online Journal of Nanotechnology , March 17th. “U.S. Could Lose Race for Nanotechnology Leadership,”
www.azonano.com/news.asp%3FnewsID%3D635
The coming transition to nano-scale semiconductor devices means that leadership in information technology is up for grabs, warned
the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA).
At a news conference in Washington, D.C., today chief executives of U.S. semiconductor makers and a leading economist stressed the
importance of continued progress and leadership in semiconductor technology. The industry is observing the 40th anniversary of
Moore's Law -- an observation made in 1965 by industry pioneer Gordon Moore that the number of components on a computer chip
was doubling approximately every 12 months with a commensurate reduction in costs. Following the vision of Moore's Law, the U.S.
semiconductor industry has led the worldwide industry, contributing key innovations that have helped drive America's economic
growth. Speaking at the news conference were Steve Appleton, chief executive officer of Micron Technology and 2005 chairman of
the SIA; Craig Barrett, chief executive officer of Intel Corporation; Dale Jorgenson, Samuel W. Morris University Professor at
Harvard University; and George Scalise, president of the SIA. The industry executives noted that four decades of continuous advances
in microchip technology have led to creation of entirely new industries, including personal computers, the Internet, and cellular
telephones, while enabling major advances in biotechnology, medicine, and environmental protection. Professor Jorgenson discussed
the contributions semiconductors have made to economic growth and productivity gains during the past decade. SIA called for stepped
up support for basic research in the physical sciences to assure continued U.S. technology leadership. Experts believe current
semiconductor technology could run up against physical, technological, and economic limits around 2020. "U.S. leadership in
technology is under assault," said Barrett. "The challenge we face is global in nature and broader in scope than any we have faced in
the past. The initial step in responding to this challenge is that America must decide to compete. If we don't compete and win, there
will be very serious consequences for our standard of living and national security in the future." Barrett said that industry scientists
believe current CMOS scaling to support Moore's Law can remain in effect for at least another 10 to 15 years. When the smallest
features on a chip shrink to less than 10 nanometers -- 10 one-billionths of a meter -- current chipmaking technology will reach its
ultimate limits. To keep Moore's Law alive, the industry will have to leave Newtonian physics behind and transition to the realm of
quantum physics -- the era of nanotechnology. "U.S. leadership in the nanoelectronics era is not guaranteed," noted Barrett. "It will
take a massive, coordinated U.S. research effort involving academia, industry, and state and federal governments to ensure that
America continues to be the world leader in information technology."
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
30/77
NANO ADV – SOLVENCY
Plan cripples competitors nanotechnology development and ensure US nanoleadership—the US produces the majority of
researchers--- they want to stay but can’t due to lack of visas
PCAST (President?s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, an advisory group of the Nation?s leading scientists and
engineers, appointed by the President to augment the science and technology advice available to him from inside the White House and
from cabinet departments and other Federal agencies) 3/25/2010: REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ON THE
THIRD ASSESSMENT OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE,?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-nano-report.pdf
One area in which the United States is unchallenged is in educating nanotechnology researchers. The United States still trains the
majority of Ph.D. students in nanoscience and nanotechnology, and though many of these students wish to remain in the United States
after completing their degree programs, the data show that over one-third of these students return to their home countries and
contribute to the development of nanotechnology R&D programs throughout the world.
To maintain the Nation’s leadership role in nanotechnology, the NNAP recommends that the NNI increase its emphasis on
nanomanufacturing and commercial deployment of nanotechnology-enabled products, and that the agencies within the NNI must
interact and cooperate more with one another to ease the translation of scientific discovery into commercial activity. And though there
are benefits to training nanotechnology researchers that return to their home countries, the NNAP also recommends that the Federal
Government take steps to retain scientific and engineering talent trained in the United States by developing a program to provide U.S.
Permanent Resident Cards for foreign individuals who receive an advanced degree in science or engineering at an accredited
institution in the United States and for whom proof of permanent employment in that scientific or engineering discipline exists.
Plan crushes competitor’s nano, saving ours
Morse 10 (Jeff, Ph.D., Managing Director – National Nanomanufacturing Network, “Challenges for Sustaining Leadership in
Nanotechnology in the U.S.”, InterNano, 8-25, http://www.internano.org/content/view/441/251/)
In the midst of this less than rosy outlook there remains optimism in the ability of the U.S. to correct the course from which
nanomanufacturing will be well positioned to lead the way for future economic growth. In this context, the NNI is considering ways in
which to provide the necessary infrastructure both to parlay its investment in nanotechnology into sustainable economic growth and to
augment existing technology manufacturing capabilities. These were some of the key recommendations made in the PCAST report
which cited increased emphasis on nanomanufacturing and commercialization of nano-enabled products, increased commitment to
workforce training and education in nanofabrication, and strengthening and consolidating efforts and knowledge in environmental,
health, and safety research. That said, the U.S. and NNI face significant challenges in achieving these objectives while maintaining
global leadership in nanotechnology overall. While the U.S. still leads the world in nanotech innovation by virtue of its size, Japan,
Germany, and South Korea are doing a better job of bringing technology to market, according to Lux Research. In terms of sheer
volume, the U.S. dominated the rest of the world in nanotech funding and new patents last year, as U.S. government funding,
corporate spending, and VC investment in nanotech collectively reached $6.4 billion in 2009. But according to a new report from Lux
Research, countries such as China and Russia launched new challenges to U.S. dominance in 2009, while smaller players such as
Japan, Germany, and South Korea surpassed the United States in terms of commercializing nanotechnology and products. The report
further pointed to the U.S. capacity to commercialize these technologies and leverage them for sustainable economic growth. U.S.
competitiveness in long-term innovation is also at risk, as the relative number of science and engineering graduates in its population is
significantly lower than it is in other countries. This last point hits home in a critical way as it becomes necessary to retain an educated
workforce in nanotechnology within the U.S., and many graduates from other countries take employment elsewhere, essentially
bringing that training, education, and competitiveness back to those countries. To address this issue, effective programs must be
established to retain graduates within the U.S. having strategic backgrounds and expertise through various means including visa
extensions and other incentives. Additionally, expansion of education and workforce training programs is essential to facilitate a
broader, more sustainable infrastructure providing a workforce trained in nanotechnology at levels ranging from high school to postdoctoral levels. To facilitate the necessary workforce education and training, NSF has funded new education initiatives and the
PCAST report has recommended improved coordination around education and workforce issues. In order to provide multidisciplinary
education and training, many universities and two year colleges are anticipating the next generation needs of industry and have
established nanotechnology-focused curriculum including hands on training in order to address these needs.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
31/77
COMPETITIVENESS ADV – UNIQUENESS
Competitiveness decline is happening now – we’re falling behind in innovation and workers
Atkinson 10 (Dr. Robert D., President – Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, “Role the U.S. Government Can Play in
Restoring U.S. Innovation Leadership”, Testimony Before U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology, 3-24,
http://www.itif.org/files/2010-restoring-innovation-leadership-testimony.pdf)
The United States Has Lost its Lead in Innovation The combination of its policy and non-policy strengths, combined with policy and
non-policy weaknesses in other nations, enabled the United States to lead in innovation for over half a century. However, changes
both in the United States and abroad have meant that while the United States continues to have many strengths, there is disturbing
evidence that our overall innovation lead has not only been lost, but that we are continuing to rapidly lose ground. As ITIF
documented in The Atlantic Century, from the year 2000 to 2009, the United States slipped from number 1 to number 6 in global
innovation-based competitiveness, behind nations such as Singapore, Denmark, Sweden and South Korea. The primary reason for this
is that every other nation or region made faster progress than we did on a collection of 16 innovation competitiveness indicators.
Overall, we ranked 40th out of 37 countries and three regions in making progress on innovation and competitiveness. We see signs of
this relative decline in innovation capacity in a wide array of indicators. The decline began at least in the 1990s with the United States’
shares of worldwide total domestic R&D spending, new U.S. patents, scientific publications and researchers and bachelor’s and new
doctoral degrees in science and engineering all falling from the mid-1980s to the beginning of this century (figure 1), when we were
still number 1. But given our strong overall lead, the declines were not enough to move us down from number 1 until this last decade.
There has been a declining share of American college graduates with science and technology degrees. The United States now lags
behind much of the world in the share of its college graduates majoring in science and technology. As a result, the United States ranks
just 29th out of 109 countries in the percentage of 24- year-olds with a math or science degree. Although Americans (citizens and
permanent residents) are getting graduate degrees at an all-time high rate, the increase in graduate degrees in natural science,
technology, engineering and math fields has been minimal during the last two decades. The number of non-science and engineering
degrees increased by 64 percent between 1985 and 2002, while the number of science, technology, engineering and mathematics
degrees grew by only 14 percent during that period.12 The United States ranks only 14th among countries for which the National
Science Foundation tracks the number of science and engineering articles per million inhabitants. Sweden and Switzerland produce
more than 60 percent as many science and engineering articles in relation to the size of their populations than does the United
States.13
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
32/77
COMPETITIVENESS ADV – PERCEPTION KEY
We don’t need to win competitiveness uniqueness – Just perception of competitiveness decline crushes hegemony
Gelb 10 (Leslie, Senior Official – State and Defense Department and President Emeritus – CFR, “Fashioning a Realistic Strategy for
the Twenty-First Century,” Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 34(2), Summer, http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/342pdfs/Gelb.pdf)
Power is what it always has been. It is the ability to get someone to do something they do not want to do by means of your resources
and your position. It was always that. There is no such thing in my mind as “soft” power or “hard” power or “smart” power or “dumb”
power. It is people who are hard or soft or smart or dumb. Power is power. And people use it wisely or poorly. Now, what has
changed is the composition of power in international affairs. For almost all of history, international power was achieved in the form of
military power and military force. Now, particularly in the last fifty years or so, it has become more and more economic. So power
consists of economic power, military power, and diplomatic power, but the emphasis has shifted from military power (for almost all of
history) to now, more economic power. And, as President Obama said in his West Point speech several months ago, our economy is
the basis of our international power in general and our military power in particular. That is where it all comes from. Whether other
states listen to us and act on what we say depends a good deal on their perception of the strength of the American economy. A big
problem for us in the last few years has been the perception that our economy is in decline.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
33/77
COMPETITIVENESS ADV – REVERSE BRAIN DRAIN
High skilled immigrants are leaving the US in droves. Our immigration policy is the cause – that kills competitiveness
Wadhwa 09 Senior research associate @ Labor & Worklife Program, Harvard Law School [Vivek Wadhwa, Our Real Problem Is the
Brain Drain, New York Times, April 8, 2009, 6:45 am, pg. http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/do-we-need-foreigntechnology-workers/
The debates about H-1B visas and legislation restricting firms getting federal bailouts from hiring foreign students are badly out of
touch with the new global reality. The U.S. is no longer the only land of opportunity. Highly skilled foreign-born workers are leaving
the country in droves.
Research at Duke, Berkeley, New York University and Harvard has shown that skilled immigrants have fueled our tech boom. Over
half of Silicon Valley tech start-ups and a quarter of those nationwide were founded by immigrants from 1995-2005. In 2005 alone,
these companies generated $52 billion in revenue and employed 450,000 workers — a number greater than the number of H-1B
workers in the tech industries over the prior 10 years combined. Foreign nationals in the U.S. contributed to 25.6 percent of our global
patents in 2006.
But because of shortsighted immigration policies, we increased the numbers of temporary H-1B visas over the years, but not
permanent resident visas. So we have about 500,000 engineers, scientists, doctors and other professionals working for American
companies who are stuck in “immigration limbo.”
While they wait to become permanent residents, they can’t change jobs without losing their position in line or even accept a
promotion. Their visas don’t allow their spouses to work or obtain Social-Security numbers which are needed for things like driver’s
licenses. So they live like second-class citizens.
Add to this the isolation and loneliness which most immigrants feel when they come to a new land and the burgeoning economies of
India and China, and you have the perfect storm for diminishing U.S. competitiveness. Thousands are returning home every month.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
34/77
ECON ADV – UNIQUENESS (NO GROWTH NOW)
Economists predict no growth soon
CNN 9/21/2010: Economy improving, but still hurting.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/21/news/economy/weak_recovery_economists_survey/?section=money_latest
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Even if the economy avoids falling into a double-dip recession, the next year will probably feel
like one anyway, a CNNMoney.com survey of economists showed. Unemployment is expected to remain high, according to the
survey of 31 top economists. Their average forecast is for the rate to be at 9.5% -- only slightly lower than current levels. And next
year isn't looking much better. Unemployment is only expected to fall to about 9% by the end of 2011, the survey showed. Overall
economic growth is expected to be anemic at best. Economists' consensus forecast is for gross domestic product, the broadest measure
of the economy, to grow only 1.9% in the third quarter and 2.5% during the last three months of 2010. Growth is expected to pick up
to 2.7% in 2011. But those forecasts are slower than the pace of growth from earlier this year, and below the historical average growth
of 3.6% that typically takes place during a recovery. And while a majority of the economists are predicting that home prices have
bottomed, they are only expected to rise around 1% in the next 12 months. About one in five economists predict more price declines,
and the same number project no growth at all.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
35/77
ECON ADV – GROWTH 2AC 1/2
We won’t need to win an economic collapse – Absent high skill immigration reform for STEM workers, innovation and
economic growth will tank collapsing competitiveness and causing offshoring
Fitz 9 (Marshall, Director of Immigration Policy – Center for American Progress and JD – University of Virginia Law, “Prosperous Immigrants, Prosperous
America”, Center for American Progress, December, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/12/pdf/highskilled_immigrants.pdf)
Immigrants who come to the United States to study at our best universities and then go to work at our nation’s leading companies contribute directly and immediately to
our nation’s global economic competitiveness. High-skilled immigrants who have started their own high-tech companies have created hundreds of thousands of new
jobs and achieved company sales in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet despite the critical importance of such immigrants to the nation’s
economic success in a global economy, our current high-skilled immigration system is a two-fold failure: arbitrary restrictions prevent
companies from effectively tapping the full potential of this talent pool, while inadequate safeguards fail to prevent against wage
depression and worker mistreatment. The reforms outlined in this paper will help establish a 21st century immigration system that serves the nation’s economic
interests and upholds our responsibilities in a global economy. Of course, our current immigration policies have failed the country on many fronts beyond the highskilled policy arena. And the urgent need for comprehensive, systemic reforms is beyond question. The national debate has understandably focused up to this point on
the most visible and most highly charged issue—ending illegal immigration. Solving that riddle and ending illegal immigration is indisputably a national imperative and
must be at the heart of a comprehensive overhaul of our system. But reforms to our high-skilled immigration system are an important component of that broader reform
and integral to a progressive growth strategy.1 Science, technology, and innovation have been—and will continue to be—keys to U.S.
economic growth. The United States must remain on the cutting edge of technological innovation if we are to continue driving the
most dynamic economic engine in the world,2 and U.S. companies must be able to recruit international talent to effectively compete in
the international innovation arena. To be certain, educating and training a 21st century U.S. workforce is a paramount national priority and the cornerstone of
progressive growth. Improving access to topflight education for everyone in this country will be the foundation for our continued global leadership and prosperity.3 But
it is shortsighted in a globalized economy to expect that we can fill all of our labor needs with a homegrown workforce. In fact, our
current educational demographics point to growing shortfalls in some of the skills needed in today’s economy .4 And as global economic
integration deepens, the source points for skill sets will spread—such as green engineering in Holland or nanotechnology in Israel—the breadth of skills needed
to drive innovation will expand, and global labor pools must become more mobile. Reforming our high-skilled immigration system
will stimulate innovation, enhance competitiveness, and help cultivate a flexible, highly-skilled U.S. workforce while protecting U.S.
workers from globalization’s destabilizing effects. Our economy has benefitted enormously from being able to tap the international
pool of human capital.5 Arbitrary limitations on our ability to continue doing so are ultimately self-defeating: Companies will lose out
to their competitors making them less profitable, less productive, and less able to grow; or they will move their operations abroad with
all the attendant negative economic consequences. And the federal treasury loses tens of billions of dollars in tax revenues by restricting the opportunities
for high-skilled foreign workers to remain in the United States.6
And growth is necessary for democracy and stopping World War 3
J Bradford DeLong (’82, Ph.D. ’87, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley, is at work on “The Economic
History of the Twentieth Century) 2006: Slouching towards Utopia?” Harvard Magazine 2006http://harvardmagazine. com/2006/01/growth-is-good. html
Benjamin M. Friedman ’66, Jf ’71, Ph.D. ’71, Maier professor of political economy, now fills in this gap: he makes a powerful argument that—politically and
sociologically—modern society is a bicycle, with economic growth being the forward momentum that keeps the wheels spinning. As
as the wheels of a bicycle are spinning rapidly, it is a very stable vehicle indeed. But , he argues, when the wheels stop—even as the
long
result of economic stagnation, rather than a downturn or a depression—political democracy, individual liberty, and social tolerance are
then greatly at risk even in countries where the absolute level of material prosperity remains high. Consider just one of his examples—a calculation he picks up from his colleague
Alberto Alesina, Ropes professor of political economy, and others: in an average country in the late twentieth century, real per capita income is falling by 1.4 percent in the year in which a
military coup occurs; it is rising by 1.4 percent in the year in which there is a legitimate constitutional transfer of political power; and it is rising by 2.7 percent in the year in which no major
transfer of political power takes place. If you want all kinds of non-economic good things, Friedman says—like openness of opportunity, tolerance, economic and social mobility, fairness, and
democracy—rapid economic growth makes it much, much easier to get them; and economic stagnation makes getting and maintaining them nearly impossible. The book is a delight to read,
probing relatively deeply into individual topics and yet managing to hurry along from discussions of political order in Africa to economic growth and the environment, to growth and equality,
to the Enlightenment thinkers of eighteenth-century Europe, to the twentieth-century histories of the major European countries, to a host of other subjects. Yet each topic’s relationship to the
central thesis of the book is clear: the subchapters show the virtuous circles (by which economic growth and sociopolitical progress and liberty reinforce each other) and the vicious circles (by
which stagnation breeds violence and dictatorship) in action. Where
growth is rapid, the movement toward democracy is easier and societies become
freer and more tolerant. And societies that are free and more tolerant (albeit not necessarily democratic) find it easier to attain rapid economic
growth. Friedman is not afraid to charge head-on at the major twentieth-century counterexample to his thesis: the Great Depression in the United States. Elsewhere in
the world, that catastrophe offers no challenge to his point of view. Rising unemployment and declining incomes in Japan in the 1930s certainly
played a role in the assassinations and silent coups by which that country went from a functioning constitutional monarchy with
representative institutions in 1930 to a fascist military dictatorship in 1940—a dictatorship that, tied down in a quagmire of a land war
in Asia as a result of its attack on China, thought it was a good idea to attack, and thus add to its enemies, the two superpowers of
Britain and the United States. In western Europe the calculus is equally simple: no Great Depression, no Hitler . The saddest book on my
shelf is a 1928 volume called Republican Germany: An Economic and Political Survey, the thesis of which is that after a decade of post-World War I political turmoil,
Germany had finally become a stable, legitimate, democratic republic. And only the fact that the Great Depression came and offered Hitler his
opportunity made it wrong.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
36/77
ECON ADV – GROWTH 2AC 2/2
And democracy is key to prevent extinction.
Diamond, 95, Larry, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute, 1995, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, Online
Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears
increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of
democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The
experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war
with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically
"cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do
not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another.
Expanding employment based visas is the vital internal link to economic growth – no other policy measure comes close
Kane and Litan, 9 - *senior fellow at Heritage AND vice president for research at the Kauffman Foundation (Tim and Robert, “KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
IMMIGRATION: A PRIORITY FOR U.S. GROWTH POLICY," April 30, http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/Knowledge_Economy_Immigration_Policy_4-30-09.pdf
There are countless policy improvements that can enhance economic growth in the United States —policies that will create jobs in the private
sector, enhance wages, and fundamentally improve the health and welfare of the people. In this year when an economic recession is a pressing concern for
a new Congress and Administration, attention is focused on fiscal and monetary policies, but the environment for legal and institutional policy reform is
ripe as well. Of all the policies that could be changed, probably none would have a greater positive impact on long-term economic
growth than removing barriers to the immigration of highly skilled and highly educated individuals. Nearly all reform proposals have natural
advocates who are active in lobbying the Congress. In contrast, knowledge economy immigration reform does not have a natural advocacy group to petition the government. Past immigrants who are now citizens have no
personal stake in such reform and foreign interests (including immigrants) are unable to press their case with U.S. government leaders for legal reform. Furthermore, the benefits of high-skill immigration are predominantly
widespread positive externalities, so no single constituency benefits enough to advocate on behalf of immigrants. Making the situation more difficult, legal knowledge economy migration is easily confused with “illegal
immigration” and the larger issue of immigration reform in the United States, which is dominated by concerns over low-skill migrants from Latin America. This predicament is unfortunate, and in these times when the
economy is contracting rather than growing, something that must change. While debate, even among the experts, continues about the net economic and social impact of low-skill immigrants, the case for expanded
immigration of highly skilled immigrants, or those seeking higher skills, is overwhelming. In this essay we outline both the economics and politics supporting the expanded immigration of skilled foreign immigrants, as well
as those seeking skills. In so doing, we offer some concrete, common sense recommendations for welcoming more immigrants who are waiting to contribute to the growth of our increasingly knowledge-based economy. The
For the past two decades, the U.S. has been home to about half of all immigrants in developed countries
who have more than a high-school education, maintaining a lead in the global competition for talent. However, in the wake of tougher
scrutiny of immigrants in our post-9/11 world, the U.S. faces increasing competition for human talent from other countries. America
still has two key advantages in this race for talent: its universities, which continue to rank among the world’s best, and the world’s
largest, most technologically advanced economy, which still is hospitable to entrepreneurial activity. Immigrants have taken advantage of these
opportunities to an unusual degree. According to research from Arlene Holen, "Over the five years 2003- 2007, 143,391 bachelor’s degrees were granted in STEM fields in the United States to nonresident aliens, 255,267 master’s degrees, and 49,532 doctoral degrees." She further estimated that nearly 200,000 of these science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM)
graduates would have stayed and worked in the U.S. but for constraints by the federal government that required them to leave. And so
the American economy has lost out on the multiple benefits generated by knowledge economy immigrants, five of which are described here: First,
Benefits of Knowledge Economy Immigration
immigrants are responsible for a disproportionate number of successful high-growth companies. Among technology and engineering companies started in the U.S. during the 1995-2005 period, 25 percent had at least one
immigrant key founder according to a 2007 study by Vivek Wadhwa of Duke University and his co-authors. In Silicon Valley, over 50 percent of the startups in that period had at least one immigrant key founder.1 Second,
immigrant-founded companies generate jobs for native Americans. Amar Bhidé’s 2008 study (described in his book The Venturesome Economy) of
106 U.S. venture-backed businesses found that some “60 percent of the founding teams included immigrants.”2 Bhidé notes that the ratio of immigrants to
natives declines as companies mature, indicating immigrants are creating opportunities for U.S. workers born here. The evidence bears
this out. In 2006, the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) estimated that since 1990 venture-backed firms owned by immigrants have created
more than 400,000 jobs and collectively represented a market capitalization of roughly $500 billion.3 Third, immigrants to the United States are
responsible for a disproportionate number of inventions. Foreign nationals account for 25 percent of international patent applications
filed from the U.S.4 Fourth, contrary to the perception among some, skilled immigrants are not displacing native Americans in the U.S. market.
Entrepreneurs widely report that perhaps the most significant constraint on their ventures’ growth is the difficulty finding and
attracting highly skilled workers.5 Indeed, by failing to attract and retain skilled knowledge workers from abroad, we will reduce jobs available for native
Americans. If we can’t be successful in attracting foreign workers here, U.S.-based firms will have stronger incentives to locate new
facilities or move existing ones off-shore in order to employ foreign, high-skill workers in their home countries.6 Better to bring those
workers here, and thus keep U.S.-based facilities and the jobs they create at home. Fifth, high-skilled immigrants have a positive impact on the federal
budget. Preliminary analysis by Arlene Holen of the Technology Policy Institute7 finds that the gross loss of federal revenues from two groups—
foreign graduates and H1-B workers—who were required to leave the U.S.. during 2003-2007 was $2.7 to $3.6 billion and $4.5 to $6.2 billion
respectively. These estimates are only for the losses that have already occurred. The lost opportunity representing migrants who have never been able
to enter the U.S. may be several multiples higher Moreover, Holen’s estimates do not take account of the long-term boost to our GDP and the growth in federal revenues from encouraging the
permanent migration of skilled foreign residents or foreign residents who come to this country to obtain those skills and use them to start and grow new enterprises. Legal Barriers to Knowledge Economy Immigration
Immigration into the U.S. adds significantly to the size of the U.S. labor force and is one of the signature differences between the
relatively high rates of economic growth and demographic health of the United States relative to other advanced economies, notably
those in Europe. In testimony before Congress in May 2007, Peter Orszag, then director of the Congressional Budget Office (and now Director of the Office of Management and Budget) said, “In 2006, 23 million
workers—one in seven workers in the United States—were foreign born, and half had arrived since 1990. During the past decade, foreign-born workers accounted for half of the growth of the U.S. labor force.”8
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
37/77
ECON ADV – SOLVENCY
Plan is critical to U.S. economic leadership. Inevitable shortages in STEM workforce will destroy competitiveness and hinder
every internal link to recovery and growth.
Paschal O. Nwokocha (1996 cum laude graduate of William Mitchell College of Law. Immigration Law) 2008: American
Employment-Based Immigration Program in a Competitive Global Marketplace: Need for Reform. 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 38.
William Mitchell Law Review 8
Many indicators suggest that receiving countries, and in this case the United States, benefit currently from employment-based
immigration and will continue to do so in the future.199 In 2006, immigrants made up 12.5 percent of the population, or 37.4 million
people in the United States.200 In economic terms alone, the United States has measurably profited from employment-based
immigration; a recent report produced by Goldman Sachs states that overall economic output slows as the American labor force grows
more slowly, and that new migrants have added approximately 0.5 percent to American gross domestic product every year in the past
decade.201 Skilled immigrants supplement an aging and shrinking American workforce; they are entrepreneurs who create jobs and
wealth, consumers of goods and services, and skilled workers whose large numbers encourage capital business investment.202
Employment-based immigrants also pay taxes in the United States.203 A study by the National Research Council points out that
migrants with more than a high school education generate a net fiscal benefit of $198,000 over their lifetime.204 Immigrant labor also
helps keep the American economy stable because, during strong growth periods, immigrants lower “the risk of wage pressures and
rising inflation.”205 If growth slows, migrants often choose to move home, to migrate to another country, or not to migrate
initially.206 Skeptics of the benefits of employment-based immigration argue that immigrants fill jobs that otherwise could have been occupied by native workers.207
This assertion may hold true for the least well off Americans, as income inequality has increased in the United States, while the real wages of the least skilled workers
have decreased.208 Where immigrants do directly compete with native workers in low skill jobs, wages have been kept 3–8 percent lower.209 Yet overall low
unemployment rates suggest that immigrants have not displaced native workers.210 Moreover, labor demand does not remain fixed when immigrants enter the
economy,211 and the economic net gain should not be undervalued. Immigrants to the United States have assisted the drive for innovation and
entrepreneurship and have helped keep the United States at the forefront of industry.212 Greater numbers of skilled workers provide
greater intellectual wealth, an immeasurably valuable resource for companies, universities, and research institutions to incite future
developments in their fields.213 As a recent article in The Economist points out: America has always thrived by attracting talent from the world. Some 70 or so
of the 300 Americans who have won Nobel prizes since 1901 were immigrants. Great American companies such as Sun Microsystems, Intel and Google had
immigrants among their founders. Immigrants continue to make an outsized contribution to the American economy. About a quarter of information technology (IT)
firms in Silicon Valley were founded by Chinese and Indian immigrants. Some 40 % of American PhDs in science and engineering go to immigrants. A similar
proportion of all the patents filed in America are filed by foreigners.214 Employment-based immigrants to the United States can also alleviate
specific labor shortages.215 The U.S. Labor Department projects that by 2014 there will be more than two million job openings in
science, technology, and engineering, while the number of Americans graduating with degrees in those areas are plummeting.216
Supplementing this deficiency with skilled, educated, foreign-born employees will maintain American industry leadership in these
fields. All these benefits, however, are at risk because the United States is simply ill-equipped for today’s global labor market.217 The
current employment-based immigration system fails to vigorously compete for human capital. Immigration policies that may have
worked well in a world of relatively impermeable borders and immobile factors of production, particularly labor, are not only
unsuitable for today’s world of porous borders and relentless mobility, but are a handicap .218 Evolving patterns of commerce, communication,
and migration necessitate change in domestic immigration conceptions.219 “None of these competitive advantages can be realized, however, if countries do not reform
their immigration policies to facilitate the entry of skilled workers. No country can compete effectively for human capital in the global labor market until it first chooses
to compete.”220 American policy “lacks focus and fails to exploit this country’s many advantages in the global competition for human talent.”221 American businesses
seek better avenues to compete in the global labor market. According to Sam Palmisano, the Chief Executive Officer of IBM, the “‘single most important
challenge’ facing today’s ‘globally integrated enterprises’ and ‘the consideration driving most business decisions today’ is the need to
secure ‘a supply of high-value skills.’”222 In 2007, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates testified before a Senate committee “that the only
way to solve the ‘critical shortage of scientific talent’ was to open up the country’s doors.”223 The United States has already seen
some consequences of its failure to adjust to the new global market as businesses have moved offshore to attract skills and talent.224
One example is Washington-based Microsoft, which opened a software development center in Canada partly because Canada’s liberal immigration laws made it easier
for them to recruit qualified workers from around the globe.225
Exemption for STEM workers solve to econ
Ajay Malshe (Cornell Law School J.D. 2009; Goodwin Procter Fellow at the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition in
Washington D.C.) 2010 “FROM OBSOLETE TO ESSENTIAL: HOW REFORMING OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS CAN STIMULATE AND STRENGTHEN
THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY”. Albany Government Law Review. 2010. http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/files/Malshe.pdf
Other bills have suggested creating a new category of immigrant visas for STEM professionals rather than an exemption.182An exemption, however, is
preferable. A new visa category would not go far enough to revitalize the economy—it would still be subject to the quota system, resulting in oversubscription.
Highly skilled workers who are already working in the United States should be encouraged to make a commitment to the United
States by becoming permanent residents and eventually citizens. Immigration policy must prioritize long-term interests, which means
attracting and retaining highly skilled workers so that they can continue to contribute to the economy.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
38/77
RMA ADV – HEG 2AC
Continued focus on RMA will allow the U.S. to retain global hegemony for decades
Gongora, Research Associate with the Institut quebecois des hautes etudes internationals, and von Riekhoff, Professor of Political
Science, Carleton University in Ottawa, 2K (Thierry and Harold, Toward a Revolution in Military Affairs? Defense and Security at
the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century, p. 7)
One cannot escape the central role of the United States in discussing national perspectives about the RMA. The present U.S.
position as the sole global power, established with the end of the Cold War, has been reinforced by the introduction of RMA
technologies and doctrines. Unlike the short-lived monopoly of atomic weapons, U.S. primacy in the RMA sphere promises to
continue unchallenged for at least another twenty years, if not longer. One merely needs to cite a few elementary facts to establish
the scope of U.S. dominance of the field. U.S. investment in intelligence collection, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR),
particularly space-based aspects of the so-called system of systems, exceeds that of all other nations combined, and the United
States also leads in C4I and precision force (Nye and Owens 1996, 28). U.S. R&D expenses in information technology exceed
those of the rest of the world. When it comes to dominant situational awareness, the United States, to cite Libicki, has the "world's
best eyes" (Libicki 1998, 414). In the foreseeable future, no country or group of countries can match U.S. hegemony in the RMA
sphere. As a consequence, all wars in which the United States chooses to become involved will inevitably assume the nature of
asymmetric conflicts (Freedman 1998,34).
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
39/77
RMA ADV – TERROR 2AC
Modernizing our forces is critical to solving terrorism – the current pace of modernization avoids risks
Pudas, Acting Director of the Office of Force Transformation, 2006 (Terry, June 19, Disruptive challenges and accelerating Force
transformation, www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i42/16-JFQ42%20Pudas%20Pg%2043-50.pdf)
The conceptual core of U.S. defense strategy rests on the four security challenges described in the 2005 National Defense Strategy
(NDS): traditional, irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive. 2 In turn, the NDS provided an essential strategic foundation for the conduct
of the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). While acknowledging that U.S. military forces maintain significant advantages in
traditional forms of warfare, the NDS argues that our enemies are more likely to pose asymmetric threats— including irregular,
catastrophic, and disruptive challenges—to the United States and its multinational partners in the years ahead (see figure 1). To
"operationalize the National Defense Strategy... senior civilian and military leaders [within DOD] identified four priority areas" as the
focus of the QDR: "defeating terrorist networks; defending the homeland in depth; shaping the choices of countries at strategic
crossroads; and preventing hostile states and non-state actors from acquiring or using WMD [weapons of mass destruction] ." Figure 2
illustrates the ongoing shift within DOD to the type of capabilities and forces needed to address irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive
challenges, while maintaining those capabilities and forces required to deal with traditional challenges.3 The four security challenges
are interrelated. Equally important, none of the four challenges is subordinate to, or a lesser included case of another. All have
important claims on resources because it is their interaction that poses the greatest national security challenge to the United States.
This is a significant change to longstanding U.S. planning assumptions regarding priorities, resource allocation, and military
requirements. The NDS and the QDR Report emphasize the goal of broadening U.S. military capabilities, underlining the need to
develop ways of meeting both present and future dangers quickly. Transformation is a necessary component of dealing with each of
the four challenges. It has been difficult, however, to reach a consensus within DOD regarding the rate of transformation needed to
cope with each of these challenges. While the Secretary of Defense and other senior leaders have consistently sought to increase the
rate of force transformation, some have expressed caution, arguing that we cannot afford to increase the rate of transformation too
dramatically as we fight the war on terror and that the department might actually increase the risks to U.S. forces by going too fast.
The current transformation rate represents a careful balance between benefit and risk in U.S. force planning on terror and that the
department might actually increase the risks to U.S. forces by going too fast.
Modernized technology solves conventional terrorism- Afghanistan proves
Sloan, 2002 – Defence Analyst with the Directorate of Strategic Analysis at Canada's National Defence Headquarters ( Elinor, assistant
professor in the Department of Political Science at Carleton University, The Revolution in Military Affairs: Implications for Canada and nato, p. 143)
It is the international security element of the response to terrorism that is most directly related to the revolution in military affairs
(RMA) and that is catalyzing trends in military technologies, doctrines, and organizations. In the war on terrorism in Afghanistan
almost no area of the RMA was left untouched. The campaign demonstrated the utility of advanced precision munitions and the doctrines of precision force and disengaged combat. Some 60 percent of the munitions dropped on Afghanistan were precision-guided,
compared with about 6 percent in the Gulf War and 35 percent during the Kosovo air campaign.4 Their accuracy enabled the United
States military to do much of the work of combating international terrorism from safe standoff distances. Advanced surveillance,
reconnaissance, and command and control capabilities were also central, with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVS) playing a
particularly crucial role. Geared towards monitoring troop movements, the Predator adapted easily to the task of tracking terrorists and
was used both for determining air strike targets and guiding and protecting U.S. ground forces. The Global Hawk strategic UAV, with
its cloud-penetrating sensors, was also used extensively for surveillance and reconnaissance.
RMA solves terror
Blaker – Director of Foreign and Security Studies at the Progressive Policy Institute – 2-7-2001 (James R., Democratic Leadership
Council, www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=159&contentid=2980)
The new administration's top defense priority should be the completion of the Pentagon's great unfinished business of the 1990s:
transforming the U.S. military into a leaner, faster, higher-tech fighting machine. This transformation, known as the Revolution in
Military Affairs (RMA), is imperative if we are to meet the dramatically changing threats of the 21st century. Begun nearly three
decades ago, the RMA has hit a wall, and the new president needs to revive it. Unless we streamline, modernize, and restructure our
forces, we risk becoming locked into a military structure that is unsuited to the demands that are now being placed on it. Today hostile
powers can find increasingly affordable ways to counter American dominance, either through low-tech terrorism or high-tech
cyberwarfare, thus weakening our massive advantage in conventional forces.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
40/77
RMA ADV – CHINA/NK ADD-ON 1/2
U.S. RMA solves China and North Korea
Deitchman, 2004 (S. J., an independent defense consultant based in Bethesda, Maryland, formerly worked at DOD and the Institute for Defense Analyses,
Completing the transformation of U.S. military forces: the updated military excelled in Afghanistan and Iraq, but further progress must be supported now to ensure
long-term security." Issues in Science and Technology 20.4, Summer)
Why not wait? Although there have been no arguments about the need to enhance the combat information network and systems, including their intelligence
components, there have been extensive arguments about the need for any or all of the new and advanced aircraft, ships, and ground combat vehicles. The
primary objections to the new systems are that they cost too much and are unnecessary now that the United States has no enemies
with the military sophistication that the Soviets possessed. But these arguments fail to account for certain realities. First, potential
opponents may field formidable armed forces to meet those of the United States. For example, North Korea remains an enigmatic
but powerful threat to U.S. interests in the Pacific region. Another example in that area might be a China that, although friendly
in a guarded sort of way now, could easily become a military opponent over the issue of Taiwan. That situation can blow up at
any time from misunderstanding of the positions of any of the three principals--China, Taiwan, or the United States. Without U.S.
fielding of forces obviously able to meet the North Koreans or the Chinese militarily, the growing capabilities of those countries
could cause Japan to wonder about the military reliability of the United States as an ally . Although Japan's constitution puts a limit on the
growth of the country's offensive military capability, the government could remove that limit if it felt threatened, and Japan has the technological
capability to develop advanced weapons, possibly including nuclear weapons. North Korea and China are but two examples of
sudden military conflict that might arise in the arc of instability that reaches from North Africa through the Middle East, south
and central Asia, all the way to the Korean peninsula. A third example of such a potential opponent arising without much strategic warning could
be Pakistan if its government were to fall to the country's Islamist fundamentalist factions. This is not the place to discuss the
likelihood of such threats arising, but we must take note of the potential developments that could evolve into military threats. As
has been highlighted above, several of these possible opponents are actively acquiring some of the advanced Soviet-era and more
recent systems that can exploit the vulnerabilities of today's U.S. forces. And we must certainly expect that China, with its fastgrowing, technology-based economy, will soon be able to field its own versions of such systems. The problem for the United
States, then, is to track and maintain superiority over the growing capability of potential military opponents. Current U.S. military
systems are able to match those of such opposition now, but if the United States stands down on advancing its capability, that
increasingly precarious balance could change. Worse, it might not realize that the balance had changed until it was already engaged in battle. The
argument that if the United States remains alert, it can identify developing threats in time to respond fails to recognize how long it takes to respond. It takes on the
order of 10 to 20 years to field major new military systems. It can take a decade just to field a significant improvement in an existing system, such as a new aircraft
or ship radar system. Yet the strategic and military need for such systems could arise in a year or two, or even as a total surprise, as the
country learned at Pearl Harbor and feared throughout the Cold War.
Extinction
The Straits Times (Singapore), June 25, 2K. “No one gains in war over Taiwan.” l/n
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US
and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on
such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already
told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its
retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set
on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order.
With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be
similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal,
could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the
US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from
military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy,
Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to
resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of
using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing
also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use"
principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow
Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop
it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway
said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the
prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty
above everything else.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
41/77
RMA ADV - CHINA/NK ADD-ON 2/2
A Korean Conflict Causes global thermonuclear exchange killing all life
Chol, Director Center for Korean American Peace 2002 10-24, http://nautilus.org/fora/security/0212A_Chol.html
Any military strike initiated against North Korea will promptly explode into a thermonuclear exchange between a tiny nuclear-armed
North Korea and the world's superpower, America. The most densely populated Metropolitan U.S.A., Japan and South Korea will
certainly evaporate in The Day After scenario-type nightmare. The New York Times warned in its August 27, 2002 comment: "North Korea runs a
more advanced biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program, targets American military bases and is developing missiles that
could reach the lower 48 states. Yet there's good reason President Bush is not talking about taking out Dear Leader Kim Jong Il. If we tried, the Dear Leader
would bombard South Korea and Japan with never gas or even nuclear warheads, and (according to one Pentagon study) kill up to a million people." Continues… The
first two options should be sobering nightmare scenarios for a wise Bush and his policy planners. If they should opt for either of the scenarios, that would be their
decision, which the North Koreans are in no position to take issue with. The Americans would realize too late that the North Korean mean what they say. The
North Koreans will use all their resources in their arsenal to fight a full-scale nuclear exchange with the Americans in the last war of
mankind. A nuclear-armed North Korea would be most destabilizing in the region and the rest of the world in the eyes of the
Americans. They would end up finding themselves reduced to a second-class nuclear power.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
42/77
RMA ADV – LINK TO NANOTECH
RMA key to nanotech
Henley 00 “The RMA After Next,” Paramaters, Winter 99-00, pg. 46-57
There has been considerable discussion in the past decade of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), one of those turning points in
history where new technology and new ideas for its use in warfare have decisively changed the nature of military operations.[1]
Stirrups, blitzkrieg, amphibious warfare, and other sharply demarcated advances in equipment and doctrine have given their inventors
a significant advantage over less progressive opponents.[2] Discussion of the RMA has been driven by a belief that the United States
is entering another such breakthrough, coupled with anxiety that some other power might surpass us or strike out in some new and
unrecognized direction. Diligent search for the emerging RMA has become a small but well-funded industry in Washington.[3]
Although there is ritual acknowledgment that innovation could come from some unexpected direction, most debate centers on the
application of information technology to conventional maneuver warfare. By wiring everything and everyone into a high-bandwidth
information network, US forces of the future hope to achieve total "information dominance." Each tanker and pilot, and maybe each
individual soldier, will know where all his own forces are on the battlefield, and where all the enemy forces are, day or night, in all
weather. Naval battle groups will work as one integrated "system of systems" spread across a huge expanse of ocean, with an
appropriate weapon able to respond to a threat detected by any sensor on sea, air, or space. Precision weapons will strike deep into
enemy territory, based on excellent intelligence. Logistical systems will be much more efficient, delivering goods when and where
they are needed with more precision and less overhead than today. And, above all, US forces will gain "OODA-loop dominance,"
being able to "observe, orient, decide, and act" much more quickly than our opponents. The official expression of this vision is in the
JCS Chairman's 1996 document Joint Vision 2010, and it is elaborated in numerous publications by the military services and their
supporting think tanks.[4] There are other advances besides information technology in this standard vision of the RMA: exotic
weaponry, including electric rail guns, lasers, radio frequency weapons, and other "directed energy weapons"; stealth technology
applied to aircraft, ships, and even tanks and other ground systems; effective ballistic missile defenses operating from ground-, sea-,
air-, and space-based platforms; unmanned vehicles to conduct reconnaissance and surveillance, ground attack, and perhaps even air
superiority missions; and highly mobile forces able to deploy around the world on short notice, with greatly reduced logistics and less
need for forward staging bases. There is no doubt that much of this vision is technologically feasible, though perhaps not affordable,
and that it would mark a great increase in our ability to prosecute military operations against a wide variety of foes. It is less clear, at
least in this author's opinion, that it really constitutes a revolutionary change in the nature of warfare. To a great extent, the RMA
merely represents the full maturation of operational concepts first developed in the 1930s and 1940s: mechanized warfare, air and
ground coordination, three-dimensional naval combat, tactical command and control communications, elaborate systems for
reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition, and intelligence collection, and so forth. Guderian and Patton would have recognized
the American style of warfare in Desert Storm; Norman Schwarzkopf operated just like they would have, only faster and farther. It is
likely they would be equally comfortable with the high-tech warfare of Joint Vision 2010 and the Army After Next. Thus to find truly
revolutionary possibilities for military operations--the RMA After Next--we must look beyond the questions of connectivity, mobility,
and precision firepower that dominate the current discussion. The Biotech Revolution In a relatively short time, perhaps as soon as 10
to 15 years, we could be well into a technological transformation even more profound than the information revolution that is the focus
of current attention. This transformation will be based on the convergence of information processing, biological sciences, and
advanced manufacturing techniques. The result will be radically different approaches in the application of physical force against an
enemy, as well as in the collection and processing of information. The trend toward miniaturization is already well under way in
numerous research projects, many funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. At the extreme, some writers envision
"fire ant warfare," with the battlefield dominated by millions of small semi-autonomous machines, a few inches to feet in size,
networked together and capable of rendering an area impassable to troops or conventional mechanized formations.[5] Closer to the
mainstream, researchers have built prototypes of small robotic devices to extend our reach on the battlefield: tiny unmanned aircraft,
insect-like crawlers to carry sensors, and long-loiter high-altitude drones, for example.[6] It is taken for granted that such devices will
be tied into our battlefield information networks, and that they will be inexpensive enough to be used on routine missions such as
scouting in urban terrain. As useful as these miniature devices are likely to be, they provide only a glimmer of what may be possible in
the longer term. Rather than robots several inches in size, some ambitious researchers are talking about machines built atom by atom,
measuring only a few nanometers (billionths of a meter) across. Such nanotechnology is in its infancy, but teams from Xerox, Cornell
University, and IBM have demonstrated simple mechanical devices such as gears, wheels, strain gauges, electronic amplifiers, and
even a working guitar built on the molecular scale.[7] (Put them together and you have the first bacterio-punk rock band--call them "E.
Coli and the Slime Molds.") It may be decades before this research leads to useful nano-machinery, maybe much longer if one listens
to critics who characterize the whole field as involving more showmanship than science.[8] But at a minimum, the research is
producing remarkable advanced manufacturing techniques and molecular structural materials, and is likely to result in machines that
are highly miniaturized if not actually microscopic.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
43/77
RMA ADV – AT: TECH RELIANCE BAD
Defense transformation yields a more effective military – allows for downsizing in forces
Peña 06- senior fellow with the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy – (Charles V., Orbis, “A Smaller Military to Fight the War on
Terror,” vol. 50, no. 2, p. 289-306, www.sciencedirect.com)
Defense transformation is another reason U.S. military forces can be downsized. Technological advances act as force multipliers that
allow U.S. forces to achieve equal or greater combat effectiveness with fewer troops. For example, both Operation Enduring Freedom
(Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom demonstrated that the U.S. military could engage and defeat on the battlefield the military
forces of adversaries using significantly smaller force size than required in previous conflicts. If fewer soldiers are needed to fight
wars, a smaller military can be a capable and effective fighting force. And although it seems counterintuitive, even a smaller U.S.
military would still be able to apply the Powell Doctrine of ‘‘overwhelming force,’’ because of superiority achieved via advanced
technology rather than sheer numbers.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
44/77
RMA ADV – AT: IMPACT TURNS (RMA BAD)
RMA is inevitable – It’s only a matter of U.S. developing it first to deter competitors and use it effectively
Benbow 04 Senior Lecturer @ the Britannia Royal Naval College Dartmouth
(Tim, The Magic Bullet? Understanding the 'Revolution in Military Affairs,' p. 88)
At least some of the capabilities associated with the RMA, then, are likely to emerge for the United States. The next question to which
this conclusion gives rise is whether the RMA is in fact desirable. There are some American heretics, not quite an imminent schism,
yet neither a persecuted, nearly invisible sect, who suggest that energetic pursuit of the RMA may not actually be in the interests of the
USA. Harknert and his co-writers, for example, warn that the benefits of a truly transforming revolutionary shift might not be worth
the associated risks and costs, when the alternative of a more evolutionary approach is available. They describe RMA ideas as
'dangerously misguided' and suggest that for the US to 'pursue a revolution that challenges the basis of the very system it currently
dominates' would represent 'a major and unnecessary gamble'. They fear that the RMA will not solve many current problems, would
create significant vulnerabilities, and risks provoking a reaction against US foreign policy by current allies as well as foes." They
make an interesting and cogent case that is rarely put. The experience of previous RMAs gives some grounds for concern. As Chapter
Two showed, the RMAs epitomised by Napoleon and Hitler were swiftly countered and copied, and did not work to the long-term
benefit of either leader or their respective state. Similarly, the Industrial Revolution at first boosted British power but in the long term
helped to undermine it. Why should the US embrace large-scale and risky change when it already enjoys such a marked military
superiority over any challenger? Indeed, would not any attempt to extend this lead elicit the suspicion of, say, China and Russia, or
even France, whose leaders have already expressed concern at the unconstrained American 'hyperpower1? There is already evidence
of unease surrounding such concepts as 'full spectrum dominance'. Other problems will arise in accordance with the law of unintended
consequences. There must be a danger that new military capabilities will give rise to new sources of vulnerability, as well as
producing new threats that could be turned against the West. Extending the military uses of space, for example, could well bring about
disadvantages for a state so dependent on the use of potentially vulnerable satellites if it provides an incentive for others to invest in
anti-satellite systems. ' An American leap to an entirely new model of intervention could also pose difficulties for operating with allies
who are politically vital if not militarily essential. In addition, the RMA will also change the nature of command, the internal
organisation of the armed forces, perhaps even their relationship with society. Could the RMA be a Pandora's box that the US would
be best advised to leave well alone? There are two possible responses to this argument. The first, provided by the RMA proponents, is
to insist that the new capabilities will both deter potential peer competitors and also prove effective for the new challenges. ' The
second response would be that the new technologies are going to emerge anyway, so the question is more accurately phrased as
whether or not to take up a position on the crest of the RMA wave as opposed to running the risk of another actor gaining a
technological edge. This counter-argument leads to the next question. The debate about the RMA has been disproportionately
dominated by American analysts, which for some only reflects reality. It could well be seen as something that has relevance only for
the United States; indeed, it is often referred to as 'the American RMA'.1'" The challenges posed by the ambitious technologies
involved and the sheer level of resources required might be seen as restricting the new capabilities to the United States alone. Clearly
it is predominantly the US defence establishment that will determine the pace and the extent of the RMA. It would be rash to assume
that the US will be the only country to embrace it, however. The idea that the RMA could be solely American seems to be wishful
thinking. The experience of previous revolutions suggests that innovations spread, and the more successful they are, the more widely
and rapidly they will do so. By definition, no current or aspiring major power can ignore a true RMA. Furthermore, as has been
argued, much of the pace of IT development is being set in the civil sector, leaving some key elements of technology outside the
control of any single state; civilian and military technology seem to proliferate both faster and more widely today than hitherto. Many
of the systems and capabilities referred to by proponents are based on current technology. As The Economist put it, the basic elements
of a revolution already exist: 'It is a matter of making existing equipment fit together and adding a few innovations.' No single state
would be able to slow down the RMA, let alone to monopolise it. Still, there could be many potential benefits to be had from leading
the process. To return to an example mentioned above, the fact that the Industrial Revolution had a long term effect of eroding
Britain's relative power does not mean that she was wrong to pursue it, since she could not have prevented it from happening and to
remain aloof would only have meant foregoing potential benefits from change that was going to come regardless of her own actions.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
45/77
SCIENCE DIPLOMACY ADV – ECON LINK
Scientific leadership & maintaining innovation prevents dangerous economic imbalances that caused the recession.
Teryn Norris (Senior Advisor @ the Breakthrough Institute. Public Policy Major at Stanford University, and Director of Americans for Energy Leadership)
and Devon Swezey (Project Director at the Breakthrough Institute and graduated from Stanford University) 11/18 /2009: Winning the Clean Energy Race: A New
Strategy for American Leadership. http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/11/18/winning-the-clean-energy-race-a-new-strategy-for-american-leadership/>
But the growing pace of this power shift should be a cause of major concern for Americans, and it should raise serious questions about our economic policies at the
highest level. While the U.S. economy has suffered greatly from a crisis produced by its own financial sector – losing millions of jobs,
trillions in economic output, and demanding huge spending packages financed by borrowed money – China has shrugged off the
global recession with high levels of growth and self-financed stimulus, all while purchasing billions of Treasury bills to fund a U.S.
deficit that has reached historic highs. Last November, addressing the nation on the evening of his election, President Obama declared that “a new era
of American leadership is at hand.” And indeed, his new administration has taken significant steps to remake U.S. foreign policy. But
unless the U.S. quickly improves its economic competitiveness, our global leadership will be severely damaged. What is demanded
now is a major, coordinated national project to regain our economic competitiveness in strategic sectors while permanently correcting
the imbalances that led to the Great Recession. Correcting Imbalances & Fixing Finance Speaking at the San Francisco Fed last month, Federal Reserve
chairman Ben Bernanke declared it “extraordinarily urgent” that the U.S. and Asia take steps to prevent a revival of global economic imbalances. There is now broad
consensus on how these imbalances – the huge gaps in trade deficits and surpluses, and the associated gaps in national savings, consumption, and investment rates –
helped caused the housing bubble and the Great Recession. Alan Greenspan offered a concise explanation in a widely-read column this spring: “The presumptive
cause of the world-wide decline in long-term [mortgage] rates was the tectonic shift in the early 1990s by much of the developing world from
heavy emphasis on central planning to increasingly dynamic, export-led market competition. The result was a surge in growth in
China and a large number of other emerging market economies that led to an excess of global intended savings relative to intended
capital investment.” In other words, the U.S. housing bubble was caused in large part by the buildup of savings in emerging market economies,
especially China, accumulated from their large trade surpluses. As this large “pool of money” was invested internationally, it drove down the
costs of borrowing, drove up subprime lending, and created large demand for mortgage-backed securities. This era of easy credit –
combined with the use of “innovative” financial instruments, which relaxed mortgage standards, concealed risk, and enabled the mass
packaging and sale of these securities – gave rise to the U.S. housing bubble. This “global pool of money” wouldn’t have existed
without the U.S. running an enormous trade deficit, relying on imports and debt to support a high consumption rate – hence the global
“imbalance” of high-saving versus high-consuming countries. The U.S. deficit in the trade of goods and services in 2008 was $695 billion, according to
the Department of Commerce, compared to China’s surplus of $297 billion. Speaking in Tokyo last week, President Obama extended this problem to its logical
conclusion, calling for rebalanced growth and a new U.S. economic strategy based on exports: “One of the important lessons this recession has taught us
is the limits of depending primarily on American consumers and Asian exports to drive growth… [our] new strategy will mean that we save
more and spend less, reform our financial systems, reduce our long-term deficit and borrowing. It will also mean a greater emphasis on exports that we can build,
produce, and sell all over the world.” The implication is clear: the United States must shift away from a “financial” economy to an
“innovation” economy, one that focuses on creating industries that produce real innovative products to sell around the world. After
years of creating imaginary wealth on the pile of sand that was the U.S. financial sector, America must once again get into the
business of producing real goods and services. This means reducing the size of the financial sector and the Wall Street “brain drain” –
which has distracted the nation’s best and brightest minds from the work of real innovation and entrepreneurship – and refocusing on
productive, export-oriented industries. And it means adopting a new era of innovation policies to ensure the U.S. economy is the most
competitive in the world, directing targeted public investments into strategic technologies , infrastructure, and high-tech education programs.
This new economic strategy is necessary not just for short-term recovery, but for avoiding future credit bubbles and financial crises,
slashing our trade and budget deficit, producing more innovative technologies to improve our everyday lives, and regaining our
international leadership.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
46/77
SCIENCE DIPLOMACY ADV – EGYPTIAN RELATIONS
Science diplomacy key to Egyptian relations through bilateral science agreements – this is key to Middle East stability
Miotke 4/2/08 (Jeff Miotke, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Space, and Health Before the Subcommittee on Research,
Science Education, House Committee on Science and Technology United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC April 2,
2008 http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/102995.htm)
One case in point that illustrates how S&T cooperation is integrated into our diplomatic activities in the Middle East is in the case of
Egypt. A wide array of joint United States-Egyptian S&T research activities that have occurred have been funded under our bilateral
S&T agreement. In addition to the more tangible and pragmatic S&T benefits observed, both countries have benefited from the
cultural understanding and goodwill these relationships foster. The agreement continues to play a significant role in a very important
bilateral relationship for the United States. Egypt plays a key role in helping to ensure a stable Middle East.
Relations are key to a stable Egypt and regional stability
Council on Foreign Relations Press–May 2002 Strengthening the U.S.-Egyptian Relationship (A CFR Paper)
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8666/...cfr_paper.html
The U.S.-Egyptian relationship is rooted in strategic calculation. It bolsters peace between Egypt and Israel and makes possible
broader peace in the region. The U.S.-Egyptian relationship has helped Egypt modernize its military and has added weight to its
position as a stabilizing regional force. America's support has also strengthened Egypt's economy. As has been true for the past two
decades, a moderate Egypt is the key to peace and stability in the Middle East and a strong U.S.-Egyptian relationship is essential to
securing American presence in the region. The U.S.-Egyptian relationship has served the two sides well. Two decades of military
cooperation and training have moderated Egypt's military establishment, the most powerful institution in Egypt, and made it a reliable
U.S. partner. During the Gulf War, Egypt's support was central to Arab participation in the war against Iraq; Egypt's willingness to
keep open its canal in crisis and allow overflight and refueling cannot be taken for granted. These ties remain central to the U.S. ability
to project and protect its strategic interests in the world's most volatile region.
Conflict in the Middle East escalates to a nuclear holocaust
London, professor emeritus of New York University, 6/23/10 [Herbert, “The Coming Crisis in the Middle East”,
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=7101&pubType=HI_Opeds]
The gathering storm in the Middle East is gaining momentum. War clouds are on the horizon and like conditions prior to World War I all
it takes for explosive action to commence is a trigger. Turkey’s provocative flotilla - often described in Orwellian terms as a humanitarian mission has set in motion a flurry of diplomatic activity, but if the Iranians send escort vessels for the next round of Turkish ships, it could present a casus belli. It is
also instructive that Syria is playing a dangerous game with both missile deployment and rearming Hezbollah. According to most public accounts
Hezbollah is sitting on 40,000 long, medium and short range missiles and Syrian territory has served as a conduit for military material from Iran since the end of the
2006 Lebanon War. Should Syria move its own scuds to Lebanon or deploy its troops as reinforcement for Hezbollah, a wider regional war with Israel
could not be contained. In the backdrop is an Iran with sufficient fissionable material to produce a couple of nuclear weapons. It will take some time to
weaponize missiles, but the road to that goal is synchronized in green lights since neither diplomacy nor diluted sanctions can convince Iran to change course. Iran is
poised to be the hegemon in the Middle East. It is increasingly considered the “strong horse” as American forces incrementally retreat from the region. Even Iraq,
ironically, may depend on Iranian ties in order to maintain internal stability. From Qatar to Afghanistan all political eyes are on Iran. For Sunni nations like Egypt and
Saudi Arabia regional strategic vision is a combination of deal making to offset the Iranian Shia advantage and attempting to buy or develop nuclear weapons as a
counter weight to Iranian ambition. However, both of these governments are in a precarious state. Should either fall, all bets are off in the Middle East neighborhood. It
has long been said that the Sunni “tent” must stand on two legs, if one, falls, the tent collapses. Should that tent collapse and should Iran take advantage of
that calamity, it could incite a Sunni-Shia war. Or feeling its oats and no longer dissuaded by an escalation scenario with nuclear weapons
in tow, war against Israel is a distinct possibility. However, implausible it may seem at the moment, the possible annihilation of Israel
and the prospect of a second holocaust could lead to a nuclear exchange.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
47/77
SCIENCE DIPLOMACY ADV – ARCTIC CONFLICT
Solves Arctic conflict
Casselton et al. ’10 – Foreign Secretary and Vice-President of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Fungal Genetics in the
Department of Plant Science at University of Oxford [Lorna, “New frontiers in science diplomacy”, Jan, http://diplomacy.aaas.org/files/New_Frontiers.pdf]
Science cooperation provides a useful basis for these discussions (Berkman and Young 2009). Ongoing research into Arctic Ocean
systems will be essential to inform management strategies for when the ice thaws and makes this international space more accessible.
More research is required into sea-level rises; loss of sea ice; melting permafrost and feedback mechanisms; the location and
availability of resources; and the impacts of long-range pollutants. Much of this research will require international collaboration,
especially when the harsh conditions of the Arctic necessitate the sharing of costs, logistics, facilities and other capabilities. There is
an even greater need to prevent confl ict as the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean starts to disappear. The Arctic States have identifi ed the
socio-economic development of the region’s natural resources and the protection of its ecosystems as their common interests.
However peace is yet to be identifi ed as an explicit common interest, so the Arctic Council is not mandated to discuss military and
related security risks.
Nuclear war
Huebert 98 - Professor in the Department of Poly Sci and Strategic Studies Program at U of Calgary
[Rob http://www.carc.org/calgary/a4.htm]
Likewise, there is evidence that the Russians intend to continue developing more advanced nuclear ballistic missile submarines. The
keel of the fourth-generation strategic missile submarine, the Yuri Dolgoruky (Borei class), was laid on November 2, 1996. (3) This
new class of submarines is to replace the Russian Typhoon and Delta classes and is expected to be operational by 2002-2003. It is
estimated that cost of each of these submarines will exceed $1 billion (US). This clearly illustrates the seriousness of the Russian's
perceived military threat. Given the fact that Murmansk is one of three remaining SSBN ports, the construction of these vessels
guarantees that the Arctic will remain an area of continued military activity for Russia, and therefore the United States, well into the
21st century. The potential for an accidental nuclear war remains as a threat to the Arctic regions. On January 25, 1995 Boris Yeltsin
activated his "nuclear briefcase" when Russian radar detected a rocket launch from somewhere off the Norwegian coast. The rocket
was first thought to be headed towards Moscow, but eventually veered away from Russian territory. The rocket was in fact an
American scientific probe sent to examine the northern lights. The Norwegians had informed the Russians of the launch, but miscommunications had resulted in the failure of the message to reach the proper Russian officials. (4) This incident, while hopefully
rare, indicates that the potential for nuclear misunderstanding remains as real as ever.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
48/77
SCIENCE DIPLOMACY ADV – SOLVENCY
Visa restrictions are a constraint on current scientific diplomacy
Hinz 10 [Franziska Hinz, Royal Society, London January 2010 http://diplomacy.aaas.org/files/New_Frontiers.pdf]
Regulatory barriers, such as visa restrictions and security controls, can also be a practical constraint to science diplomacy.
Immediately after September 11 2001, the imposition of stringent travel and visa regimes in countries like the US and the UK severely
limited opportunities for visiting scientists and scholars, particularly from Islamic countries. Whilst the strictest controls have since
been lifted, the value of scientific I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy. The Royal Society partnerships means that
further Reforms may be needed.
Ignore their alt cause arguments – cap on visas triggers negative perceptions of US science credibility – all of their alt causes
are based on others still wanting to work with us
AAAS 4 (American Association for the Advancement of Science. Physics Today, 00319228, Feb2005, Vol. 58, Issue 2. EBSCO)
In particular, there is increasing evidence that visa-related problems are discouraging and preventing the best and brightest international
students, scholars, and scientists from studying and working in the United States, as well as attending academic and scientific
conferences here and abroad. If action is not taken soon to improve the visa system, the misperception that the United States does not
welcome international students, scholars, and scientists will grow, and they may not make our nation their destination of choice now and
in the future. The damage to our nation's higher-education and scientific enterprises, economy, and national security would be irreparable. The
United States cannot hope to maintain its present scientific and economic leadership position if it becomes isolated from the rest of the
world.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
49/77
AEROSPACE ADV – KEY TO HEG
Aerospace competiveness is the vital internal link to U.S. global hegemony
Walker et al, 02- Chair of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners (Robert, Final
Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners, November,
http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf )
In order to defend America and project power, the nation needs the ability to move manpower, materiel, intelligence information and
precision weaponry swiftly to any point around the globe, when needed. This has been, and will continue to be, a mainstay of our
national security strategy. The events of September 11, 2001 dramatically demonstrated the extent of our national reliance on
aerospace capabilities and related military contributions to homeland security. Combat air patrols swept the skies; satellites supported
real-time communications for emergency responders, imagery for recovery, and intelligence on terrorist activities; and the security and
protection of key government officials was enabled by timely air transport. As recent events in Afghanistan and Kosovo show, the
power generated by our nation’s aerospace capabilities is an—and perhaps the —essential ingredient in force projection and
expeditionary operations . In both places, at the outset of the crisis, satellites and reconnaissance aircraft, some unmanned, provided
critical strategic and tactical intelligence to our national leadership. Space-borne intelligence, command, control and communications
assets permitted the rapid targeting of key enemy positions and facilities. Airlifters and tankers brought personnel, materiel, and
aircraft to critical locations .And aerial bombardment, with precision weapons and cruise missiles, often aided by the Global
Positioning System (GPS) and the Predator unmanned vehicle, destroyed enemy forces. Aircraft carriers and their aircraft also played
key roles in both conflicts. Today’s military aerospace capabilities are indeed robust, but at significant risk. They rely on platforms
and an industrial base— measured in both human capital and physical facilities—that are aging and increasingly inadequate . Consider
just a few of the issues: • Much of our capability to defend America and project power depends on satellites . Assured reliable access
to space is a critical enabler of this capability. As recently as 1998, the key to near- and mid-term space access was the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle(EELV), a development project of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the U. S. Air Force. EELV drew
primarily on commercial demand to close the business case for two new launchers, with the U.S. government essentially buying
launches at the margin. In this model, each company partner made significant investments of corporate funds in vehicle development
and infrastructure, reducing the overall need for government investment. Today, however, worldwide demand for commercial satellite
launch has dropped essentially to nothing—and is not expected to rise for a decade or more—while the number of available launch
platforms worldwide has proliferated . Today, therefore, the business case for EELV simply does not close, and reliance on the
economics of a commercially-driven market is unsustainable . A new strategy for assured access to space must be found. • The U.S.
needs unrestricted access to space for civil, commercial, and military applications .Our satellite systems will become increasingly
important to military operations as today’s information revolution, the so-called “revolution in military affairs,” continues, while at the
same time satellites will become increasingly vulnerable to attack as the century proceeds. To preserve critical satellite net-works, the
nation will almost certainly need the capability to launch replacement satellites quickly after an attack. One of the key enablers for
“launch on demand” is reusable space launch, and yet within the last year all work has been stopped on the X-33 and X-34 reusable
launch programs • The challenge for the defense industrial base is to have the capability to build the base force structure, support
contingency-related surges, provide production capacity that can increase faster than any new emerging global threat can build up its
capacity, and provide an “appropriate” return to shareholders. But the motivation of government and industry are different. This is a
prime detraction for wanting to form government-industry partnerships. Industry prioritizes investments toward near-term, highreturn, and high-dollar programs that make for a sound business case for them. Government, on the other hand, wants to prioritize
investment to ensure a continuing capability to meet any new threat to the nation. This need is cyclical and difficult for businesses to
sustain during periods of government inactivity. Based on the cyclic nature of demand, the increasing cost/complexity of new systems,
and the slow pace of defense modernization, aerospace companies are losing market advantages and the sector is contracting. Twentytwo years ago, today’s “Big 5” in aerospace were 75 separate companies, as depicted by the historical chart of industry consolidation
shown in Chapter 7. • Tactical combat aircraft have been a key component of America’s air forces. Today, three tactical aircraft
programs continue: the F/A-18E/F (in production), the F/A-22 (in a late stage of test and evaluation), and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
(just moving into system design and development). Because of the recentness of these programs, there are robust design teams in
existence. But all of the initial design work on all three programs will be completed by 2008. If the nation were to conclude, as it very
well may, that a new manned tactical aircraft needs to be fielded in the middle of this century, where will we find the experienced
design teams required to design and build it, if the design process is in fact gapped for 20 years or more?
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
50/77
AEROSPACE ADV – GLASS EXTENSIONS
AT: Weather cover issues
Lt Col Jamie G. G. Varni Et. Al. 96 (USAF) Space Operations: Through The Looking Glass (Global Area Strike System). http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch14.pdf
If an area is not covered by the weapon constellation (this will occur at times), the TAV would be sent up with a mobile mirror for the
ground-based laser and/or a container of hypervelocity projectiles to cover the target area. Although not as responsive as space-based
assets, a TAV could reach anywhere on earth within 60 minutes after its crew climbs on board.2 The TAV could also carry other types
of weapons such as some of those discussed in chapter 3. For deterrence, the US could launch numerous TAVs in unpredictable orbits
that remain in space until the crisis is resolved. Three TAVs could provide coverage of most of the earth’s current trouble spots every
90 minutes.3 Of course, the TAV would also be ideal for space-control and space superiority. These issues are further explored in
other white papers.4
Glass solves prolif
Lt Col Jamie G. G. Varni Et. Al. 96 (USAF) Space Operations: Through The Looking Glass (Global Area Strike System). http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch14.pdf
The GLASS would also be ideal for counterproliferation operations. The engagement would involve a system-to-system interaction
with fixed or mobile ground targets with support from communication, navigation, and surveillance systems. Using the GLASS, the
US would not need permission from neighboring nations for landing or overflight rights and could strike a rogue state with a “launch
or lose” mentality without any prior warning. These desirable functions could be performed without forward deployment of forces,
drastically reducing the danger to US military personnel. The flexibility and response time of the GLASS in its role as a
counterproliferation asset would be unmatched.5
GLASS is not a space weapon
Lt Col Jamie G. G. Varni Et. Al. 96 (USAF) Space Operations: Through The Looking Glass (Global Area Strike System). http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch14.pdf
Basing is also a prime consideration. The laser beams of the DEW system will originate from powerful facilities dispersed around
remote parts of the CONUS. Sunny, clear areas such as the American southwest would be the most likely choices. With a laser system
that uses space-based mirrors, there are several advantages to using an earth-based laser located in the US (or its possessions): no
forward basing is required, there are no concerns about foreign governments demanding removal of US assets from their territories, no
weapons are actually placed in space, and the most expensive and maintenance-intensive portions of the system are all ideally placed
for access by the US sustainment system. Yet the US would still have tremendous capabilities for power projection. Dispersion of the
laser stations is also desirable to enhance the security, reliability, and flexibility of the system and to provide concentration of mass in
strategic attacks by allowing GLASS to focus several laser beams on a single hardened target simultaneously.
GLASS key to deter conflict
Lt Col Jamie G. G. Varni Et. Al. 96 (USAF) Space Operations: Through The Looking Glass (Global Area Strike System). http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch14.pdf
A TAV could be used to perform a myriad of space operations. The possibilities include deployment, repair, or retrieval of satellites
(other than just the GLASS); deployment of smart munitions other than the KEW (usually from LEO); and functioning temporarily as
a space-borne command post.9 TAVs could respond quickly to contingencies with tailored mission packages. Missions ranging from
emergency satellite repair/deployment, to dropping a special operations team in the middle of a hostile environment, to mending a gap
in a critical satellite constellation would all be possible. In addition, a small fleet of TAVs could allow for the placement of mass (in
limited quantities) at critical nodes in a conflict situation. Perhaps the most important advantage might be the psychological effect of
possessing such a capability. America’s enemies would always have to factor in an almost immediate American response into their
hostile actions.
AT: GLASS vulnerable
Lt Col Jamie G. G. Varni Et. Al. 96 (USAF) Space Operations: Through The Looking Glass (Global Area Strike System). http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch14.pdf
The countermeasures previously discussed in this chapter for the coherent light laser and the TAV still apply when they are employed
separately to engage targets. However, when employed as a system, the enemy would have to target the ground-based lasers (virtually
all of them) and the TAV launch sites (again, nearly all of them) to disable GLASS—a daunting task when you realize that most of
GLASS’s components are based in the CONUS. If the enemy only attacked a few space-based mirrors or a few TAVs, the remaining
CONUS-based TAV fleet could quickly (within a day) reconstitute a significant portion of GLASS’s constellation of orbiting mirrors.
Moreover, the enemy must remember that these two components of the GLASS, the laser and the TAV, are also very robust. That is,
not only can they apply force upon the enemy, they can protect each other. The laser can hit targets, in space or on earth, that threaten
the TAV launch sites, the ground-based lasers, or the mirrors, and the TAV can likewise respond to these same threats, but with more
flexibility (launched quickly into any orbit with a wide variety of weapons).
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
51/77
AEROSPACE ADD-ON 2AC – AIRPOWER 1/2
Aerospace dominance and a skilled workforce is key to effective turbine R&D – makes it affordable
Squadron Leader Richard Friend 2002 (Air Force Research Laboratory/Propulsion Directorate, Turbine Engine Division, Components Branch): Turbine Engine
Research in the United States Air Force. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=931393
In the aftermath of the Cold War era, western governments are being focussed by many pressing internal concerns and as the Warsaw
Pact threat reduces it is not surprising that defense has taken a lower priority. The military challenge now is to get more for the same
or the same for less and still maintain the deciding, battle-winning advantage. Indeed, as the military fulfill more peacekeeping and
policing roles, it is essential that they remain well equipped, mobile, and swift to respond; capabilities that challenge the defense
budget and focus research fields to demand the best return on investment. Therefore, it is perhaps not surprising that affordability has
become the bedrock for future research efforts like Versatile Affordable Advanced Turbine Engines (VAATE) and new airborne
weapon systems like the JSF. Many aspects of defense are wide ranging and cover most industries that, in turn, effect a large product
base and workforce. Support to the military is considerable and can account for over 10% of country’s Gross NationalDomestic
Product. Consequently, it is easy to see that decisions that shape the military have a direct impact on industry and the economy.
Engine manufacturing has a strong economic foothold in the US and contributes toward a huge aerospace industry. This industry
spans almost one and half million jobs and supports a payroll of almost $54 billion [l] as follows: Therefore, future large research
initiatives like VAATE have a large personnel-base to satisfy. VAATE is poised to follow fiom the successful Integrated High
Performance Turbine Engine Technology (MPTET) program and revolutionize gas turbine development and life-cycle support. It
hopes to fulfil its promise to provide the best technology for the military whilst maintaining the delicate affordability balance between
cost and capability, industry and government. VAATE is the research path for turbine engines for the future and future generations of
scientists, engineers and operators both in and connected to the military.
Absent the plan, our airpower dominance collapses – new turbines are key to solve
Air Force Studies Board 2006: A Review of United States Air Force and Department of Defense Aerospace Propulsion Needs.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11780&page=81
Large GTEs are the backbone of the military aviation force that guards U.S. interests at home and abroad, and they play an enormous
role in establishing U.S. air dominance at the battlefront. Due to technological superiority gained from programs such as IHPTET,
current turbine engines have enabled U.S. forces to achieve dominance of the air in all recent conflicts. To maintain this edge,
however, the United States must respond to the increasing demand by the armed forces for more efficient, survivable, and lethal
weapons systems. At the same time, the military needs to make those systems more affordable to minimize their impact on the federal
budget. This can only be done through continual R&D in the turbine engine field. A new generation of aircraft and propulsion systems
technology enters warfighter operation roughly every 25 years. Today the United States is fielding state-of-the-art large gas turbines in
engines for the F-22 and the F-35. Propulsion technologies in these engines are the result of roughly two decades of technology
development from the IHPTET program,1 the ManTech program,2 other DoD programs, and NASA aeronautics. In the committee’s
view, these propulsion systems are technically approximately 10 years ahead of competing systems such as the Eurofighter. That is,
the technology level of the Eurofighter’s engines does not allow the Euro Fighter to supercruise or have thrust vectoring or stealth
features. Rather, the Eurofighter technology level is roughly equivalent to the levels in the most advanced F-15 engines (F100-PW229 and F110-GE-129). This technology advantage has degraded relative to that which existed in the 1970s, when the F-15 and F-16
were launched. At that time, the technology advantage could be characterized as being 20 years ahead of the rest of the world. Current
gas turbine DoD S&T funding has been greatly reduced relative to the 1990s level, and if it is not increased the United States probably
will lose its gas turbine technical advantage, as happened in civil aviation as well.
Airpower superiority prevents Korean conflict
Bechtol 2005 (Bruce is an assistant professor of national security studies at Air Command and staff college, “The Future of U.S. airpower on the Korean Peninsula,”
September 1st) http://www.airp ower.maxwell.a f.mil/air chronicles/apj/apj05/fal05/bechtol.html#bechtol
US military support to the Republic of Korea (ROK) remains critical to peace and stability. The author details constraints faced by the
army of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in any attempt to invade the ROK. Although much of the surface-based
defense capability in the South is transitioning to the ROK army, a strong US airpower presence demonstrates US commitment to
Korean security, counterbalances the DPRK’s offensive systems, and deters war.) Since the summer of 1950, US airpower has
remained one of the dominant military forces on the Korean Peninsula. Through the Korean War, the Cold War, the uncertain post–
Cold War era that has existed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and the transition of power in North Korea from Kim Il Sung to his
son, Kim Jong Il, the ability of US airpower to serve as a key pillar of deterrence to forces that threaten the stability and security of the
Republic of Korea (ROK) and the ROK-US alliance has remained unquestioned. In a transforming geopolitical landscape and a
rapidly evolving region, this is unlikely to change in the future.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
52/77
AEROSPACE ADD-ON 2AC – AIRPOWER 2/2
High Korean tensions risk global nuclear war
STRATFOR, 10 (5/26/10, “North Korea, South Korea: The Military Balance on the Peninsula,”
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100526_north_korea_south_korea_military_balance_peninsula, JMP)
Managing Escalation But no one, of course, is interested in another war on the Korean Peninsula. Both sides will posture, but at the
end of the day, neither benefits from a major outbreak of hostilities. And despite the specter of North Korean troops streaming under
the DMZ through tunnels and wreaking havoc behind the lines in the south (a scenario for which there has undoubtedly been
significant preparation), neither side has any intention of invading the other. So the real issue is the potential for escalation — or an
accident that could precipitate escalation — that would be beyond the control of Pyongyang or Seoul. With both sides on high alert,
both adhering to their own national (and contradictory) definitions of where disputed boundaries lie and with rules of engagement
loosened, the potential for sudden and rapid escalation is quite real. Indeed, North Korea’s navy, though sizable on paper, is
largely a hollow shell of old, laid-up vessels. What remains are small fast attack craft and submarines — mostly Sang-O “Shark” class
boats and midget submersibles. These vessels are best employed in the cluttered littoral environment to bring asymmetric tactics to
bear — not unlike those Iran has prepared for use in the Strait of Hormuz. These kinds of vessels and tactics — including, especially,
the deployment of naval mines — are poorly controlled when dispersed in a crisis and are often impossible to recall. For nearly 40
years, tensions on the Korean Peninsula were managed within the context of the wider Cold War. During that time it was feared that a
second Korean War could all too easily escalate into and a thermonuclear World War III, so both Pyongyang and Seoul were
being heavily managed from their respective corners. In fact, USFK was long designed to ensure that South Korea could not
independently provoke that war and drag the Americans into it, which for much of the Cold War period was of far greater concern to
Washington than North Korea attacking southward. Today, those constraints no longer exist. There are certainly still constraints —
neither the United States nor China wants war on the peninsula. But current tensions are quickly escalating to a level unprecedented
in the post-Cold War period, and the constraints that do exist have never been tested in the way they might be if the situation escalates
much further.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
53/77
AEROSPACE ADD-ON 2AC – KEY TO ECON
Aerospace industry is key to the economy
Bruce M. DeBlois 99 (Colonel USAF and Professor of Air and Space Technology)
After World War II the aerospace industry experienced a growth streak that propelled it to the number one ranking export industry in
the United States in 1991—exceeding even agriculture.11 Over this time frame, the aerospace industry grew into an industrial sector
of great importance to the overall US economy. One key indicator of the industry’s growth is sales. In 1948 the industry had sales of
almost $1.5 billion; by 1991 this figure exceeded $134 billion.12 Table 1 details this growth in sales and shows the almost 100-fold
increase. Over the last 30 years, aerospace accounted for 2.5 to 3.5 percent of the US gross national product (GNP) and averaged
nearly 4 percent of all manufacturing industries.13 Jobs are another measure of aerospace’s impact on the economy. In 1990 aerospace
provided 1.295 million jobs, about the same number of jobs as the automobile industry. Moreover, aerospace furnishes the kind of
high-technology, high-skill, high-value jobs that economist Reich argues are critical to an improving standard of living. 14 During the
post–World War II period, production workers in aerospace enjoyed on average a 10 percent advantage in hourly wages over the
average worker in durable goods manufacture.15 Employment of scientists and engineers yields another indication of aerospace’s
economic power. Since the 1950s, one of every four scientists and engineers worked in aerospace. The fact that aerospace scientists
and engineers received from 7.5 to 9.0 percent more pay than their contemporaries in other fields serves as another indicator of the
importance of these workers to the national economy. 16 Another key sign of aerospace’s influence on the economy results from its
position as the nation’s top net exporter and its number six position in industry in terms of value of ship - ments in 1991.17 The nearly
$30 billion (net balance) in exports in 1991 surpassed even agriculture and accounted for nearly $1 in every $10 of US exports.18
Table 2 contrasts aerospace exports and imports with three other major product groups. Aerospace leads the nation in export balance.
A final indicator of the importance of the aerospace industry comes from its preeminent position in the world market for large jet
aircraft. Figure 1 graphically portrays this trend.19 Even today, the United States maintains a market share in excess of 80 percent of
the world market despite Lockheed’s withdrawal from the large jet manufacturer competition.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
54/77
SEMICONDUCTORS ADV – ECON ADD-ON
Semiconductor industry is key to the economy
AZoNano 2005, Online Journal of Nanotechnology , March 17th. “U.S. Could Lose Race for Nanotechnology Leadership,”
www.azonano.com/news.asp%3FnewsID%3D635
Semiconductor Technology Vital to U.S. Economy Sustaining continuous advances in semiconductor technology is vital to sustaining
improved U.S. economic performance, according to one of the nation's leading economists, Professor Dale Jorgenson. "The mantra of
the 'new economy' -- faster, better, cheaper -- characterizes the speed of technological change and product improvement in
semiconductors, the key enabling technology," said Jorgenson. "Development and deployment of information technology is the
foundation of the American growth resurgence that has occurred since 1995. "The economics of information technology begins with
the precipitous and continuing fall in semiconductor prices," Jorgenson continued. "The rapid price decline has been transmitted to the
prices of a range of products that rely heavily on this technology, like computers and telecommunications equipment." Jorgenson
noted that swiftly falling prices for information technology equipment have provided powerful economic incentives for rapid diffusion
of information technology, which in turn has led to accelerated economic growth and strong increases in productivity. "The four ITproducing industries -- semiconductors, computers, communications equipment, and software -- are responsible for a quarter of the
growth resurgence, but only 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product," said Jorgenson. "Obviously, the impact of the IT-producing
industries is far out of proportion to their relatively small size." SIA Chairman Steve Appleton called for a concerted national effort to
increase the resources devoted to research and development in the physical sciences. "Our current efforts are inadequate," said
Appleton. "Federal funding for R&D as a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product has been almost cut in half over the past 20 years.
We must return to the investment levels of the mid-1980s in order to compete for leadership." SIA leaders will be calling on
legislative and executive branch leaders to support increasing research budgets for the physical sciences in the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Defense. Specifically, the SIA
is calling for: Increases of 7 percent per year in the research budget of the NSF for 10 years, doubling the research budget over that
period; An appropriation of $20 million to match the semiconductor industry's support for the Focus Center Research Program, which
supports pre-competitive research on microelectronics technology at 30 universities to ensure continued U.S. leadership throughout
the remaining years of the CMOS era; An increase of $20 million to enhance the nanomanufacturing and nanometrology research
capabilities of NIST; and An increase in funding for the Math and Science Partnership program of the No Child Left Behind act. "U.S.
leadership in technology is not inevitable," said Appleton. "Leadership in information technology is a cornerstone of our national
strategy for economic growth, an improving standard of living, and national security. The actions we take today to ensure continued
U.S. leadership will determine the quality of life enjoyed by our children and grandchildren," Appleton concluded.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
55/77
WARMING ADD-ON 2AC 1/2
The plan attracts immigrant entrepreneurs which are key for clean energy development through U.S. China collaboration
Richard T. Herman (the founder of Richard T. Herman & Associates, an immigration and business law firm) 6/29/2010,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-herman/why-immigrants-can-drive_b_629451.html
Raymond Spencer, an Australian‐born entrepreneur based in Chicago, has a window on the future--and a gusto for investing after founding a high‐technology consulting company that sold for more than $1 billion in 2006. "I
start‐ups, all of which fall within a broad umbrella of a 'green' theme," he said. "And it's interesting, the vast majority are either led by
immigrants or have key technical people who are immigrants."It should come as no surprise that immigrants will help drive the green
revolution. America's young scientists and engineers, especially the ones drawn to emerging industries like alternative energy, tend to speak with an accent. The 2000 Census found that immigrants, while accounting
for 12 percent of the population, made up nearly half of the all scientists and engineers with doctorate degrees. Their importance will only grow. Nearly 70 percent of the men and
women who entered the fields of science and engineering from 1995 to 2006 were immigrants. Yet, the connection between
immigration and the development and commercialization of alternative energy technology is rarely discussed. Policymakers envision
millions of new jobs as the nation pursues renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power, and builds a smart grid to tap it. But
Dan Arvizu, the leading expert on solar power and the director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy in Golden, Colorado, warns that much of the
clean‐technology talent lies overseas, in nations that began pursuing alternative energy sources decades ago. The 2000 Census found that immigrants,
while accounting for 12 percent of the population, made up nearly half of the all scientists and engineers with doctorate degrees. Their importance will only grow. Expanding our own clean‐tech
industry will require working closely with foreign nations and foreign‐born scientists, he said. Immigration restrictions are making
collaboration difficult. His lab's efforts to work with a Chinese energy lab, for example, were stalled due to U.S. immigration barriers. "We can't get researchers over here," Arvizu, the son of a
once‐undocumented immigrant from Mexico, said in an interview in March 2009, his voice tinged with dismay. "It makes no sense to me. We need a much more enlightened approach." Dr. Zhao Gang, the
Vice Director of the Renewable Energy and New Energy International Cooperation Planning Office of the Ministry of Science and
Technology in China, says that America needs that enlightenment fast. "The Chinese government continues to impress upon the
Obama administration that immigration restrictions are creating major impediments to U.S.‐China collaboration on clean energy
development," he said during a recent speech in Cleveland. So what's the problem? Some of it can be attributed to national security restrictions that impede international collaboration on clean energy. But Arvizu
places greater weight on immigration barriers, suggesting that national secrecy is less important in the fast‐paced world of green‐tech development. "We are innovating so
fast here, what we do today is often outdated tomorrow. Finding solutions to alternative energy is a complex, global problem that
requires global teamwork," he said. We need an immigration system that prioritizes the attraction and retention of scarce, high‐end talent
needed to invent and commercialize alternative energy technology and other emerging technologies.
have investments in maybe 10
And U.S. China collaboration on warming is the only way to effectively solve – that’s key to overall U.S. China relations
Joshua Kucera (staff writer) 5/4/2010: China and U.S. Try Cooperation on Climate, Energy Policy.
http://politics.usnews.com/news/energy/articles/2010/05/04/china-and-us-try-cooperation-on-climate-energy-policy.html
U.S.-Chinese cooperation on climate change is manifold. The two countries are the world's largest energy producers, energy
consumers, and carbon emitters, combining to account for 40 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted globally each year. By working
together, the United States and China could accomplish more than if they proceeded independently. For example, the costs of
developing and implementing alternative energy and emissions-reduction technologies are high. But if the two nations pursue them jointly,
the collaboration could create economies of scale that would drive prices down. In addition, business and political interests in both
countries are reluctant to assume the costs of reducing emissions while their competitors across the Pacific continue unimpeded.
Cooperation could help both sides take politically difficult steps. [Read America's New Energy Dependency: China's Metals.] A collaboration on
clean energy also could be a steppingstone to building a better overall relationship between the two nations. "In solving the world's
energy problems, having China and the U.S. work together can make a big difference ," says David Sandalow, assistant secretary of energy for
policy and international affairs, who heads the government's energy outreach efforts with China. "Cooperation on clean energy can be a foundation for a
broader bilateral relationship and can contribute positively to the relationship overall."
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
56/77
WARMING ADD-ON 2AC 2/2
Relations solve extinction.
Ratliff, 95 (William, Senior research fellow at The Hoover Institution, 7/31, “Long-term U.S.-China interests”, The Washington Times, p. A21, Lexis-Nexis)
Much of the growth and prosperity of the Pacific Rim countries in general – ranging from Japan and China through Southeast Asia to the United States and the
Pacific Coast of South America – depends on peace and stability in East Asia. The United States and China must lead other nations in
fostering this peace and stability. Today, this means cooperating on such varied issues as the potential nuclear threat of North Korea, the resolution of the China-Taiwan
controversy and the exploration of – and safety of sea lanes through – the South China Sea, the superhighway of the Southeast Asian economic miracle. These matters will recur, and other
cooperation often will not be easy, for fear as to Chinese intentions
pervades Washington and suspicions of U.S. motives remain widespread here in China . Americans, for example, are particularly concerned at the size
of the Chinese military budget and what Beijing intends to do with its modernized and expanded military capacity. Thus as Mr. Perry noted, increasing contacts between the
militaries of the two countries, and each nation's clearer understanding of the defense policies and strategic intentions of the other,
are essential. This was the particular importance of Mr. Perry's visit to the PLA gathering, a type of exchange both sides must foster in the future for everyone's good. Short-term
problems unforeseen today will turn up, in the years ahead. So the world spins. To be sure,
issues are not necessarily unimportant because they are short-term, but they must be worked out by each side having consistent policies the other can understand that look beyond short-
United States and China will be the two superpowers of the early 21st century
and our living together in peace will be essential to the prosperity if not the survival of the world.
term problems to longer-term interests. The high probability is that the
Warming causes extinction
Oliver Tickell, 8/11/2008, The Guardian, journalist, author of Kyoto 2, climate expert
Oliver, "On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction,"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like
wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous.
Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never
spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse
of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains
would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive
farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by
about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and
unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be
hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser,
Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a 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.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
57/77
WARMING ADV – AT: CO2 FERTILIZATION
Climate change leads to crop failures—detrimental effects of higher temperatures overcomes any benefits of CO2 fertilization.
Brown, Lester (World-renowned environmental analyst and head of the non-profit research organization the Earth Policy Institute
based in Washington DC. p.52: “Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization” http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB3/pb3ch3.pdf)
2008
Agriculture as it exists today has been shaped by a climate system that has changed little over farming’s 11,000-year history. Crops
were developed to maximize yields in this long-standing climatic regime. As the temperature rises, agriculture will be increasingly out
of sync with its natural environment. Nowhere is this more evident than in the relationship between temperature and crop yields. Since
crops in many countries are grown at or near their thermal optimum, even a relatively minor increase during the growing season of 1
or 2 degrees Celsius can shrink the grain harvest in major food-producing regions, such as the North China Plain, the Gangetic Plain
of India, and the U.S. CornBelt.16Higher temperatures can reduce or even halt photosynthesis, prevent pollination, and lead to crop
dehydration. Although the elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 that raise temperature can also raise crop yields, the
detrimental effect of higher temperatures on yields overrides the CO2 fertilization effect for the major crops. In a study of local
ecosystem sustainability, Mohan Wali and his colleagues at Ohio State University noted that as temperature rises, photosynthetic
activity in plants increases until the temperature reaches 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit).The rate of photosynthesis then
plateaus until the temperature hits 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit), whereupon it begins to decline, until at 40 degrees
Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit), photosynthesis ceases entirely.17The most vulnerable part of a plant’s life cycle is the pollination
period. Of the world’s three food staples—rice, wheat, and corn—corn is particularly vulnerable. In order for corn to reproduce, pollen
must fall from the tassel to the strands of silk that emerge from the end of each ear of corn. Each of these silk strands is attached to a
kernel site on the cob. If the kernel is to develop, a grain of pollen must fall on the silk strand and then journey to the kernel site.
When temperatures are uncommonly high, the silk strands quickly dry out and turn brown, unable to play their role in the fertilization
process. The effects of temperature on rice pollination have been studied in detail in the Philippines. Scientists there report that the
pollination of rice falls from 100 percent at 34 degrees Celsius to near zero at 40 degrees Celsius, leading to crop failure.
Climate change destroys food production—even carbon fertilization has a net-negative outcome in a world of higher
temperatures
Stern, Nicholas (British economist and academic. He was the Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from
2000 to 2003, and was recently a civil servant and government economic advisor in the United Kingdom. “Stern Review on the
Economics of Climate Change.” http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm) 2008
Food production will be particularly sensitive to climate change, because crop yields depend in large part on prevailing climate
conditions (temperature and rainfall patterns). Agriculture currently accounts for 24% of world output, employs 22% of the global
population, and occupies 40% of the land area. 75% of the poorest people in the world (the one billion people who live on less than $1
a day) live in rural areas and rely on agriculture for their livelihood.29 Low levels of warming in mid to high latitudes (US, Europe,
Australia, Siberia and some parts of China) may improve the conditions for crop growth by extending the growing season30 and/or
opening up new areas for agriculture. Further warming will have increasingly negative impacts – the classic “hill function” (refer back
to Box 3.1) - as damaging temperature thresholds are reached more often and water shortages limit growth in regions such as Southern
Europe and Western USA.31 High temperature episodes can reduce yields by up to half if they coincide with a critical phase in the
crop cycle like flowering (Figure 3.4).32 The impacts of climate change on agriculture depend crucially on the size of the “carbon
fertilisation” effect (Box 3.4). Carbon dioxide is a basic building block for plant growth. Rising concentrations in the atmosphere may
enhance the initial benefits of warming and even offset reductions in yield due to heat and water stress. Work based on the original
predictions for the carbon fertilisation effect suggests that yields of several cereals (wheat and rice in particular) will increase for 2 or
3°C of warming globally, according to some models, but then start to fall once temperatures reach 3 or 4°C.33 Maize shows greater
declines in yield with rising temperatures because its different physiology makes it less responsive to the direct effects of rising carbon
dioxide. Correspondingly, world cereal production only falls marginally (1 – 2%) for warming up to 4°C (Box 3.4).34 But the latest
analysis from crops grown in more realistic field conditions suggests that the effect is likely to be no more than half that typically
included in crop models.35 When a weak carbon fertilisation effect is used, worldwide cereal production declines by 5% for a 2°C rise
in temperature and 10% for a 4°C rise. By 4°C, entire regions may be too hot and dry to grow crops, including parts of Australia.
Agricultural collapse across large areas of the world is possible at even higher temperatures (5 or 6°C) but clear empirical evidence is
still limited.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
58/77
WARMING ADV – AT: ICE AGE 1/2
1. Turn: Warming obliterates the thermohaline circulation
Pearce, environmental consultant and BEMA environment journalist of the year, 2007 [Fred, With speed and violence: why scientists
fear tipping points in climate change, p. 145-147]
But the crux of the public debate on Broecker's ocean conveyor remains a very simple question: Could global warming shut the
conveyor down? Broecker seems rarely to have doubted it. And the claim has in recent years seemed almost to have a life of its own.
This struck me most strongly at a conference on "dangerous" climate change held at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, in Exeter in 2005. There I met Michael
Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a sharp-suited guy sporting a pastiche of 1950S clothes and hairstyle. But if there were
serious doubts in Exeter about whether his style sense would ever come back into fashion, there was no doubt that his ideas about climate change had found their
moment. For more than a decade, Schlesinger has been making Broecker's case that a shutdown of the ocean conveyor could be closer than
mainstream climate modelers think. Some critics feel that he just doesn't know when to give up and move on. But he has stuck with it, criticizing the IPCC and
its models for systematically eliminating a range of quite possible doomsday scenarios from consideration. "The trouble with trying to reach a consensus is that all the
interesting ideas get eliminated," he said at the conference. Science by committee ends up throwing away the good stuff like the idea of the conveyor's shutting down.
But in Exeter, Schlesinger was back in vogue. He had been invited to present his model findings that a global warming of just 3.6°F would melt the
Greenland ice sheet fast enough to swamp the ocean with freshwater and shut down the conveyor. The risk, he said, was
"unacceptably large." Although he had been saying much the same for a decade, he was now considered mainstream enough to be invited across the Atlantic to
expound his ideas at a conference organized by the British government. And he was no longer alone. Later in the day , Peter Challenor, of the British National
Oceanography Centre, in Southampton, said he had shortened his own odds about the likelihood of a conveyor shutdown from one in thirty to one in three. He
guessed that a 3-degree warming of Greenland would do it. Given how fast Greenland is currently warming, that seems a near certainty. But all this is
models. What evidence is there on the ground for the state of the conveyor? The truth is that dangerous change is already afoot in the North Atlantic.
And, whatever the skepticism about some of Broecker's grander claims, the conveyor may already be in deep trouble. Since the mid2000s, says Ruth Curry, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, the waters of the far North Atlantic off Greenland-where Wadhams's chimneys deliver water to
the ocean floor and maintain Broecker's conveyor-have become decidedly fresher. In fact, much of the change happened back in the 1960s, when some 8 billion acrefeet of freshwater gushed out of the Arctic through the Fram Strait. Oceanographers called the event the Great Salinity Anomaly. To this day, nobody is quite sure why
it happened. It could have been ice breaking off the great Greenland ice sheet, or sea ice caught up in unusual circulation patterns, or increased flow from the great
Siberian rivers like the Ob and the Yenisey. Luckily, most of the freshwater rapidly headed south into the North Atlantic proper. Only 3 billion acre-feet remained.
Curry's studies of the phenomenon, published in Science in June 2005, concluded that 7 billion acre-feet would have been enough to "substantially reduce" the
conveyor, and double that "could essentially shut it down." So it was a close call. With the region's water still substantially fresher than it was at the start of the 1960s,
the conveyor remains on the critical list. Another single slug of freshwater anytime soon could be disastrous. In the coming decades, some
combination of increased rainfall, increased runoff from the land surrounding the Arctic, and faster rates of ice melting could turn off the conveyor. And
there would be no turning back, because models suggest that it would not easily switch back on. " A shift in the ocean conveyor, once initiated, is essentially
irreversible over a time period of many decades to centuries," as Broecker's colleague Peter deMenocal puts it. "It would permanently alter the climatic
norms for some of the most densely populated and highly developed regions of the world." As I prepared to submit this book to the publisher, new research
dramatically underlined the risks and fears for the conveyor. Harry Bryden, of the National Oceanography Centre, had strung
measuring buoys in a line across the Atlantic, from the Canary Islands to the Bahamas, and found that the flow of water north from the
Gulf Stream into the North Atlantic had faltered by 30 percent since the mid-I990S. Less warm water was going north at the surface, and less cold water
was coming back south along the ocean floor. This weakening of two critical features of the conveyor was, so far as anyone knew, an
unprecedented event. Probing further, Bryden found that the "deep water" from the Labrador Sea west of Greenland still seemed to be flowing south. But the
volume of deep water coming south from the Greenland Sea, the site of Wadhams's chimneys, had collapsed to half its former level. The implication was clear:
the disappearing chimneys that Wadhams had watched with such despair were indeed hobbling the ocean circulation. Broecker
seemed on the verge of being proved right that the ocean conveyor was at a threshold because of global warming.
2. Scientific accuracy and consensus make the thermohaline effect is undeniable
Alley, Department of Geosciences and PSICE, Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University,
2007 [Richard B., “Wally Was Right: Predictive Ability of the North Atlantic “Conveyor Belt” Hypothesis for Abrupt Climate
Change,” Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2007. 35:241–72 February 21]
The idea of North Atlantic abrupt climate change—freshening of the surface waters leading to a reorganization in oceanic circulation
and coupled atmospheric changes with widespread consequences and often abrupt shifts—is now at least 25 years old (Rooth 1982).
This rich field of study has especially been led, championed, publicized, and developed into a major paradigm of climate change by
Prof. Wallace S. Broecker (e.g., Broecker et al. 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990; Broecker & Denton 1989; Broecker 1994, 1997, 1998). The
remarkable success of this research program has opened new subdisciplines, including the nascent field of abrupt climate change,
provided important insights to climate processes, feedbacks, and sensitivity, and captured public as well as scientific attention.
Scientific skeptics do still remain (most notably Wunsch 2003, 2005, 2006), providing important impetus for additional research, but
Broecker’s North Atlantic/conveyor paradigm has gained widespread acceptance. For example, the Broecker papers listed above
have been cited more than 2000 times as indexed by ISI, and a brief perusal indicates that at least most of those citations are in general
agreement. Of particular note is the predictive power of Broecker’s paradigm.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
59/77
WARMING ADV – AT: ICE AGE 2/2
3. Most conclusive studies determine an Ice Age won’t start for more than 10,000 years
Revkin, environment reporter for the New York Times, 2004 [Andrew C, “A New Ice Age? None Soon, Snow 2 Miles Deep
Implies,” Jun 10, New York Times, proquest]
Despite the recent trend toward global warming, scientists have long wondered whether the Earth is nearing a new ice age, an end to
the 12,000-year temperate spell in which civilizations arose. Some have said such a transition is overdue, given that each of the three
temperate intervals that immediately preceded this current one lasted only about 10,000 years. But now, in an eagerly awaited study, a
group of climate and ice experts say they have new evidence that Earth is not even halfway through the current warm era. The
evidence comes from the oldest layers of Antarctic ice ever sampled. Some scientists earlier proposed similar hypotheses, basing them
on the configuration of Earth's orbit, which seems to set the metronome that ice ages dance to. Temperature patterns deciphered in sea
sediments in recent years backed the theory. But experts say the new ice data are by far the strongest corroborating evidence,
revealing many similarities between today's atmospheric and temperature patterns and those of a warm interval, with a duration of
28,000 years, that reached its peak 430,000 years ago. The findings are described Thursday in the journal Nature in a report by the
European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica. The evidence comes from a shaft of ice extracted over five grueling years from
Antarctica's deep-frozen innards, composed of thousands of ice layers formed as each year's snowfall was compressed over time. The
deepest ice retrieved so far comes from 10,000 feet deep and dates back 740,000 years. The relative abundance of certain forms of
hydrogen in the ice reflects past air temperatures. Many ice cores have been cut from various glaciers and ice sheets around the world,
but until now none have gone back beyond 420,000 years. "It's very exciting to see ice that fell as snow three-quarters of a million
years ago," said Dr. Eric Wolff, an author of the paper and ice core expert with the British Antarctic Survey.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
60/77
WARMING ADV – AT: SO2
1. The greenhouse cooling effect is temporary—SO2 leads to net more warming. Our evidence is the only one that cites the
comparative effect between warming and the aerosol effect
Monastersky, 91 – Richard, Staff writer for Business Net News, “CO2 limits may initially worsen warming - carbon dioxide and
global warming” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n7_v139/ai_10381518
Policies designed to control fossil-fuel emissions might temporarily hasten the greenhouse warming before ultimately limiting the
global temperature rise, according to calculations by climate researcher Tom Wigley. Yet that possibility should not deter efforts to
control greenhouse-gas emissions, he says. Wigley, of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, says the real message of his findings is that success will not come easily. "It might take
decades for even a strong policy to produce some noticeable response," he says. More Articles of Interest Polluted dust storms reduce global warming Stay tuned. (Washington Briefs).(Senate Environment Committee
plans to limit... NWF Urges Congress To Pass Clean Power Act - Brief Article Sulfur-climate link called insignificant Releasing Sulfur to the Atmosphere Could Counter Global Warming Related Results Polluted
dust storms reduce global warming Greenhouse gases Warming hysteria.(LETTERS) Stay tuned. (Washington Briefs).(Senate Environment Committee plans to limit... NWF Urges Congress To Pass Clean Power
Act - Brief Article advertisement Wigley's calculations spotlight a highly uncertain arena in climate-change scenarios: the influence of sulfur dioxide (SN: 8/25/90, p.118). Like carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide is produced by
sulfur dioxide turns into tiny sulfate droplets that reflect sunlight back toward space. These
sulfate "aerosols" also cool the Earth's surface indirectly by making clouds more reflective. Scientists don't know the strength of such
cooling effects, especially the effect on clouds. But if sulfate aerosols have an important influence, policies that limit fossil-fuel use
would exert two opposing forces on the climate by reducing emissions of both the warning gas and the cooling gas. To
investigate the outcome of that tug-of-war, Wigley calculated how various pollution controls would affect the carbon dioxide
"forcing" and the sulfate aerosol "forcing." His study, detailed in the Feb. 7 NATURE, represents the first attempt to quantify the
impact of both direct and indirect aerosol effects. Because carbon forcing appears to dominate aerosol forcing, a policy that cuts
emissions would eventually limit a temperature rise. But Wigley found that the aerosol effect would delay the climate's response to
any emissions control strategy and would reduce the overall effectiveness of such policies. Since the cooling power of sulfate aerosols
remains unknown, Wigley tested a range of cases. In a scenario where aerosols exerted considerable effect, fossil-fuel limitations
enhanced greenhouse warming for more than three decades before beginning to slow the temperature rise. That's because carbon
dioxide stays in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, while aerosols fall out within days. Thus, controls would rapidly
reduce the aerosol cooling, and only later begin to curb the carbon dioxide warming, he found. Although the sulfate aerosol
effect might appear to represent an ameliorating force, "it cannot be considered to be a good thing," Wigley maintains. Because
the combustion of fossil fuels. But while carbon dioxide gas traps heat,
industrial centers in the Northern Hemisphere produce the most sulfur pollution, the aerosol effect could throw the world's climate off balance by cooling the north more than the south. Although this might limit an increase in
average global temperatures, the hemispheric imbalance could significantly alter weather patterns around the world, possibly producing a situation "as severe as what we might be heading for with the plain greenhouse
effect," says Wigley. Atmospheric scientist Robert J. Charlson agrees.
"It would be a fundamental mistake to think that the aerosols in any way balance the
greenhouse forcing," he says.
Charlson, of the University of Washington in Seattle, views aerosol's influence on clouds as a priority for future climate research. Investigators must study not only
pollution-generated aerosols but also natural ones, he says. Wigley adds, however, that unanswered questions about aerosols should not hold up negotiations on an international climate treaty, which formally began in
Chantilly, Va., last week. Rather, he says, "the possible effects of fossil-fuel-derived sulfate aerosols should be seen as further reason for implementing controls on fossil-fuel use."
2. SO2 causes ocean acidification—kills ocean ecosystems
Doney, 7 – Scott, Senior Scientist in the WHOI Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, 9/7/2007, “News Release : Acid
Rain Has a Disproportionate Impact on Coastal Waters” Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=31286&ct=162
the release of sulfur and nitrogen into the atmosphere by power plants and agricultural activities plays a minor role in making the
ocean more acidic on a global scale, but the impact is greatly amplified in the shallower waters of the coastal ocean, according to new research by atmospheric
and marine chemists. Ocean “acidification” occurs when chemical compounds such as carbon dioxide, sulfur, or nitrogen mix with
seawater, a process which lowers the pH and reduces the storage of carbon. Ocean acidification hampers the ability of marine
organisms—such as sea urchins, corals, and certain types of plankton—to harness calcium carbonate for making hard outer shells or
“exoskeletons.” These organisms provide essential food and habitat to other species, so their demise could affect entire ocean
ecosystems. The findings were published this week in the online “early edition” of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; a printed version will be
issued later this month. “Acid rain isn’t just a problem of the land; it’s also affecting the ocean,” said Scott Doney, lead author of the study and a
senior scientist in the Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI). “That effect is most pronounced near
the coasts, which are already some of the most heavily affected and vulnerable parts of the ocean due to pollution, over-fishing, and climate change.” In addition to
acidification, excess nitrogen inputs from the atmosphere promote increased growth of phytoplankton and other marine plants which, in turn, may cause more frequent
harmful algal blooms and eutrophication (the creation of oxygen-depleted “dead zones”) in some parts of the ocean. Doney collaborated on the project with Natalie
Mahowald, Jean-Francois Lamarque, and Phil Rasch of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Richard Feely of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory,
Fred Mackenzie of the University of Hawaii, and Ivan Lima of the WHOI Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry Department. “ Most studies have traditionally
focused only on fossil fuel emissions and the role of carbon dioxide in ocean acidification, which is certainly the dominant issue,”
Doney said. “But no one has really addressed the role of acid rain and nitrogen. ” The research team compiled and analyzed many publicly available
data sets on fossil fuel emissions, agricultural, and other atmospheric emissions. They built theoretical and computational models of the ocean and
atmosphere to simulate where the nitrogen and sulfur emissions were likely to have the most impact. They also compared their model
results with field observations made by other scientists in the coastal waters around the United States.
[impact in Ocean Scenario]
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
61/77
INFRASTRUCTURE (ENGINEERS) ADD-ON 2AC
A new wave of highly skilled workers would be the best stimulus for our infrastructure
Trahanas and Nash ’09 [Phil Trahanas is the managing director of global investment firm General Atlantic and Nicholas Nash is the vice president of General
Atlantic, “Engineering Talent Is the Best Stimulus,” Feb. 4, http://enr.construction.com/opinions/viewPoint/2009/0204-BestStimulus.asp]
to stimulate our economy, but rather which forms of stimulus will be the most effective. A focused, multifaceted
commitment to revitalizing our nation’s infrastructure and rebuilding our engineering workforce offers an unbeatable combination.
The infrastructure deficit in the U.S. is a threat to public safety and to our future competitiveness. We are seeing everywhere the
effects of our decision to reduce public spending on infrastructure from 3% of GDP during the post-World War Two decades to only 2% since 1970. We already are seeing signs
that America’s infrastructure is being leapfrogged by other nations. But any solution to our infrastructure deficit must also address the
alarming scarcity of young engineering talent in both the public and private sectors. This shortage has even broader ramifications:
Engineers are needed to tackle some of the most urgent issues of our day. However, many engineering firm executives bemoan the
paucity of able leaders in their thirties and forties to fill their shoes. This problem is not limited to the private sector, with two-thirds of
the federal engineering workforce being 45 or older. The numbers tell a startling story. In 1986, engineering and engineering technology students earned close to 10% of U.S. bachelor’s
The question for the Obama administration is not whether
degrees. Despite attractive starting salaries, often above $50,000 a year, the percentage today is approaching 5%. Had graduation rates held steady since 1986, the industry would be graduating 70,000 more engineers today at
the bachelor’s level and benefiting from 750,000 more engineering graduates in the workforce.
Weak grid infrastructure encourages EMP attacks on the US
Stephen T. Watson, 2009 (September 9). http://www.allbusiness.com/international-relations/weapons-arms-military-weapons/12904030-1.html
The electrical and communications systems that form the very bedrock of this country's society and economy are threatened by an attack from an electromagnetic
bomb, the speakers at a national conference warned this morning in Niagara Falls. The conference, sponsored by EMPACT America, featured congressional, intelligence and defense officials. They said the
detonation of a nuclear device or another weapon that releases an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, could fry America's energy grid, telecommunications network and critical medical, water
and sewer systems that rely on electricity. "It is our No. 1 threat, and we must acknowledge that ," former Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, known for a focus on defense issues during his
20 years in the House, said this morning at the Conference Center in Niagara Falls. The more than 700 attendees came from as far away as South Korea and included academic researchers, first responders and people
passionate about the EMP threat. The conference was sponsored by Steuben Foods, which has a facility in Elma and whose chairman has embraced the EMP issue. Many conservative elected officials and members of the
defense and intelligence communities have encouraged the United States to be prepared for the threat of an EMP attack. In response, some liberal bloggers have criticized the EMP issue as being rooted in science-fiction more
there is bipartisan support for legislation that would commit the country to protecting its
infrastructure from an EMP attack. Such an attack likely would involve the detonation of a nuclear device at a high altitude over the United States. The explosion would send
electromagnetic pulses that could wreak havoc over a wide area with any electronic devices and any networks that rely on electricity
to function. This EMP attack could send the United States, or a good swath of this country, back to the Dark Ages and could take
away the advantages in war of our high-tech weapons systems. "That's what an EMP can do, and that's what our adversaries clearly understand,"
Weldon said. Potential enemies such as Russia, China and North Korea are exploring the use of such devices , Weldon and other speakers said.
than in reality. But speakers at the conference took pains to say
An EMP attack ends America: rebuilding grid infrastructure is key to stopping the attack
Ronald Kessler, 2009 (chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com). “EMP Attack Could Wipe Out U.S.” September 9, 2009. Accessed August 22, 2010 at
http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/emp-attack/2009/09/09/id/334894
The federal government is doing “nothing” to protect against an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that could wipe out American
civilization, Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a leading expert on the subject, tells Newsmax. For only $200 million to $400 million, the government could protect a key element of the power grid to keep electrical power from
being wiped out for years, according to Dr. Pry, a former staff member of the congressional Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack. Yet neither Republicans nor Democrats
A single nuclear bomb exploded
over the Midwest would generate an electromagnetic pulse that would destroy the chips that are at the heart of every electronic device.
While military and intelligence networks may be shielded against EMP, most of the rest of the country’s technological infrastructure is
not. An EMP attack would wipe out personal computers and the internet. Cars would not start, gasoline pumps would not work, and
airplanes could not take off. Heat and air conditioning would shut down, supermarkets would have to close, telephones would go dead, water would go out, and radio and television sets would not turn on.
Banks and ATMs would shut down, credit cards would become useless, and emergency services and hospital operating rooms would
close. In the ensuing chaos, most Americans would die from starvation. “We have a 60-day food supply in big regional warehouses,” Pry
says. “Typically when hurricanes take out the electric power grid locally, that food spoils, because it needs temperature control systems and refrigerators to keep it preserved. And if you lose the electric grid
across the whole country, you’re going to lose all that food that is the best hope for feeding the American people .” The 2008 report of the
congressional commission found that the country is shockingly unprepared for an EMP attack. Terrorists or countries like Iran or North Korea could launch an EMP attack
and “possibly end us as a civilization, and take us out as an actor on the world stage,” Pry says. At the least, Pry says, 100 to 200 large transformers used in electrical transmission should be protected against EMP attack. “The key for
have been willing to spend that small sum, says Pry, who is president EMPACT America, which is meeting in Niagara Falls, N.Y. this week to spotlight the scandal.
our electric power grid are these big transformers,” Pry says. “All together, there are about 300 of them. They are absolutely indispensable to the operation of the power grid. If you fry those things, there are only a couple of countries in the world that sell them for
export, and it takes a year, at least, to make one of them,” Pry says. Equally important are small computers that regulate the power grid. “This country can’t survive for six months without electricity, let alone a year,” Pry says. “Everything else would go down after
losing electric power.” To harden those transformers against an attack would cost a mere $200 million to $400 million, Pry says. For perhaps $20 billion, the entire power grid could be protected, Pry says. By comparison, the stimulus bill costs nearly $800 billion. Yet
without electricity, no one would have a job. Pry notes that the Iranians have written extensively about the possibility of wiping out America with an EMP attack. North Korea would also likely be in a position to do that, he says. To be most effective, an EMP device
would be detonated by a missile 200 miles above earth. A strong missile defense would knock missiles out of the sky before they reach the U.S. But going back to President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative — dubbed Star Wars — Democrats have consistently
ridiculed the idea of an anti-missile defense. President Obama’s administration already has cut the Pentagon’s missile defense budget by $1.4 billion, or 15 percent. However, Pry says a missile with a nuclear device launched from a ship would be just as effective at
taking out the U.S., and no missile defense would work quickly enough to defend against it. Moreover, he notes, a great geomagnetic storm could unleash destruction almost as devastating as an EMP attack. Therefore, Pry says, the only sure defense is the hardening of
targets. Pry says the Department of Homeland Security has plans for 15 kinds of disasters, but none of the scenarios deals with an EMP attack. Nor, he says, are there any plans to harden the power grid. “The Department of Defense has contingency plans, and they put a
lot of effort into planning to come to the rescue in places like Africa and Indonesia in the event that there are natural catastrophes,” Pry says. “But they don’t plan for such contingencies for the American people.” Like the government, the press has been asleep on the
threat, Pry says. Liberals perceive efforts to prevent an EMP attack as a way to push for funds for anti-missile defense, which the left abhors. “If they’d trouble themselves to read the EMP commission report, they would find the EMP commission is not saying
The best solution is smart planning to protect and
strengthen missile defense is the answer,” Pry says. “While missile defense can be useful against EMP, it’s not the first solution, or the best solution.” Instead, Pry says, “
recover the critical infrastructures, especially the electric power grid.”
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
62/77
FEDERAL BUDGET ADD-ON 2AC – 1/2
Removing caps solves the federal budget deficit
Holen 2009 Arlene Holen, Senior fellow, Technology Policy Institute. March 2009. “THE BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF HIGHSKILLED IMMIGRATION REFORM”. Online.
The flow of highly skilled immigrants to the United States increases entrepreneurship, economic growth, and productivity. This paper
finds that high-skilled immigrants also have substantial positive effects on the federal budget. Such workers pay more in taxes than
low-skilled workers and are less likely to receive federal benefits, particularly in the near term.
The estimates in this paper are intended to provide relevant information to policy makers on the economic and budget implications of
high-skilled immigration reform. The estimates are not precise—they necessarily rest on simplifying assumptions—but they provide
an indication of the magnitudes involved.
The economy would have been larger and the federal budget deficit would have been substantially reduced if foreign graduates of U.S.
colleges and universities had not been constrained by green card and H-1B caps or if temporary workers could freely adjust to
permanent resident status.
Failure to reduce debt causes U.S.-China leadership switch
Seib 10 [Gerald F. Seib, assistant managing editor and the executive Washington editor of The Wall Street Journal, “US status,
security weakened by deficit” 2/3/10, lexis]
THE US federal budget deficit has graduated from pressing national concern into a fully fledged national security threat, as the US
government this year will borrow one of every three dollars it spends, with many of those funds coming from China. The budget plan
released yesterday by the White House shows a $US1.6 trillion ($1.8 trillion) deficit this year, $US1.3 trillion next year, $US8.5
trillion for the next 10 years combined -- assuming congress enacts US President Barack Obama's proposals to start bringing it down,
and that the proposals work. The numbers are seen as an economic and domestic problem but they have ramifications for the US's
ability to continue playing its traditional global role. Experts warn the US government's heavy borrowing from foreign countries will
weaken the US's standing and its freedom to act, while it strengthens China and other world powers including cash-rich oil producers.
It puts long-term defence spending at risk and undermines the US system as a model for developing countries -- it reduces the aura of
power that has been a great intangible asset for presidents for more than a century. ``We've reached a point now where there's an
intimate link between our solvency and our national security,'' said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a
senior national security adviser in both the first and second Bush presidencies. ``What's so discouraging is that our domestic politics
don't seem to be up to the challenge. And the whole world is watching.'' The classic, narrow definition of national security threats
already has expanded in ways that make traditional foreign policy thinking antiquated, with the list of US security concerns now
including dependence on foreign oil and global warming, for example. But the budget deficits also threaten Americans' national
security as they make the US vulnerable to foreign pressures. The US has about $US7.5 trillion in accumulated debt held by the
public, about half of that in the hands of investors abroad. Each American next year will chip in more than $US800 just to pay interest
on this debt and the situation means the US government is dependent on the largesse of foreign creditors and subject to the whims of
international financial markets. A foreign government, through the actions of its central bank, could put pressure on the US in a way
its military never could. Even under a more benign scenario, a debt-ridden US is vulnerable to a run on the US dollar that begins
abroad. Either way, Mr Haass says, ``it reduces our independence''. Chinese power is growing as a result. A lot of the deficit is being
financed by China, which is selling the US many billions of dollars of manufactured goods, then lending the accumulated dollars back
to the US. The IOUs are stacking up in Beijing. So far this has been a mutually beneficial arrangement, but it is slowly increasing
Chinese leverage over American consumers and the US government. At some point, the US may have to bend its policies before either
an implicit or explicit Chinese threat to stop the merry-go-round. Just last weekend, for example, the US angered China by agreeing to
sell Taiwan $US6.4 billion in arms. At some point, will the US face economic servitude to China that would make such a policy
decision impossible? This year, thanks in some measure to continuing high costs from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US will spend
a once-unthinkable $US688bn on defence. Staggering as the defence outlays are, the deficit is twice as large. The much smaller
budgets for the the US's other international operations -- diplomacy, assistance for friendly nations -- are dwarfed even more
dramatically by the deficit. These national security budgets have been largely sacrosanct in the era of terrorism. But unless the deficit
arc changes, at some point they will come under pressure for cuts. The US model is being undermined before the rest of the world.
This is the great intangible impact of yawning budget deficits. The image of an invincible US had two large effects over the last
century or so. First, it made other countries listen when Washington talked. And second, it often made other peoples and leaders yearn
to be like the US. Sometimes that produced jealousy and resentment among leaders, but often it drew to the top of foreign lands
leaders who admired the US and wanted their countries to emulate it. Such leaders are good allies. The Obama administration has
pledged to create a bipartisan commission charged with balancing the budget, except for interest payments, by 2015. The damage
deficits can do to the US's world standing is a good reason to hope the commission works.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
63/77
FEDERAL BUDGET ADD-ON 2AC – 2/2
The Switch leads to a massive power war
David, Zweig, Director of the Center on China’s Transnational Relations at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and Bi Jianhai, post-doc at the Center, 05, Foreign Affairs, “China’s Global Hunt for Energy”, September/October, proquest
Although China's new energy demands need not be a source of serious conflict with the West in the long term, at the moment, Beijing and
Washington feel especially uneasy about the situation. While China struggles to manage its growing pains, the United States, as the
world's hegemon, must somehow make room for the rising giant; otherwise, war will become a serious possibility. According to the power
transition theory, to maintain its dominance, a hegemon will be tempted to declare war on its challengers while it still has a power advantage.
Thus, easing the way for the United States and China--and other states to find a new equilibrium will require careful management , especially
of their mutual perceptions.
Extinction
Straits Times 00 (“No One Gains In War Over Taiwan”, 6-25, Lexis)
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its
Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of
a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In
the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic
powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted , Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be
similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear
national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable.
war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The
Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of
there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of
using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing
nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability,
was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington
that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen
Ridgeway said that
should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon
over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
64/77
FEDERAL BUDGET ADD-ON – HEG IMPACT
Budget deficit kills Heg
Seib 10 [Gerald F. Seib, assistant managing editor and the executive Washington editor of The Wall Street Journal, “US status,
security weakened by deficit” 2/3/10, lexis]
THE US federal budget deficit has graduated from pressing national concern into a fully fledged national security threat, as the US government this
year will borrow one of every three dollars it spends, with many of those funds coming from China. The budget plan released yesterday by the White House
shows a $US1.6 trillion ($1.8 trillion) deficit this year, $US1.3 trillion next year, $US8.5 trillion for the next 10 years combined -- assuming congress enacts US
President Barack Obama's proposals to start bringing it down, and that the proposals work. The numbers are seen as an economic and domestic problem but they have ramifications for the US's ability to continue playing its
US government's heavy borrowing from foreign countries will weaken the US's standing and its freedom to
act, while it strengthens China and other world powers including cash-rich oil producers. It puts long-term defence spending at risk and undermines
the US system as a model for developing countries -- it reduces the aura of power that has been a great intangible asset for presidents for more than a century. ``We've reached a
point now where there's an intimate link between our solvency and our national security,'' said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a
senior national security adviser in both the first and second Bush presidencies. ``What's so discouraging is that our domestic politics don't seem to be up to the challenge. And the whole
world is watching.'' The classic, narrow definition of national security threats already has expanded in ways that make traditional foreign policy thinking antiquated, with the list of US security
concerns now including dependence on foreign oil and global warming, for example. But the budget deficits also threaten Americans'
national security as they make the US vulnerable to foreign pressures. The US has about $US7.5 trillion in accumulated debt held by the public, about half of that in the hands of
traditional global role. Experts warn the
investors abroad. Each American next year will chip in more than $US800 just to pay interest on this debt and the situation means the US government is dependent on the largesse of foreign creditors and subject to the whims
A foreign government, through the actions of its central bank, could put pressure on the US in a way its military
never could. Even under a more benign scenario, a debt-ridden US is vulnerable to a run on the US dollar that begins abroad. Either way, Mr Haass
says, ``it reduces our independence''. Chinese power is growing as a result. A lot of the deficit is being financed by China, which is
selling the US many billions of dollars of manufactured goods, then lending the accumulated dollars back to the US. The IOUs are stacking up in
Beijing. So far this has been a mutually beneficial arrangement, but it is slowly increasing Chinese leverage over American consumers and the US government. At
some point, the US may have to bend its policies before either an implicit or explicit Chinese threat to stop the merry-go-round. Just last weekend,
for example, the US angered China by agreeing to sell Taiwan $US6.4 billion in arms. At some point, will the US face economic servitude to China that would make
such a policy decision impossible? This year, thanks in some measure to continuing high costs from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US
will spend a once-unthinkable $US688bn on defence. Staggering as the defence outlays are, the deficit is twice as large. The much smaller budgets for the the US's other international
operations -- diplomacy, assistance for friendly nations -- are dwarfed even more dramatically by the deficit. These national security budgets have been largely sacrosanct in the
era of terrorism. But unless the deficit arc changes, at some point they will come under pressure for cuts. The US model is being
undermined before the rest of the world. This is the great intangible impact of yawning budget deficits. The image of an invincible US
had two large effects over the last century or so. First, it made other countries listen when Washington talked. And second, it often
made other peoples and leaders yearn to be like the US. Sometimes that produced jealousy and resentment among leaders, but often it
drew to the top of foreign lands leaders who admired the US and wanted their countries to emulate it. Such leaders are good allies. The
Obama administration has pledged to create a bipartisan commission charged with balancing the budget, except for interest payments,
by 2015. The damage deficits can do to the US's world standing is a good reason to hope the commission works.
of international financial markets.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
65/77
BROADBAND ADD-ON 2AC
Skilled immigration key to the economy and broadband
Marguerite Reardon (a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality
debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies) 6/30/2010: Immigration and tech: What do you think?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20009335-266.html
President Obama has acknowledged that growth in the tech sector will be a crucial contributor and enabler for growth in the U.S.
economy. That's why he has put his support behind the National Broadband Plan, a road map for communications policy over the next
decade, drafted by the Federal Communications Commission.
This 10-year plan, which calls for getting broadband Internet service to all Americans, is seen as a major policy step toward creating
more jobs and stimulating more investment in the U.S. in the future. Compete America says access to skilled foreign workers will be
important to achieve many of the goals laid out in the National Broadband Plan.
"The American economy has always benefited from the contributions of the highly educated, regardless of where they were born,"
said Frances Cox, a spokeswoman for Compete America. "We're talking about the innovators and job creators our country should be
welcoming with open arms--especially during tough economic times."
Broadband is key to competitiveness
Wagner 9 [Mitch, Executive Editor of Information Weekly, “Internet Faces Threat Of Breaking Apart,” June 11,
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/06/internet_faces.html;jsessionid=YIHLFWMXHUZTIQSNDLRSKHSCJ
UNN2JVN]
Also during the brief time Werbach got to speak, he talked about the U.S. lagging other developed countries in broadband penetration.
Like net neutrality, the U.S. lag in broadband penetration has been widely discussed, but Werbach gave the best explanation I've heard
for why the issue is important. Werbach argues that broadband penetration is a standard yardstick for competitiveness among nations.
The US is unique among major industrialized nations in that it lacks a national broadband strategy, and it shows. "Broadband is the
platform for an information society," Werbach said. "It's the mechanism for how governments deliver information services and the
mechansim for how people interact." Prosaically, it's the platform for watching video and participating in discussion, and it's also a
platform for business. "Most countries over the past decade have made a conscious decision that broadband is an important element of
their citizenry. The U.S. has been unique in leaving it to the private sector, and government stays out of the process. By most metrics,
the U.S. was a leader in the world on the Internet on dial-up, and now it's a laggard." On the other hand, Werbach notes, the US has
been tremendously successful in the technology industry and in boosting technology startups.
Broadband expansion directly boosts economic and military dominance
Ferguson 2 [Charles H. Ferguson is a nonresident senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and an independent
computer consultant, “The U.S. Broadband Problem,” Brookings Policy Brief #101, July 2002,
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2002/07technology_ferguson.aspx]
There is strong evidence that the Internet has played a major role in the productivity revival experienced by the United States since the
early 1990s. Productivity growth and military power are now driven primarily by information systems, which are becoming heavily
Internet-dependent. As digital technology continues its progress, the broadband problem is becoming a major bottleneck in the U.S.
and world economy. If allowed to persist, the broadband bottleneck will also cause "digital divide" problems, which arise when
unequal access to Internet services is thought to contribute to widening inequalities in income, wealth, and power. However,
computers are not the problem: the computer industry is highly competitive, and the inherent tendency of technology is to democratize
access. Indeed, the computer industry is now being reshaped by palmtop, game, and consumer-oriented systems costing only a few
hundred dollars, some of which already have more processing power than personal computers built in 1990. However, at current
prices, one year of ADSL costs as much as a home computer, and one year of T1 service costs as much as five office computers.
Improved broadband services would support globalization and political freedom. China and other nations, for example, have been
forced to permit increasingly widespread Internet use. They will be forced to permit broadband services, despite the fact that for
technical reasons they are more difficult to censor than conventional email or web pages. And finally, local broadband deployment has
significant interactions with energy, environmental, and national security policy. Nations increasingly need to maintain economic
growth without increasing energy use, greenhouse emissions, and pollution. One response is to substitute communication for physical
transportation via use of digital documents, videoconferencing, and so forth. However, large-scale broadband deployment is required
to realize these gains. And finally, local broadband policy also has significant national security implications. U.S. national security
and military power depend upon communications and information technology, whose performance is now driven by commercial
markets, with military products following years later. Moreover, the widespread availability of broadband services for surveillance,
videoconferencing, and other applications would directly increase the capabilities of law enforcement, medical, and national security
authorities.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
66/77
DETERRENCE ADD-ON 2AC
Sustainable STEM workforce is key to nuclear deterrence
Lips and McNeill, 9 (4/15, Dan Lips is Senior Policy Analyst in Education in the Domestic Policy Studies Department, and Jena
Baker McNeill is Policy Analyst for Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a
division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, “A New Approach to
Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education,” http://www.heritage.org/research/education/bg2259.cfm)
Not Just Economics. The shortage of STEM workers is not only an economic problem. America's ability to produce a STEM-educated
workforce has a direct effect on national security. The U.S. has enjoyed its status as the dominant scientific power for many decades.
But as the economies of China and India have expanded, this position has fallen dramatically. A 2005 study by the National Bureau of
Economic Research indicated that China will produce more "scientific and engineering doctorates than the U.S. by 2010."[9] The
decrease in America's STEM expertise was stressed in a Defense Science Board report in 2008, which addressed the coming shortage
of nuclear-deterrence know-how. The report cited the importance of this knowledge, noting that "no threat can put the nation's
existence at risk as quickly and chillingly as nuclear weapons." The report also emphasized that "a significant part of the workforce in
the national laboratories and production facilities are at or near retirement age"--and that there simply are not enough students going
into STEM fields to fill the void.[10]
Impacts –
First, US extended deterrence solves conflict
Schlesinger, Chairman, Task force on DoD nuclear weapons management, 08
(James, The Secretary of defense task force on DoD nuclear weapons management, “Report of the…”,
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/PhaseIIReportFinal.pdf, accessed 6/29/10, 12/18/08, RSW)
Nevertheless, nuclear weapons remain unique in their destructive power—and thus in their physical, military, and political effects.
Moreover, they are unique in that the goal of our nuclear deterrent is to persuade others not to employ weapons of mass destruction
against the United States or its interests. Thus, if our nuclear deterrent is sufficiently impressive and persuasive, the weapons
themselves will not have to be employed in combat.
Second, deterrence is the most moral option – deterrence prevents conventional wars around the globe which kills millions
Robert G. Joseph and John F. Reichart, 98 [Director and deputy director of the Center for Counter proliferation Research, National
Defense University, and members of the National War College faculty. Ambassador Joseph is a former principal deputy assistant
secretary of defense for international security policy Dr. Reichart is a former member of the State Department policy planning staff.
The case for nuclear deterrence today. By: Joseph, Robert G., Reichart, John F., Orbis, 00304387, Winter98, Vol. 42, Issue 1]
Yet, within this realm of considerable ambiguity, policymakers during the Cold War were forced to decide where the greater risk lay
and make decisions with real consequences. Given the awful consequences of failure, the choice was not simple. On the one hand,
nuclear deterrence could fail. In the aftermath of such failure, it was possible (but by no means certain, insofar as a conscious choice
for use would have to be made by political authorities) that nuclear weapons would be unleashed on civilian populations with truly
catastrophic consequences. On the other hand, in the absence of a credible nuclear deterrent, conventional deterrence could fail, as it
had so often in the past, twice globally, resulting in another devastating war with casualties perhaps even greater than those in World
War II. Looking back, one might even argue that those who condemned nuclear weapons as immoral were simply wrong. The
Western alliance's nuclear weapons were in fact the moral weapon of choice. They worked precisely as intended by deterring an
immoral totalitarian state from attacking Western Europe and undermining the peace, values, and freedom which the democracies
cherished. Indeed, given the tens of millions of innocent noncombatants killed in two world wars, one can argue that the possession of
nuclear weapons to deter yet another outbreak of mass slaughter by conventional weapons, either in Europe or Asia, was squarely
in the just war tradition.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
67/77
PHARMA ADD-ON 2AC – 1/2
Pharmaceuticals and new drug production are taking severe hits – plan is key to revive the industry
Goldsmith 4-12 [Jeff, Ph.D is Associate Professor of Public Health Sciences at the University of Virginia and President of Health Futures, Inc., “Has the U.S.
Health Technology Sector Run Out of Gas?” http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/04/has_the_us_health_technology_s.html]
the US medical technology industry, which has
dominated global markets for almost two generations. Today, our medical technology sector seems to have become mired in a
lengthening period of creative menopause which not only threatens its economic foundations, but its global leadership position.
Technological innovation — in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices including imaging, and enterprise IT — exploded in the thirty year period 1970 to 2000. So many of these new
technologies solved diagnostic or therapeutic problems that they became major drivers of health cost growth. The health policy community grappled continually
and unsuccessfully with how to manage both adopting and paying for these technologies. Then about a decade ago, the US medical technology sector entered a prolonged
innovation drought. In pharmaceuticals, new drug introductions declined by almost two thirds, while drugs patented in the latter part of the
boom period lost protection, this despite a near tripling in R+D outlays. (New drug introductions rebounded modestly in 2008 and 2009, but still haven't regained their 2004 levels). Even well
managed biotechnology companies such as Amgen and Genentech found large bubbles in their R+D pipelines. romising concepts such as personalized medicine, gene
Peter Drucker once said that he whom the gods would destroy, he first gave thirty years of prosperity. That maxim applies with some force to
therapy, immunotherapy, etc. have as yet failed to generate a reliable flow of products. The drought wasn't confined to pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Imaging, a dazzling success story for three decades, has seemingly
run out of gas. Imaging equipment sales collapsed precipitously in the US, by roughly 40%, following Medicare payment changes in 2006. The core imaging modalities — CT, MR, PET and ultrasound — while subject to
continuous refinements, were invented more than thirty years ago. There have been no significant "game changing" imaging technologies since. The promise of "molecular imaging" — both for diagnosis and therapy, remains
just that- promise. Enterprise clinical information technology seems to have hit a similar flat spot. The major commercial IT platforms for hospitals and health systems are more than a decade old. Some of the older platforms
are written in antique computer languages like COBOL and MUMPS, which predate the Internet by 20 years. Despite a societal investment of more than $100 billion, these tools have yet to demonstrate that they can reduce
the cost or improve the efficiency of patient care. They remain cumbersome, expensive to install, maintain and operate. The user interfaces feel a lot like Windows 95 in an iPhone era. What happened to the medical
technology field? It certainly hasn't been a shortage of cash, or of research investment. It seems like the process of commercialization of medical innovation has broken down. Contributing factors include: Risk-Averse
Managements Managements have succumbed to a lawyerly, risk-averse management style. Firms that used to be run by scientists and engineers are now run by attorneys and marketing executives. Decisions large and small
take forever, and resource allocation — people and capital — has become less strategic and more formula driven. Medical technology firms have lost the ability to take "game changing" risks: acquiring promising ideas has
proven a lot easier than growing them. Size Is Actually a Handicap The sheer size of many of the dominant medical technology firms surely has played a role. Their ability to foster innovation has succumbed to a bureaucratic
management culture. There may be "cultural diseconomies" in large firms that inhibit their ability consistently to nurture knowledge workers and create intellectual property. Scientists and engineers are not soldiers who work
best organized into divisions. It is futile and unproductive to bureaucratize knowledge work. Some firms like Pfizer have addressed this head on by trying to re-organize their R+D operations into smaller, more coherent
Top US firms are in jeopardy
of losing — or failing to attract in the first place — talented scientists and engineers — a task made more difficult by our current immigration policy
bottleneck. Bright young foreign science and technology graduates are returning to India or China instead of staying here and creating
new products or companies. If they have more freedom to innovate in their home countries, that's where they'll go. Medical technology firms must create environments where the brightest
minds from around the world want to come to work, a viable alternative to venture backed start-ups or academia. They must create a responsive, risk seeking, fast-to-fail, but also
fast-to-succeed and fast-to-market corporate culture. It isn't continual refinement of mature technology platforms that will get the job
done. To create definitive solutions to complex disease problems, we're going to need a new generation of knowledge-driven
executives who actively seek and master risk.
business units focused around major clinical problems. It could be a decade or more before we know if this strategy has succeeded. Losing the Competition for Global Talent
Effective antibiotics are rapidly running out—creating new drugs is key to prevent diseases from becoming pandemics
SGM, 2008 Society for General Microbiology and World Science staff, 3-31-8 “Scientist: “superbugs” resist all drugs, portend
pandemic” http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080331_superbug
Doctors are running out of treatments for trauma victims and critically ill patients because of infections from drug resistant microbes – even after resorting to medicines thrown out 20 years ago because of severe side effects, scientists are reporting. “Doctors
in many countries have gone back to using old antibiotics that were abandoned... because their toxic side effects were so frequent
and so bad,” said Matthew Falagas of the Alfa Institute of Biomedical Sciences in Athens, Greece and Tufts University School of
Medicine in Boston, Mass. “But superbugs like Acinetobacter have challenged doctors all over the world by now becoming resistant to these older and considered more dangerous medicines.” Falagas is set to report the findings at April 1 at the Society for General Microbiology’s annual meeting this week in Edinburgh. “Even colistin,” an antibiotic discovered 60 years ago, “has recently
been used as a salvage remedy to treat patients with Acinetobacter infections,” said Falagas. “And it was successful for a while,
but now it occasionally fails due to recent extensive use that has caused the bacteria to become resistant, leading to problem superbugs… resistant to all available antibiotics.” Recent work by Greek researchers has revealed Acinetobacter is more deadly than
previously thought, Falagas added: it doesn’t just cause severe infections, it kills unexpectedly high numbers of patients. Acinetobacter can cause pneumonia, skin and wound infections and sometimes meningitis. The scientists identified a range of drug resistant strategies being used by the bacteria, including the production of chemicals which can inactivate the drug treatments, cell
pumps that can bail out the drug molecules from inside bacterial cells making them ineffective, and mutating the drug target sites.
This makes the drug molecules miss specific regions of the bacterial cells that they were aiming for. “There have already been severe problems with critically ill patients due to Acinetobacter baumannii infections in various countries,” said Falagas. “In some
cases we have simply run out of treatments and we could be facing a pandemic.”
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
68/77
PHARMA ADD-ON 2AC – 2/2
Antibiotic resistance creates multiple extinction-level diseases
Sharon Collins, Sunday Mirror, Mirror Group newspapers health editor, formerly trained as a specialized medical correspondent, 412-1998 “'Doomsday' fear as we over-use antibiotics” lexis
THE golden age of antibiotics, the 20th Century's wonder drug, is over. Scientists now fear a Doomsday scenario, where infection
spreads rapidly across the globe. One in six prescriptions written out by GPs is for antibiotics, yet they no longer work on many
extremely dangerous bacteria - or are only effective when used in amounts so high that they can cause serious side-effects. Some bugs
like salmonella and TB have become resistant to the antibiotics used to destroy them because of over-use. And other bacteria, such as
the deadly hospital superbug MRSA (right) which kills 5,000 patients a year, are actually the product of the microscopic war against
germs. The more doctors have bombarded the bugs with antibiotics the faster they have mutated to produce resistant strains, like
MRSA. Richard Young, head of The Soil Association's Antibiotics Group which is investigating the crisis, said: "The problem of
antibiotic resistance is very worrying and could potentially lead to a public health problem of apocalyptic proportions. The misuse of
antibiotics is threatening us all." Now drug companies are desperately working to find alternatives which can hit back at the bugs.
MRSA was present in 177 hospitals which reported almost 20,000 patients affected in 1996. This was up from just 2,286 cases in
1992. In the latest outbreak, at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, in February, six patients were struck down by the bug. Last night former
Belfast MP Lord Fitt told how he lost his wife Ann to the deadly superbug in 1996. Lady Fitt, 74, had an asthma attack and was
treated at London's Chelsea and Hammersmith Hospital. But within days the grandmother was in the grip of MRSA. "We survived
murderous attacks on our home while I was a Westminster MP, so to lose her that way was extremely distressing," said Lord Fitt.
Lady Fitt's asthma was aggravated by hot weather, and she went into hospital for two or three days to review her medication. Four
days later she became infected with MRSA, which she had picked up from another patient. "From that moment her health went
downhill at an alarming rate," said Lord Fitt. "The infection caught hold and attacked her respiratory system. I was told that unless she
was put on a ventilator in intensive care she would be dead in a matter of hours. "Together with my five daughters - two of whom are
nurses - we kept a round the clock vigil for 21 days while she fought for her life." There was just one hope - an antibiotic called
vancomycin, one of the few that is successful against MRSA. Lady Fitt was given the antibiotic but it had little effect. She eventually
returned home, but was left very weak and died from a bout of flu. "Needless to say hospitals don't advertise the fact they have
outbreaks of MRSA on their wards," said Lord Fitt. "Maybe we would have thought twice about Ann going in if we'd known." Former
miner Allan Brown, 83, was also a victim of MRSA. He was one of 19 people struck by the superbug in his ward in St. John's
hospital, West Lothian, in November last year. And Joe McGuiness, 67, caught the bug following a gallstone operation at Monklands
General Hospital, in Lanarkshire in 1995. MRSA is a mutant strain of skin bacteria which usually invades the body through open
wounds and can cause blood poisoning, urinary tract infections, pneumonia and death. It attacks its victims' immune system and fights
off all known antibiotics. The old and young are particularly vulnerable. Patients are allowed to have visitors, who are told to wear
gloves and an apron, but must not touch them and every item they come into contact with has to be destroyed. Scientists believe it is
only a matter of time before a strain of MRSA appears that is also resistant to vancomycin, the drug used to treat Lady Fitt. It already
has no effect on another bacteria called enterococcus and there have been cases of VRE (vancomycin resistant enterococcus) in
humans. Research has shown that drug- resistance genes can hop to other bugs and so scientists fear that VRE could be just the start of
a worldwide outbreak of drug resistant bacteria. At present there is no replacement for the antibiotic vancomycin and, says Richard
Young: "It's no good waiting for drug companies to develop new antibiotics.
"There are no new ones in the pipeline to replace the life-saving ones to which resistance is developing."
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
69/77
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ADD-ON 2AC
Massive workforce shortage kills the nuclear power industry
UniStar 12/18/09 [UniStar Nuclear Energy provides economies of scale and scope through coordinated and systematic development
of a standardized fleet of new nuclear energy “Rebuilding the nuclear energy Workforce” www.unistarnuclear.com/IB/workforce.pdf]
However, the simple fact is that the nuclear energy industry faces a serious workforce shortage in the near future. In that respect, the
industry is no different from many “high-tech” sectors of the U.S. economy. A decline in the number of engineers and other science
professionals is hindering opportunities for growth and sapping American vitality across the entire energy industry, as well as many
others.7 In addition to the general need for more science professionals, as cited in reports by the Center for Energy Workforce
Development, the nuclear energy industry in particular is facing a worrisome demographic shift. Large sections of the nuclear energy
facility workforce are preparing to retire. The 2009 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Work Force Report states that approximately 35
percent of the current nuclear utility work force will be eligible to retire in the next five years. The report finds that “general
attrition”—the natural occurrence of people changing jobs—will reduce the workforce by an additional 11 percent. This 46 percent
gap in the nuclear energy workforce is equal to about 25,000 vacant jobs, just in the current nuclear generation. The statistics for
licensed reactor operators are not much better. “27 percent of the work force may be eligible to retire within the next five years, and
an additional 13 percent is expected to leave due to other reasons.”9
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
70/77
CYBERDEFENSE ADD-ON 2AC
STEM expertise is key to preventing cyber warfare
Lips and McNeil 9 (Dan and Jena Baker, Senior Policy Analyst in the Domestic Policy Studies Department and Policy Analyst for
Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation,”A New Approach
to Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education,” The Heritage Foundation, April 15,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/04/A-New-Approach-to-Improving-Science-Technology-Engineering-and-MathEducation)
Those who underestimate the impact of a STEM-educated work force on a nation's security need only look at America's cyber security
problem. Foreign intelligence efforts increasingly rely on cyber tools to collect sensitive U.S. technology and economic
information.[11] One of the major culprits is China--a country that has made cyber warfare one of its major espionage tools. China's
People's Liberation Army (PLA) organized its first cyber warfare unit in 2003. Its mission: to target foreign computer network
operations. In 2006, Chinese intelligence agencies covertly attacked at least four separate U.S. government computer networks. In
June 2007, 150 computers in the $1.75 billion computer network at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security were quietly
penetrated by programs that sent an unknown quantity of information to a Chinese-language Web site. In the same month of June
2007, Chinese military hackers circumvented one of the Defense Department's computer networks. The skills necessary for China to
engage in this type of cyber warfare are a direct result of the ingenuity of STEM-educated Chinese citizens. The new technologies and
techniques America needs to combat these types of attacks depend on America's ability to produce citizens with superior STEM skills.
Cyber war causes miscalculation and escalates and is comparatively quicker and more likely to happen than conventional
warfare
Clarke 9 (Richard, special adviser to the president for cybersecurity in the George W. Bush administration. He is now chairman of
Good Harbor Consulting "War from Cyberspace," The National Interest, December 22, http://nationalinterest.org/article/war-fromcyberspace-3278)
AS IN the 1960s, the speed of war is rapidly accelerating. Then, long-range missiles could launch from the prairie of Wyoming and hit
Moscow in only thirty-five minutes. Strikes in cyber war move at a rate approaching the speed of light. And this speed favors a
strategy of preemption, which means the chances that people can become trigger-happy are high. This, in turn, makes cyber war all the
more likely. If a cyber-war commander does not attack quickly, his network may be destroyed first. If a commander does not preempt
an enemy, he may find that the target nation has suddenly raised new defenses or even disconnected from the worldwide Internet.
There seems to be a premium in cyber war to making the first move. And much as in the nuclear era, there is a real risk of escalation
with cyber war. Nuclear war was generally believed to be something that might quickly grow out of conventional combat, perhaps
initiated with tanks firing at each other in a divided Berlin. The speed of new technologies created enormous risks for crisis instability
and miscalculation. Today, the risks of miscalculation are even higher, enhancing the chances that what begins as a battle of computer
programs ends in a shooting war. Cyber war, with its low risks to the cyber warriors, may be seen by a decision maker as a way of
sending a signal, making a point without actually shooting. An attacker would likely think of a cyber offensive that knocked out an
electric-power grid and even destroyed some of the grid's key components (keeping the system down for weeks), as a somewhat
antiseptic move; a way to keep tensions as low as possible. But for the millions of people thrown into the dark and perhaps the cold,
unable to get food, without access to cash and dealing with social disorder, it would be in many ways the same as if bombs had been
dropped on their cities. Thus, the nation attacked might well respond with "kinetic activity."
Miscalculation goes nuclear
Coleman 8 (Kevin, Technology Management Consultant, “Department of Cyber Defense An organization who’s time has come!”
November, Technolytics, www.technolytics.com/Dept_of_Cyber_Defense.pdf)
Each and every day there are millions of cyber attacks from hackers around the world that are not part of a terrorist group or nation
state. These attacks are criminal and not acts of war. One major concern is that an attack from hackers that are not politically tied to a
nation or group could be easily mistaken for an act of cyber war. In that case, the nation where the hackers target resided would
retaliate to the attack against the nation where the attack or attacks originated. It is easy to see how this could happen and rise to an
exchange using conventional arm (back to the bombs and bullets). It is also conceivable that a conventional exchange could escalate to
the use of weapons of mass destruction!
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
71/77
SOLVENCY – VISA CAPS KEY
Quotas are the root cause – anxiety and labor restrictions resulting from the process are the reasons they go elsewhere
Seth R. Leech (Partner with Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP and is a member of the Firm’s Immigration and International Trade
and Business Practice Groups and adjunct professor of immigration law at Albany Law School) and Emma Greenwood (Graduate of
the law program at Oxford University in the United Kingdom) 2010. Keeping America Competitive: A Proposal to Eliminate the Employment-Based
Immigrant Visa Quota. Albany Law Review Vol. 3 2010. http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/files/Spring_Book_Leech.pdf
This section examines the hardships suffered by EB immigrants resulting from long delays caused by the annual quota. These
hardships to the intending immigrant’s personal and professional life are the chief reason that the United States is not the attractive
destination it once was for talented foreign workers. This is the reason that these immigrants are choosing to immigrate to other
countries and benefit their economies.71 The anxiety felt by an intending immigrant, in what may be a ten-year wait from the time that
the permanent immigration process begins before entering the safe harbor of having the final Adjustment of Status pending, is welljustified. Small errors can derail the entire process and cause the ultimate denial of his or her green card. This is devastating for
immigrants who have spent the majority of their professional lives in the United States, have children who are U.S. citizens that know
only the U.S. way of life, and otherwise have become strong members of their local communities. There are many reasons for denial,
abandonment, revocation, or withdrawal of a green card application, which are entirely beyond the intending immigrant’s control.
Some of these reasons include intervening changes of U.S. immigration policy or the U.S. government’s error, or minor errors in the
employer or employer’s representatives’ paperwork, not discovered until many years into the process. For these reasons, many
immigrants put some aspects of their lives on hold including starting families, pursuing further education, or purchasing homes, until
they have acquired a green card and know for certain they will be able to stay for the long term. In addition to these personal
challenges, the intending immigrant often faces legal obstacles which prevent him or her from realizing his or her full professional
potential. Professional development may be difficult because of nonimmigrant visa restrictions or restrictions in the permanent
immigration process itself—the immigrant must stay in the position that was the subject of the labor certification, or one that is very
similar, until final issuance of the green card. 72 The basis for this problem is that labor certifications are both geographically- and
position-specific.73
Current immigration deters skilled migrants from remaining in the U.S.---we need to give green cards to all stem graduates to
unleash a wave of high-skilled students that drive economic growth
Marshall 10, Progressive Policy Institute, (Will, “Earning Green Cards Through Diplomas,” May 14,
http://www.progressivefix.com/earning-green-cards-through-diplomas)
The recent re-emergence of immigration on the national agenda, not to mention our slow recovery from an economic slump, has illuminated an underappreciated but
serious flaw in U.S. immigration policy: It is fundamentally misaligned with the needs of America’s economy. Our current policy does
little to prevent an influx of undocumented workers across our southern border, or to raise the education levels of those who are
already here. It admits legal immigrants mostly on the basis of unifying extended families, rather than the skills they bring. The U.S. in recent years has admitted
roughly one million legal entrants per year. Of these, about two-thirds are admitted based on family ties, while 16 percent come in for employment-related reasons.
Programs targeted at skilled migrants let in only about 180,000 people each year. Our immigration policy, in short, lowers the overall skill level in the
U.S. It is time we looked at immigration reform through the prism of human capital development. America’s ability to compete globally increasingly
depends on skilled workers and ceaseless innovation. Two policies in particular will help us re-orient our immigration posture. First, we need to make
it easier for foreign students who receive advanced degrees from U.S. institutions in science, technology, engineering and math
(STEM) to stay in the U.S. and join the workforce. Our current immigration system makes it unnecessarily difficult for STEM
advanced-degree graduates who are here legally to gain employment. Those students have to compete with foreign-educated and more
experienced workers for the 65,000 H1-B visas and 80,000 priority worker and advanced-degree green cards issued every year. We need
to change immigration law so those students have a chance to earn a green card with their diploma. But they are not the only students whose potential we are
squandering with an outmoded immigration system. Every year up to 65,000 children of undocumented immigrants graduate high school. While it’s not illegal for them
to attend college, universities and colleges have given new scrutiny to immigration status in the wake of 9/11, which has had a chilling effect on undocumented
immigrants’ enrollment. It’s in our economic interest to encourage these kids to get a college education. Enacting a policy that would give them a path to citizenship
through college education and national service can only strengthen the country. Rewarding Achievement in Science and Math First, we should enact policies that make
it easier for motivated, capable young immigrants to establish U.S. citizenship. Attaching a green card — granting lawful permanent residence — to every foreign
student’s post-graduate STEM degree diploma is one such policy. Currently foreign students are allowed 12 months of practical training after completing their
studies. Under a Department of Homeland Security interim ruling issued in 2008, foreign students with STEM degrees can extend that out to just over two years (29
months). However, students cannot have more than 90 days of unemployment during this time. Once their visa expires, they have to leave the U.S.,
taking their education and skills with them. But the average unemployment stint is 130 days, and in this recession, over 200 days — more than twice the
official limit. The rule means that students in technically intensive degrees are being turned away after valuable education capital has been invested in them. By
attaching a green card to a STEM advanced degree, hardworking and high-achieving foreign students won’t have to leave the U.S. to apply their skills and
find good work. From the U.S.’s perspective, it would get to keep bright and industrious workers who can add the most value to our economy.
The government should also exempt green-card recipients who hold advanced STEM degrees from green card caps currently in place.
Advanced-degree holders currently face a five-year wait to get a green card. By exempting them from that cap, we can keep valuable
human capital here.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
72/77
SOLVENCY – AT: EXPORT REGULATIONS (CAN’T WORK IN DEFENSE)
LPR’s aren’t subject to deemed export regulations – they can work with sensitive materials
Bureau of Industry and Security, 2010, “Deemed Export,” US Dep. Of Commerce,
http://www.bis.doc.gov/deemedexports/deemedexportsfaqs.html
5. How do I know if a foreign national would be subject to the "deemed export" rule?
Any foreign national is subject to the "deemed export" rule except a foreign national who (1) is granted permanent residence, as
demonstrated by the issuance of a permanent resident visa (i.e., "Green Card"); or (2) is granted U.S. citizenship; or (3) is granted
status as a "protected person" under 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3). This includes all persons in the U.S. as tourists, students, businesspeople,
scholars, researchers, technical experts, sailors, airline personnel, salespeople, military personnel, diplomats, etc. As noted, one
exception to this general statement is a "protected person." "Protected persons" include political refugees and political asylum holders.
Be aware that individuals seeking "protected person" status must satisfy all of the terms and conditions that are fully set forth in 8
U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3). It should be emphasized that although the deemed export rule may be triggered, this does not necessarily mean
that a license is required. For example, the technology may be EAR99 or license exception eligible.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
73/77
SOLVENCY – AT: H1BS BETTER
EB visas uniquely solve the case better than H-1Bs
Colby, 8 – professional electrical engineer testifying as a member of the Institution of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (Lee, CQ Congressional Testimony,
“NEED FOR GREEN CARDS FOR SKILLED WORKERS” 6/12, lexis)
The United States needs more skilled engineers and scientists. We need to educate more of our own students in these fields, but the
United States does not have a monopoly on talent. There are hard working, innovative and smart people all over this planet, many of
whom would apply their skills here, if given a chance. Congress needs to give them that chance. But how that opportunity is offered
counts more than the offer itself. Temporary visas, like the H-1B, do little to enhance America’s long-term competitiveness. They are
a short-term fix that will weaken us in the long-run. The H-1B visa is a great way to train our overseas competition, but it is an awful
way to build our workforce. Innovative companies do not need innovative people for six years – they need them for thirty. Moreover,
the subservient position H-1B visa place workers in makes them easy to exploit, harming both American and foreign engineers.
America does not need skilled temporary workers. We need skilled Americans. And American citizenship requires an EB visa.
Conclusion IEEE-USA is convinced that welcoming foreign nationals with the knowledge, skills and determination needed to succeed
and making them citizens has always served America’s best interests. Accordingly, we urge Congress to make needed reforms in the
nation's permanent, employment-based admissions system rather than simply raising the H-1B visa cap. We firmly believe that an
immigration policy based on the concept of "Green Cards, Not Guest-workers" will do far more to help America create jobs, maintain
its technological competitiveness, and ensure its economic and military security than continuing to rely on temporary admissions
programs. The goal of U.S. immigration policy should be to facilitate the entry of talented people - including potential inventors,
innovators and entrepreneurs from other countries. Congress should grant them legal permanent resident status and put them on a path
to full-fledged American citizenship.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
74/77
SOLVENCY – AT: CROWD OUT GRAD STUDENTS
Won’t crowd out grad student – without foreigners, there would be no teaching staff.
Marshall 10, Progressive Policy Institute, (Will, “Earning Green Cards Through Diplomas,” May 14,
http://www.progressivefix.com/earning-green-cards-through-diplomas)
Not everyone is on board with this idea. Critics have argued against policies that would encourage foreign students to enter STEM
graduate programs in the U.S. They contend that providing further incentives for foreign students will accelerate the crowding out of
U.S. students — particularly minorities — and workers in the STEM fields.
But such skeptics ignore the considerable benefits of a vigorous STEM/green card policy. The open flow of knowledge and talented
researchers has long helped keep the U.S. at the forefront of science and technology. According to a National Academies report:
The participation of international graduate students and postdoctoral scholars is an important part of the research enterprise of the
United States. In some fields they make up more than half the population of graduate students and postdoctoral scholars. If their
presence were substantially diminished, important research and teaching activities in academe, industry, and federal laboratories
would be curtailed, particularly if universities did not give more attention to recruiting and retaining domestic students.
Unleashing the innovative and entrepreneurial energies of our best students — be they American or foreign-born — will be key to
America’s resurgence. Stapling a green card to the diplomas of foreign STEM advanced-degree holders is one concrete policy step we
can take to ensure that outcome.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
75/77
RANDOM – AT: MATH BAD
Math is key to the economy and stopping terrorism
Bloomberg 2006: Math will rock your world. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_04/b3968001.htm
Math is also positioned to shake up investigations. Whether in law, journalism, or criminal detective work, sleuths have relied for
centuries on the human brain to pick through strands of disparate evidence and to find patterns. Sherlock Holmes sometimes looked
for them in plumes of pipe smoke. And why not? Even today, no machine could sift through the photos, names, words, geographical
coordinates, snippets of video -- that towering mountain of information that computer scientists call "unstructured data."
But some companies are making inroads. Colorado's Umbria has built a system to sift through millions of blogs in real time, looking
for market intelligence. Umbria breaks down English messages into the smallest components -- words, phrases, grammar, even
emotions -- and turns them into math. Then it analyzes the content, looking for trends. It can give cell-phone companies or fast-food
restaurants the latest buzz on an ad campaign or a new sandwich.
Sometimes it uncovers trends researchers weren't even looking for. A recent search for Gatorade (PEP ), for example, showed that
large numbers of young men look to it as a cocktail mixer in hopes that the electrolytes in the sports drink will ease hangovers. In the
future, similar insights could uncover countless other patterns. They could help bankers spot entrepreneurs careening toward
bankruptcy or point police toward sociopaths planning terrorist acts.
At the Sunnyvale (Calif.) campus of Yahoo, chief researcher Prabhakar Raghavan heads a team of 100 mathematicians and computer
scientists. Scribbling on a white board covered with equations, Raghavan describes Yahoo's immense pool of data, featuring the online
activity of 200 million registered customers, as Yahoo's most precious resource. There is a whole world of uninvented businesses, he
believes. They'll come into being as Yahoo discovers new ways to satisfy the urges, curiosities, and desires of this customer base. The
hints of these future businesses float in the oceans of Yahoo's data. Raghavan's mandate is to sift through that data and form new
connections among consumers, e-marketers, and advertisers. Better algorithms, he says, "are critical to survival."
As companies continue to receive ever more data about their own processes and their workers, many will use math to boost
productivity and shake up the workplace. This doesn't have to be limited to one company. Vast globe-spanning projects can be
modeled, then cut into tiny pieces, with each task going to the best-qualified person. Pierre Haren, CEO of Paris-based ILOG, a
company that turns customers' raw data into visual displays, foresees virtual assembly lines. "We'll have systems that tap our
knowledge by the minute," he says. "Productivity could rise by a factor of 10."
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
76/77
RANDOM – AT: ANGENT CP
Agencies can’t alter visa levels. Its not legally binding.
Shihab 10 (Gary, Founder – Shihab & Associates, “H-1B Visa Filing Season Coming Head On with the Neufeld Memo”, 2-8,
http://www.immigration-visa-lawyer-blog.com/2010/02/h1b-visa-filing-season-coming.html)
Since the Neufeld Memo was issued in January 8, 2010, I have been receiving e-mails and phone calls on a daily basis from clients
who are worried and agitated. It seems that the concern is that this memo will somehow stop them from getting their H-1b visa
approved. If you are a foreign individual and do not have legal knowledge, your source of information is normally what you read or
hear. The internet is now riddled with articles on the doom and gloom brought forth by this memo. Some attorney websites harshly
criticize the memo as being contrary to law and one that should be challenged legally. I have therefore decided to host a workshop on
the Neufeld memo, its interpretation, what it means to our clients and their cases on February 20, 2010.
I currently serve as the Chapter Chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Ohio. I have the privilege truly to serve
the immigration lawyers in Ohio. In this position, I also serve on the Board of Governonrs for the national association itself. In this
vein, I attended the Board of Governors meeting held in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico late Janaury 2010. In the conference, there were a lot
of lawyers who denounced the USCIS's manner of "legislating by memoranda." That is to say, only Congress can legislate laws, not
an agency of the Executive Branch of Government. An agency may issue regulations which interpret statutes, but may not do so by
memoranda. The problem these lawyers cite is the fact that the Administrative Appeals Office ("AAO") has ruled on several various
occasions that it is not bound by the agency's memoranda in interpreting laws. In fact, there is a recognizable body of US
Adminstrative Law Jursiprudence which states that agency memoranda are no legally binding on the agency and are thus not
enforeceable. Hence, if you try to appeal a denial of your case by the USCIS by arguing that it conformed to a certain USCIS
memorandum, the appellate level office, namely the AAO could in fact agree with the denial citing their own interpretation of the law
notwithstanding the memorandum.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Boomsticks Aff
77/77
NEG – VISAS NOT KEY
NEG – Visas not key – workers opportunities here just aren’t there
Vivek Wadhwa (Visiting Scholar at UC-Berkeley, Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School and Executive in Residence at
Duke University) October 17, 2009: Beware The Reverse Brain Drain To India And China. http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/17/bewarethe-reverse-brain-drain-to-india-and-china/
We learned that these workers returned in their prime: the average age of the Indian returnees was 30 and the Chinese was 33. They
were really well educated: 51% of the Chinese held masters degrees and 41% had PhDs. Among Indians, 66% held a masters and 12%
had PhDs. These degrees were mostly in management, technology, and science. Clearly these returnees are in the U.S. population’s
educational top tier—precisely the kind of people who can make the greatest contribution to an economy’s innovation and growth.
And it isn’t just new immigrants who are returning home, we learned. Some 27% of the Indians and 34% of the Chinese had
permanent resident status or were U.S. citizens. That’s right—it’s not just about green cards.
What propelled them to return home? Some 84% of the Chinese and 69% of the Indians cited professional opportunities. And while
they make less money in absolute terms at home, most said their salaries brought a “better quality of life” than what they had in the
U.S. (There was also some reverse culture shock—complaints about congestion in India, say, and pollution in China.) When it came to
social factors, 67% of the Chinese and 80% of the Indians cited better “family values” at home. Ability to care for aging parents was
also cited, and this may be a hidden visa factor: it’s much harder to bring parents and other family members over to the U.S. than in
the past. For the vast majority of returnees, a longing for family and friends was also a crucial element.
A return ticket home also put their career on steroids. About 10% of the Indians polled had held senior management jobs in the U.S.
That number rose to 44% after they returned home. Among the Chinese, the number rose from 9% in the U.S. to 36% in China.
When we asked what was better about the U.S. than home, 54% of Indian and 43% of Chinese said that total financial compensation
for their previous U.S. positions was better than at home. Health-care benefits were also considered somewhat better in the United
States by 51 percent of Chinese respondents, versus 21 percent who thought it was better in their home country. (Indian respondents
were split more evenly on this).
These were a self-selected group, people who had already left. But what about the future, the immigrants presently studying at U.S.
institutions of higher learning? We surveyed 1,224 foreign students from dozens of nations who are currently studying at U.S.
universities or who graduated in 2008. The majority told us that they didn’t think that the U.S. was the best place for their professional
careers and they planned to return home. Only 6 percent of Indian, 10 percent of Chinese, and 15 percent of European students
planned to settle in the U.S.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells