533562354
DDW 2011
1
1NC- RS Erpenbach Fan v. JM Fowl Yared
1NC- RS Erpenbach Fan v. JM Fowl Yared ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1
***STEM Counterplan ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
***Weaponization Disad.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
***SKFTA .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
***Military K ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
***Environment ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Backstopping Turn ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Environment Advantage- Hurricanes Scenario ............................................................................................................................................................... 10
***Heg ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Backlash Turn ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
***Solvency ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Communication Turn ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
***STEM Counterplan
Text: The United States federal government should establish rigorous national proficiency standards in
S.T.E.M (science technology, engineering, and mathematics) education.
STEM education solves innovation, aerospace industry, defense, and competitiveness
Rick Stephens, Senior VP of HR and Administration at Boeing, Chairman of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA),
Testimony to the House Science and Technology Committee, AIA, February 20 10
In my industry, the Aviation Week 2009 Workforce Study (conducted in cooperation with the Aerospace Industries
Association, American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics, and the National Defense Industries Association) indicates
aerospace companies that are hiring need systems engineers, aerospace engineers, mechanical engineers,
programming/software engineers and program managers. Today, across the aerospace industry, the average age of the
workforce continues to increase, and expectations are that approximately 20 percent of our current technical talent will be
eligible to retire within 3 the next three years. As a result, in the very near future, our companies and our nation’s aerospace
programs will need tens of thousands of engineers—in addition to those joining the workforce today. These are becoming
difficult jobs to fill not because there is a labor shortage but because there is a skills shortage: Our industry needs more
innovative young scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians to replace our disproportionately large (compared
to the total U.S. workforce) population of Baby Boomers as they retire. At the same time that retirements are increasing, the
number of American workers with STEM degrees is declining, as the National Science Board pointed out in 2008. This
skills shortage is a global concern across the board in all high-tech sectors—public as well as private. But it is especially
acute in the U.S. defense industry because many government programs carry security requirements that can be fulfilled only
by workers who are U.S. citizens. According to the Aviation Week 2009 Workforce Study, of the positions open in the
aerospace and defense industry in 2009, 66.5 percent required U.S. citizenship. Yet only 5 percent of U.S. bachelor’s
degrees are in engineering, compared with 20 percent in Asia, for example. Meanwhile, in 2007, foreign students received 4
percent of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees, 24 percent of science and engineering master’s degrees, and 33
percent of science and engineering doctoral degrees awarded in the United States, according to the National Science Board.
And most foreign students who earn undergraduate and graduate degrees from U.S. institutions are not eligible for U.S.
security clearances. Clearly, the throughput of our U.S. STEM pipeline carries serious implications for our national
security, our competitiveness as a nation, and our defense industrial base.
***Weaponization Disad
Obama working towards ban - now is key to prevent space weaponization.
Zhang 11 (Baohui, March/April, “The Security Dilemma in the U.S.-China Military Space Relationship”, Asian Survey, Pg 328-31,
Vol. 51, No. 2, http://www.jstor.org/action/showArticleInfo?doi=10.1525%2FAS.2011.51.2.311)
Important changes in U.S. strategic posture, missile defense, and the Taiwan Strait situation may now allow Washington
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
1
533562354
DDW 2011
1
and Beijing to extricate themselves from their space security dilemma, paving the way for arms control. In fact, these
changes have already led to rising optimism among Chinese security experts with regard to the possibility of arms control
in outer space. Zhao Kejin, a space security expert at Qinghua University, argues that there is no need for China to “engage
the U.S. in a space arms race.” Instead, “Facing the possibility of emerging anarchy in outer space, China and the U.S. can
work together to push for arms control negotiations, with the aim of establishing effective mechanisms for the monitoring
and management of outer space.” 50 This upbeat mood among Chinese experts represents a big change from the pessimism
of the Bush era. The challenge for China and the U.S. is to seize the opportunity and forge a realistic approach to space
arms control. In this regard, China and the U.S. could pursue a two-stage strategy. The first stage would have to focus on
reducing strategic misunderstandings and thus the vicious effects of the security dilemma. If so, the root cause of the
action/counteraction spiral that defines a classic arms race will lose its hold on the two countries. Recent and important
changes in the strategic landscape have improved the chances of achieving such a goal. Once the vicious circle of action
and counteraction has been minimized, China and the U.S. could move on to the second stage, which is to pursue
multilateral agreements banning weapons in space. Until recently, because of the Bush administration’s steadfast opposition
to any legally binding treaty that would limit the U.S.’s military use of space, a multilateral approach to arms control
seemed beyond reach. Now, however, the Obama administration’s willingness to take a leadership role in constructing a
global treaty offers the hope of success. In the context of the changing strategic landscape between China and the U.S.,
specific measures could be taken to reduce their mutual concerns. One important measure, often overlooked in the space
relationship, is for top civilian leaders to exercise greater oversight over military space programs. Often, statements and
actions by the military have driven the fears of the other side. If the U.S. and China intend to build a new partnership in
world affairs, civilian leaders must recognize that unscrutinized actions by their own militaries can invite mutual mistrust,
which in turn hinders broader political and security cooperation. On the U.S. side, the Obama government needs to take a
much closer look at the U.S. Air Force (especially its Space Command) and the Missile Defense Agency. These two
institutions periodically try out new space projects that China and Russia perceive as threatening to their national security.
For example, in October 2005 the U.S. Air Force conducted a maneuverability experiment with its XSS-11 microsatellite.
According to internal Air Force studies, the XSS program was intended as a precursor to an anti-satellite program. Theresa
Hitchens, a longtime watcher of the U.S. military space program, suggests that both Congress and the White House should
exercise much tighter control over military space programs. She noted during an interview that the U.S. military’s move
toward space warfare is a strategic issue with a lot of potential fallout. Thus, the military cannot make that decision on its
own. As Hitchens said, “Congress hasn’t asked about this. Congress hasn’t debated this. There hasn’t been a change of
White House policy and therefore there has been no public debate. And I think it is a serious mistake. This is something
that ought to be debated at the national level with congressional and public input. It’s a bigger deal than just a military
decision.” 51 China’s civilian leadership must also rein in the military space program. Indeed, after the 2007 ASAT test,
some U.S. experts questioned whether the Chinese civilian leadership fully grasped the issue. Just as many U.S. projects
have caused concern in China and Russia, the Chinese leadership must recognize that its own military space projects may
be worrying U.S. decision makers. Thus, China’s political leadership needs to understand that restraining its military space
program will be vital for forging security cooperation with the U.S.
SBSP has offensive capabilities in space warfare
Walling 2K (By Eileen M. Walling, Colonel, USAF Director for the Air Force’s High Power Microwave Program, February 2000,
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat11.pdf)
For the purposes of space control, microwaves could be used as a defensive or offensive weapon. In that capacity, it could
protect friendly satellites from guided kinetic-kill weapons as well as attack satellites that provide information, directly or
indirectly, to enemy forces. 41 One advantage to microwave weapons is that these do not produce debris, whereas all other
proposed weapons will cause the physical damage that could lead to the disintegration of the satellite or result in
catastrophic failure. The resultant cloud of debris is extremely dangerous to other satellites because even a small piece of
this debris, roughly one cubic centimeter in size, could destroy a satellite. Another advantage relates to the unlimited
magazine that is inherent in microwave weapons. Proposed laser systems, such as the space-based laser, use a limited
magazine of chemicals to produce the laser beam, and these chemicals must be replenished. While other types of weapons,
including explosive or kinetic kill weapons, are “single-shot” devices, a microwave weapon utilizes electrical energy to
produce the microwave emissions, and this energy can be obtained from the host vehicle’s engine, rechargeable batteries, or
other power sources (such as solar panels for a space-based system). In this sense, microwave weapons would have
significant potential for space-control missions.
Weaponization inevitably leads to miscalculations – causes extinction
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
2
533562354
DDW 2011
1
Mitchell Gordon R., Associate Professor of Communications @ the University of Pittsburgh, “ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile
Defence,” No. 6 2001
A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationale
glosses over the tendency that '… the presence of space weapons…will result in the increased likelihood of their use'.33
This drift toward usage is strengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank Barnaby: when it comes to arming the
heavens, 'anti-ballistic missiles and anti-satellite warfare technologies go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking nature of
offense and defense in military space technology stems from the inherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne weapon
components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UN Conference on Disarmament, explains: 'If you want to
intercept something in space, you could use the same capability to target something on land'. 35 To the extent that ballistic
missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, such interceptors can also be used as
orbiting 'Death Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's atmosphere. The dizzying speed of space
warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-second attacks
creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation would
enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out of
human hands and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of
accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial
systems such as space weapons, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawless
performance. According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such
systems could fail. As Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term " normal accident" is meant to signal that, given the system
characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36 Deployment of space weapons
with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable, given the
susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to contemplate the possible effects of a space war.
According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earth with such
high velocity that it can do enormous damage — even more than would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37
In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the
most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'.38 Given this
unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate
with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by a
computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.
***SKFTA
Going to pass- predictive uniqueness evidence
Froomkin 7/25, [Dan Froomkin, Huffington Post, 7/25/11, “Free Trade Deals: Lobbying Fever Foreshadows Winners, Losers”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/free-trade-agreements-lobbying_n_906623.html|AF]
The most reliable and active opposition to trade agreements typically comes the AFL-CIO and other American labor
unions. But as HuffPost's Zach Carter noted recently, the collective union reaction has been strangely muted this time
around. Individual unions have focused on Colombia's labor record and one -- the United Auto Workers -- is actively
supporting the Korean pact based on promises that American auto companies will get expanded access to the Korean auto
market. So the only real leverage that the agreements' opponents have left is the American voter. Free trade agreements -and the seemingly inevitable job losses -- are hugely unpopular with the public, and running against them has proven to be
a wildly successful tactic in both parties. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last fall found that only 18 percent of
Americans think free-trade agreements create jobs, compared to 69 percent who said they cost jobs. Only 17 percent said
such agreements had helped the U.S., while 53 percent said they had hurt. Senators may be more immune than
representatives to that kind of polling, especially when pro-trade agreement lobbyists are hounding them. "In the House,
you have to face the voters every two years," noted Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, a
nonprofit consumer advocacy group. "Therefore the liability of voting in favor of a job-offshoring, unsafe-import-flooding,
'Buy America'-killing, food-safety-undermining, drug-price-rising, foreign-corporate-treasury-raiding, financialderegulating trade agreement is more likely to kick your butt." Wallach said that because trade agreements are not
historically popular with Democrats (though in this case, they are being strongly backed by President Obama) their
supporters need to make sure they have the Republican vote in the House all locked up. That includes the huge Republican
freshman class -- "except half of them ran against more NAFTAs, against offshoring and against multinationals," Wallach
said. A November 2010 report from Public Citizen concluded that a record 75 Republican congressional candidates
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
3
533562354
DDW 2011
1
campaigned against free trade agreements, 44 of whom won. But the pro-trade agreement groups have risen to the
challenge, Wallach said. "They have been going in and, one by one, flipping the people who campaigned against it," she
said. By March, 67 of the 87 Republican freshmen had signed onto a letter to Obama declaring their support for all three
agreements and a strong belief "that expanding trade will increase economic growth and create jobs here in the U.S."
Among the signatories: Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.), who had campaigned on a pledge to renegotiate existing trade
agreements to "give our manufacturers a fighting chance to compete in a global market." "All the signs are that the Tea
Party-aligned freshmen Republicans are going to vote pretty much the way Republicans have been voting on trade for
years," said Daniel Griswold, a trade policy expert at the libertarian Cato Institute. "The Republican Party has its tradeskeptical Pat Buchanan wing, but they're very much in the minority." With so many powerful forces aligned behind the
trade agreements, their eventual passage is widely considered a foregone conclusion. The main reason they haven't yet
passed is that Obama is insisting on the simultaneous passage of a measure providing assistance and job training to
displaced U.S. workers.
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
4
533562354
DDW 2011
1
NASA funding kills capital- empirically proven
Timmer 11, [John Timmer, Editor of Observatory, Bachelor of Arts from Columbia, PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from UC
Berkeley, 4/25/11, “Bill introduced directing NASA to establish a moon base”, ://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/billintroduced-directing-nasa-to-establish-a-moon-base.ars|AF]
Overall, the bill is roughly in keeping with Obama's priorities, which involve developing the ability to construct and fuel a
long-distance mission in orbit; those abilities could apply equally to sending construction materials to the Moon. It would
also avoid one of the problems with the lack of an obvious focus in Obama's plan, which could be viewed as "maybe an
asteroid, some day." Even assuming that the bill could clear the full House and Senate (and survive an Obama veto), the
impact may be much less than its supporters hope. As its text notes, a return to the Moon has been a Congressional priority
several times before; that didn't stop Obama from dismissing it with "We've been there." And, more significantly, it clearly
didn't ensure that the NASA budget was sufficient to actually accomplish that goal. Simply stating that NASA's budget will
be "consistent" with achieving it by 2020 leaves open a lot of room for different definitions of consistent, and allows the
current Congress to shift the burden of finding money onto future ones, which may not be inclined to do so. Thus, on its
own, the bill would accomplish nearly nothing and is sufficiently vague that it probably won't even be viewed as providing
direction to NASA, at least within NASA. And, given how contentious budget issues have been in the current Congress,
any attempt to turn it into something concrete would probably make it a non-starter.
Obama capital key- dems
Palmer and Cowan, 11 [Doug Palmer and Richard Cowan, Reuters, 5/5/11, Boehner says Obama push needed to pass
trade deals, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/05/us-usa-trade-boehner-idUSTRE74453V20110505|AF]
(Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives hopes to pass long-delayed free-trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea
and Panama by August, House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday. "We can move pretty quickly but it's going to take help
by the president as well," Boehner told reporters. Although Republicans, who now control the House, are generally pro-trade,
some members of the party are skeptical of trade deals. "I do believe a lot of work will have to be done with our own
members," Boehner said. In addition, a large portion of Democrats are likely to vote against the pacts, especially the Colombia
agreement, which is generally seen as the most controversial of the three trade deals because of a long history of violence
against union workers in the Andean country. "The president is going to have to be out there as well talking about the
importance of these three agreements. We hope to have them finished by the August recess," Boehner said. U.S. Trade
Representative Ron Kirk told reporters separately he was optimistic Congress would pass the three trade deals with "good
bipartisan support." But talking to reporters after a speech, Kirk said it was "critical" lawmakers also renew an expanded Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program to help retrain workers who have the lost their jobs because of foreign competition. "TAA
is for us, again, part of the package," Kirk said. Congress approved an expanded TAA program as part of the 2009 economic stimulus bill,
but it expired early this year. Efforts to renew the program failed when some Republicans in the House of Representatives objected to its cost.
The beefed-up program has helped "a half a million workers and families in every state ... and it is critical that we have that program
authorized at those levels," Kirk said. After striking side deals to address outstanding concerns about each of the three trade pacts, the
Obama administration now has "agreements that we think are going to garner good bipartisan support," Kirk said. "We believe we can work
with the leadership in the House and the Senate to get them passed," Kirk said. The trade agreements with South Korea,
Colombia and Panama were signed during the administration of President George W. Bush, but they stalled in the face of
Democratic opposition. Since December, the Obama administration has negotiated new auto provisions for the Korean
agreement, a tax information exchange treaty with Panama and an action plan with Colombia to address longstanding US
concerns about anti-union violence. Administration officials said Wednesday they were prepared to begin technical
discussions with Congress on implementing legislation for all three agreements, after Colombia met initial benchmarks in the
labor action plan. The officials said they expected further action from Colombia on the labor front before formally submitting
the Colombia trade bill to Congress for a vote. The next set of benchmarks that Colombia must meet under the action plan are
in mid-June. Meanwhile, the Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a hearing next week on the Colombia agreement in
anticipation it would soon be sent to Capitol Hill.
Skfta key to asian stability
Hill 7, [Christopher Hill, Assistant Secretary for Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 6/13/07, “The United States- South Korea
FTA: The Foreign Policy Implications”, http://seoul.usembassy.gov/413_061407.html|AF]
While the agreement achieves many of our economic goals, it is important to note that the impact of this FTA will go far
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
5
533562354
DDW 2011
1
beyond bilateral commercial benefits. The KORUS FTA is a powerful symbol of the U.S.-South Korea partnership,
augmenting our longstanding bilateral security alliance and the robust ties between the South Korean and American people.
It will create a new dynamic, reflecting both the growing sophistication of our relationship, and the Republic of Korea’s
(ROK) increasingly positive global role. It will strengthen our relations with one of our most important and reliable allies,
serving as a pillar for the alliance in the 21st century as the mutual defense treaty did during the last half century. And it
will decisively anchor the U.S. presence in the most dynamic and rapidly-growing economic region on the globe. Benefits
of KORUS FTA I’ll let my colleague Karan Bhatia, who oversaw the negotiation of this historic agreement, including
through several sleepless nights in Seoul leading up to our April 1 conclusion of the deal, explain the benefits of the
KORUS FTA for U.S. commercial interests and our global trade liberalization strategy – which are significant. His
familiarity with the details of the agreement far exceeds my own. Instead, I will focus my remarks on the agreement’s
foreign policy implications. First, the KORUS FTA will strengthen the U.S.-South Korea partnership. It will help ensure
that the U.S. partnership with South Korea, long centered on defense ties, remains a vital force for stability at a time of
change and challenge on the Korean peninsula and in the broader Northeast Asian region. It will be concrete proof to South
Korea that we are committed to broadening and modernizing our alliance. Over the years, the U.S. relationship with South
Korea has been tested in many ways. But I've always been optimistic about it, because I always have seen the real benefits
of a strong relationship between the U.S. and the ROK. Our two countries are bound by shared interests and shared values,
underpinning the long-term commitment of both Americans and Koreans to making the relationship work. South Korea is a
country that is not just a regional power, but it's growing in global importance. Korean people are active all over the world
as students, diplomats and missionaries, and South Korean companies are major investors in many economies. More and
more, our relationship with South Korea is growing to be a multi-faceted, cooperative partnership for a more closely knit
world. South Korea is the third-largest contributor of troops to the coalition forces in Iraq and has played an important role
in Afghanistan as well. Nowadays when Secretary Rice meets with her ROK counterparts, they talk not just about the
situation on the Peninsula, but also about the Middle East, climate change, the spread of democracy and other global issues
of shared concern. We've been working hard lately on modernizing our security relationship with South Korea. We are
realigning our troops to make sure that they are placed and equipped most intelligently to deter any thought of aggression
by North Korea. I think we're doing that very effectively. We’ve also been working very closely with our friends from the
ROK in the Six-Party Talks to deal with the issue of North Korea’s nuclear program. Ultimately, as we move forward in the
six-party process, it's very important that we move beyond denuclearization in North Korea to try to create stronger
multilateral mechanisms for problem-solving in the region and for developing a greater sense of community in the region. I
think in this regard, South Korean and U.S. interests are very much aligned. Second, the KORUS FTA strengthens our ties
to a good friend that has done good things. I had the privilege of serving in South Korea in 1987 and witnessed the
flowering of democracy there. I then went back as Ambassador in 2004 to see what had happened since. It is really quite an
inspiration for all of us who believe that democracy is the wave of the future. South Korea has shown the way and become
an example for political reform in many parts of the world, especially in Asia. The FTA will also provide a boost to the
steady progress that South Korea has made on economic reform in the last decade. South Korea is one of the world’s great
success stories in terms of achieving broad prosperity through commitment to a market economy and openness to global
trade. By liberating the vitality of its citizens and exposing them to international competition, South Korea has gone from
being one of the world’s poorest countries at the end of the Korean War to a vibrant democracy, a member of the OECD
with a per-capita GDP approaching $20,000. South Korea also has strong labor laws and environmental protections. All this
makes South Korea an excellent trading partner for the United States. Along with our expanding trade ties, I should also
point out the very substantial people-to-people ties between our two countries. There are now over two million Americans
of Korean descent living in the United States. They have had a huge positive impact on our country and continue to provide
a vital and unique link between the two nations. U.S.-ROK academic ties have also blossomed; in 2006, more than 58,000
South Korean students studied in the U.S., and South Korean students are now the third largest group of foreign students in
the U.S. The FTA has the potential to join our two countries together even more closely. Third, the KORUS FTA will
anchor our strategic economic position in East Asia. East Asia and the Pacific region are undergoing a wave of economic
integration, with countries binding themselves closer together through steady progress in liberalization of trade and
investment. Several plurilateral free trade agreements are in play, and some 19 free trade agreements have gone into force
between Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) economies, with at least an equal number of future agreements under
negotiation or exploration. The United States has participated as a leader via our gold-standard FTAs with Australia and
Singapore. Ratification of the KORUS FTA will further cement U.S. leadership in the dynamic Asian region and debunk
critics who falsely complain that we’ve neglected this part of the world.
That leads to nuclear war
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
6
533562354
DDW 2011
1
Dibb 01, [Paul Dibb, professor of strategic and defense studies at the Australian National University, Winter 2001, “Strategic
Trends: Asia at a Crossroads”, Naval War College Review, Volume 54, Issue 1, Ebsco|AF]
The areas of maximum danger and instability in the world today are in Asia, followed by the Middle East and parts of the
former Soviet Union. The strategic situation in Asia is more uncertain and potentially threatening than anywhere in Europe.
Unlike in Europe, it is possible to envisage war in Asia involving the major powers: remnants of Cold War ideological
confrontation still exist across the Taiwan Straits and on the Korean Peninsula; India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons
and ballistic missiles, and these two countries are more confrontational than at any time since the early 1970s; in Southeast
Asia, Indonesia--which is the world's fourth-largest country--faces a highly uncertain future that could lead to its breakup.
The Asia-Pacific region spends more on defense (about $150 billion a year) than any other part of the world except the
United States and Nato Europe. China and Japan are amongst the top four or five global military spenders. Asia also has
more nuclear powers than any other region of the world. Asia's security is at a crossroads: the region could go in the
direction of peace and cooperation, or it could slide into confrontation and military conflict. There are positive tendencies,
including the resurgence of economic growth and the spread of democracy, which would encourage an optimistic view. But
there are a number of negative tendencies that must be of serious concern. There are deep-seated historical, territorial,
ideological, and religious differences in Asia. Also, the region has no history of successful multilateral security cooperation
or arms control. Such multilateral institutions as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the ASEAN Regional
Forum have shown themselves to be ineffective when confronted with major crises.
***Military K
All technology is military technology—the affirmative fails to question the ends their tech will be used for
which guarantees it will become part of the energy grid of oppression and colonization
drake ‘97
(Mick, university of hull, “The Question of Military Technology: Apocalyptics or Politics?”, jan 30 ’97,
<http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/_SPEED_/1.4/articles/drake.html>)
Considering his work as a whole around the thematic outlined above enables us to relate it to more conventional theoretical
discourse on military technology, a discourse distinct from critical reflection on war itself. After WW2, the growing autonomy of
'the military sphere' came to be seen as a threat to the very human civilisation it was intended to secure, whether this was defined
as fundamentally 'democratic' (the West) or as 'historical' (the East). The threat of political subordination to military imperatives
derived from the strategic logic of weapons- and defence-systems was seen to be immanent in the global polarisations and state
of permanent war preparation which characterised the structure of the Cold War world and constituted a structural determination
of the 'progress' of modernisation and of modern subjectivity, and not in the strategic function of the technology itself. Thus, the
critique of military technologisation took the form of sociological and political science critiques. For instance, the 1940s and 50s
saw such analyses as Eisenhower's warning of the growth of 'the military-industrial complex', Harold Lasswell's analysis of the
potential 'garrison state', and C. Wright Mills' work on the pervasive and iniquitous domination of political society by military
elites with interests not always compatible with the logic of civil development. More recently, E.P. Thompson's critique of the
structures and infrastructures of deterrence identified a new military apocalypticism, the 'exterminism' of the arms race
(THOMPSON 1982). These critiques of immanent military domination in the Cold War, however, continued to treat technology
as a 'neutral' means, which was simply maldirected by an undemocratic and secretive military power elite in the state, their
reason distorted by the structures of deterrence and the perversion of strategic thinking. Even work such as Mary Kaldor's The
Baroque Arsenal (KALDOR 1982) failed to grasp the the question of technology as central to the deterrence complex, but rather
critiqued the military impulse which was seen to have generated monstrous (and irrational) excesses of destructive technological
capacity, as though the two could somehow be seperated. The 'peace movement' informed by such critiques sought to locate
itself on the other side of an absolute moral divide, from which violence and force were to be excluded. In contrast, Virilio
questions technology in the Heideggerian sense, and through this coming to its inherent association with the military project. In a
sense, then, Virilio seeks to work through the problem of how to question technology as to what is becoming revealed in a
technologisation which simultaneously constitutes the militarisation of the world. The great problem of this programme is, as
Jean-Luc Nancy has recently noted in his reflection on the Gulf War, that of how we can locate and occupy the space from which
such a questioning could be undertaken (NANCY 1994). If 'military' is indistinguishable from 'civilian' technology in the sense
that with technologisation and total war all resources are incorporable in the military project, then it is not possible to question
military technology in particular, nor to adopt the position of 'civillian' to do so. The ploughshare is as much a military
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
7
533562354
DDW 2011
1
technology as the sword, as the past millenium of Western colonisation illustrates. The problem is not merely one of
distinguishing a civilian from a military perspective, however, but of distinguishing a position which is not already implicated in
technologisation and hence incorporable in military systems.
specifically, the 1ac logic reduces the world so that everything becomes the inside, becomes our domain,
creating an unending field of management for the united states and thus an unending cycle of war that
alienates us from the world and the inherent value of human life, drake ‘97
(Mick, university of hull, “The Question of Military Technology: Apocalyptics or Politics?”, jan 30 ’97,
<http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/_SPEED_/1.4/articles/drake.html>)
In Speed and Politics, Virilio leads us to question whether the state was ever founded - the approach of parallel history
suggests rather that it had only a basis in military institution, in the organisation of speed, in geometrical cadastration, in
the survey and statistics of military dromocracy, appropriating the displacement of bodies as its energy. In Pure War, he
returns to this foundation/basis problematic as the very question contested by classical political theory, thus counterposing the foundational constitution of law to the technical appropriations of dromocracy (VIRILIO 1988). The military
technic is an elementary complex across history, its scanning a function of speed. The prospect of this parallel history, first seen
through the embrasure of the bunker, forces an 'archaeological break' in Virilio's thought from archaeology and semiology into a poststructuralist and even trans-historical approach. The stakes are already high and his work is sometimes written as though from the end
of history, the end of time obliterated in the pure speed of the modern arsenal of instantaneous communications. His endeavour could
be problematised by asking, how to write in the face of apocalypse without collapsing politics into apocalyptics? Tracing the
trajectory of this 'parallel history' involves tracing the technical appropriation of the kinetic energy of bodies displaced from
inhabitation. 'The reduction of warring objects and the exponential increase in their performances bring to the military establishment
that omniscience and omnipresence it has from the beginning wished to acquire...[but]... We had to wait for the high speeds of
contemporary vehicles in order to perceive adequately the field of the strategic geometrizing of the world and its tragic
consequences...' (VIRILIO 1994 p18) The reduction of the earth and its objects to abstraction was the focus of pre-WW2 German
philosphical concerns as 'world-alienation'in the work of Husserl and Jaspers, with which Heidegger and Arendt both engaged. Henri
Lefebvre's Marxist theorisation of spatiality advances a similar thesis, but for Lefebvre the essential unity of an Hegelian 'absolute'
space is negated by a violence which arrives not out of space but out of time (LEFEBVRE 1991). In his essay on dromology, Virilio
takes up this theme, attempting to theorise speed as the essence of the war machine, the military technic.
when confronted with two ways to die- drifting forever in nothingness or burning in their return, the
apollo 13 astronauts chose the world. in this way, we must also return to the world in order to form a new
politics, virilio ‘99
(Paul Virilio, genius, director of studies @ école speciale d’architecture, Politics of the Very Worst 1999 , pp. 49-51)
A: That has been one of the hopes of deterrence. After the air conquest which made WWII possible, the space conquest has made
deterrence possible. The Americans dominated space to such an extent that the Berlin wall came down and a kind of peace was
recovered beyond deterrence. To some extent, the escape into space was also a loss of Mother Earth, a loss of the body proper, a
temptation to colonize other planets or satellites. “He who says great colony says great navy.” He who says extraterrestrial colony says
great astronautics! I think that today this illusion has been dispelled. Apollo 13 was not a chance accident — accidents are not
heroized. I find that quite positive. I’ve read the memoirs of the astronaut, Jim Lowell. The crew was about to miss the Earth because
they didn’t have enough energy to power the ship and reach the necessary return orbit. The astronaut asked his colleagues the
following question: the jets will only work one more time and that might not be enough to reach the orbit necessary to get back, what
do you think we should do? They all answered: we’d rather burn up in the outer layers of the atmosphere and return to Earth all
charred, than drift away into the great cosmic void. I think this choice clearly expresses the necessity not of a return to Earth, but of a
return to real space and to the world proper, in other words the body proper, since it would be impossible to separate the body and
the world proper. Q: Isn’t this return to the world proper a bit illusory? A: My work is that of a limited man who must deal with a
limitless situation — a man who started to take an interest in speed when the limit of speed was being reached, three hundred thousand
kilometers per second. I cannot conceive of this situation propositionally. I can only say “no.” The problem is the following: is the
question of pain after anguish not a current question? No longer the physiological pain in the sense of “I’m in pain,” but rather in the
sense of a history that would come up against an impasse. The history of my generation has just hit the insurmountable barrier of real
time. We broke the two preceding ones, the sound barrier and the heat barrier — the sound barrier with the supersonic plane, and the
heat barrier with the stratospheric rocket that makes liberation speed (28,000 km/h) possible and thus allows an individual to be put
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
8
533562354
DDW 2011
1
into orbit. Now, history, our history, has just crashed into the barrier of real time. Everything that I’ve said in my books about the
relationship between politics and speed has reached a limit. From now on, we will not accelerate anymore. From now on, history will
have reached its limit speed. This is a question that I cannot answer. However, I do know that this general accident, or the crashing
into the time barrier, is an event that will force us to slow down, to regress, or to back up. This regression is a reaction to the
attainment of the limit speed. It is still too early to say what form it will take. I cannot provide the solution, but I can say that it will
çome out of the urban question Losing the city, we have lost everything. Recovering the city, we will have gained everything. If
there is a solution possible today, it lies in reorganizing the place of communal life. We must not let ourselves be betrayed or fooled by
the tele-città after the cine-città. We must face the drama and tragedy of the city—world, this virtual city that delocalizes work and our
relationship to others. My solution is that of the urbanist in me. Working on the city, we will work on politics as well. In a way, this is
a regression, since the word politics comes from polis, “city.” We crashed into the wall, and we are now returning to the city
***Environment
Backstopping Turn
Alternative energy development forces increased oil production – that lowers prices and jacks solvency
Longmuir and Alhajji 07 Dr. Gavin Longmuir, consulting petroleum engineer, petroleum appraiser, and Dr. A.F. Alhajji,
associate professor of economics, 2/12/07, Oil and Gas Journal, “West should consider ramifications of its off-oil rhetoric”
* Oil exporters could take Western commentators seriously and assume that oil importers will indeed reduce their demand
for oil, leaving them with then-unmarketable oil in the ground. Their logical response to this threat would be to accelerate
production of oil while their resources still have value. This would of course drive down the price of oil and undermine the
economic feasibility of alternative energies. A collapse in the price of oil would kill several new energy technologies and
ultimately increase demand for oil. In fact, the oil-producing countries might view increasing oil production and lowering
prices as a logical policy to counter the anti oil policies of the governments of consuming countries. Historical data from
periods of oil price collapses support this point: Low oil prices increase oil demand, decrease efficiency improvements,
choke alternative energy resources, and increase waste. * Alternatively, expecting a decline in demand for their oil, oilproducing countries might decide to reduce their planned investments in production capacity expansion and maintenance
and mothball some planned projects, which would shortly lead to declining oil supplies. If new technologies do not come
on line by the time oil production starts declining, the world will face a serious energy crisis, probably unparalleled in
history. Reversing such a trend of declining investments would take years, despite massive increases in oil prices. This
alternative is not a mere possibility: Several major projects have been mothballed in the past when the oil-producing
governments deemed these projects not needed. * If oil-consuming countries do begin to reduce their dependence on oil,
major oil exporters could seek to use their now less-valuable oil within their own borders as cheap fuel with which to
expand heavy industries. Instead of exporting oil directly, they could export the energy from that oil embedded in metals,
chemicals, and manufactured products at prices that far undercut Western products, constrained as Western manufacturers
would be by having to use higher-cost alternative energy sources. The net result would be a loss of jobs and economic
strength by the West without having any impact on the overall global consumption of fossil fuels. Even if Western
countries successfully replaced imported oil with indigenous alternative energy sources, they would still have to live on the
same planet as oil-exporting countries, whose fragile societies would then face the loss of their main source of revenue.
Energy independence for current oil importers, if somehow achieved, would aggravate political instability in oil-exporting
countries. In addition, it is unclear what will happen to the world monetary system without trade in oil and the associated
recycling of petrodollars. A change to a world where most industrial countries depend on their own domestic energy
resources would require a major change in the global financial system. Such a change would create its own difficulties,
impacting even the industrial countries.
That massively boosts oil consumption and makes warming spiral out of control
Paul Roberts, Mathematician at the University of Utah, 2004, The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World pg 162
Yet as we have seen with the United States and other developed nations, such mitigating factors run up against a powerful
array of economic and political forces — countervailing influences that steadily push up energy demand and favor
expediency at the expense of fuel efficiency. Oil prices, for example, could just as easily fall, at least in the short term,
especially if countries with enormous reserves but little current production, such as Iraq and Iran, obtain the investment
they need and start adding supplies to the world market. As we have seen, low prices discourage conservation and fuel
efficiency, as well as reliance on alternatives like natural gas or hydrogen, or renewable energy, such as solar or wind. By
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
9
533562354
DDW 2011
1
one estimate, if oil prices fall to fifteen dollars a barrel and stay there until 2020 (a scenario fervently desired by the Bush
administration), world oil demand will surge to 124 million barrels a day by 2020 — around 20 million barrels more than in
average, or “business-as-usual:’ forecasts. Such an increase would put an enormous strain on oil producers, not to mention
add significantly to pollution and other oil-related problems — among them, more cars, greater suburban sprawl, and a far
slower emergence of even such conventional alternative technologies as gasoline-electric hybrids. According to one study,
a scenario in which prices averaged twenty-three dollars a barrel would encourage so much additional energy use that U.S.
CO2 emissions would jump 50 percent by 2035, effectively destroying any chance at meeting a carbon target.
Environment Advantage- Hurricanes Scenario
Weather modification are capable of mass destruction
Chossudovsky 07 (Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa President of the International
People's Health Council (IPHC).[3]
He is editor for the Centre for Research on Globalization, Weather Warfare: Beware the US military’s experiments with climatic
warfare ‘Climatic warfare’ has been excluded from the agenda on climate change. December 7, 2007,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7561)
Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new
generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate
the climate for military use. Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than
half a century. US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on
weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet
unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the
objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The
US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which
is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an appendage of the Strategic
Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the
outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world. Weather-modification,
according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report, ‘offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to
defeat or coerce an adversary’, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:
‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could
have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation,
fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated
set of [military] technologies.’ In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which
banned ‘military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe
effects.’ It defined ‘environmental modification techniques’ as ‘any technique for changing –through the deliberate
manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere,
hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.’ While the substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, debate on weather
modification for military use has become a scientific taboo. Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are
not investigating the matter and environmentalists are focused on greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.
Neither is the possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while
tacitly acknowledged, part of the broader debate on climate change under UN auspices.
Weather modification causes international conflict
Willis et al. 10 (Mr Phil Willis chairman, The Science and Technology Select Committee is a select committee of the House of
Commons in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee The Regulation of
Geoengineering,
March
2010,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60180450/geoengineering)
. Contemporary research on geoengineering has its roots in military strategies developed for weather modification. While
geoengineering’s military history does not preclude benevolent uses, it is clear that climate modification schemes come
with a potential for global conflict that should be taken seriously. Conflict might arise due to the unilateral pursuance of a
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
10
533562354
DDW 2011
1
climate modification programme by a nation perceived to be placing its own interests above those of other nations. It is
even conceivable that a wealthy individual or private company might develop geoengineering technologies. Picking apart
the climat ice Ects that could be attributed to a rival nation’s geoengineering from those which would have occurred
naturallywould beextremely di cult. The scope for conflict—even in the absence of intentional provocation—would be
significant. This underscores the importance of developing a broad and inclusive international consensus—and being
willing to accept the possibility that the consensus might not be favourable towardssome forms of geoengineering research
***Heg
Backlash Turn
Unilateral SBSP causes international backlash
Glaser 08 (Dr. Peter Glaser, editor of the Journal of Solar Energy, served on major committees for NASA and the National
Academy of Sciences, and was president of the International Solar Energy Society. Spring 2008 http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstraSBSP-2008.pdf
GlAser: Since it would be such a huge undertaking, I think it would be best accomplished at an international level, perhaps
even managed by the United Nations. Each country could contribute their best effort, and then each country would reap the
benefit of cheap and plentiful power from the sun. We could utilize the knowledge of all the nations that have been
researching spacebased solar power. If only one country has the satellites, the international community will worry that the
technology will be misused. With every nation taking part in the planning, building, and operation of the system, there
would be inherent transparency, oversight, and equality. There would be no secrets, and no country would be left in the
dark. On the other hand, if one nation decides to build the system, all hell may break loose. There would be distrust and a
huge shift in the balance of power. Any nation with such a system would not only have an advantage in space, but they
would have economic and military advantages on the ground as well. And there are many countries taking the idea of solar
power from space much more seriously that we are in the United States. I would prefer to see a network of power satellites
built by an international effort. n A leGendAry cAreer A native of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Peter Glaser became a U.S. citizen
in 1954 after receiving an M.S. degree from Columbia University in New York. He received a Ph.D. in 1955 in mechanical
engineering and went to work for Arthur D. Little Inc., in Cambridge, Massachusetts, remaining there until his retirement
as vice president in 1999. He has served on major committees for NASA and the National Academy of Sciences, and was
president of the International Solar Energy Society. He was also the editor of the Journal of Solar Energy from 1971 to
1984.
International backlash turns army readiness
Hyman 03 (Michael Katz-Hyman, Research Assistant at the Henry L. Stimson Center, and Michael Krepon, co-founder of the
Henry L. Stimson Center and the author or editor of eleven books and over 350 articles, April ’03,
http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=81)
Given the extraordinary and growing differential in power that the United States enjoys in ground warfare, sea power, and
air power, it is hard to propound compelling arguments for seeking to supplement these advantages by weaponizing space.
The current U.S. lead in the military utilization of space has never been greater and is unchallenged. If the United States
pushes to extend its pronounced military dominance into space, others will view this through the prism of the Bush
administration's national security strategy, which places emphasis on preventive war and preemption. Foreign leaders will
not passively accept U.S. initiatives to implement a doctrine of space dominance. They will have ample, inexpensive means
to take blocking action, as it is considerably easier to negate U.S. dominance in space than on the ground, at sea, and in the
air. The introduction of space weaponry and ASAT testing are therefore likely introduce grave complications for the
terrestrial military advantages that the United States has worked so hard, and at such expense, to secure.
,
Oil scarcity increases US-Sino relations
Wolf 11 (Jim Wolf, journalist, Feb 9, 2011,http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/us-usa-china-energyidUSTRE7185XE20110210]
Members of the private Energy Security Leadership Council will discuss possible U.S.-Chinese cooperation on oil security-related
issues, said retired Navy Admiral Dennis Blair, a former U.S. director of national intelligence. "Can't we work on them (oil security issues)
together?" Blair said his fellow travelers would ask at meetings with Chinese government officials and business leaders. He cited what he called
parallel U.S. and Chinese oil-market interests, including securing supplies at "a reasonable price." Blair was the top U.S. intelligence official
from January 2009 until his resignation was requested by President Barack Obama in May after an alleged al-Qaeda airliner bombing attempt and
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
11
533562354
DDW 2011
1
an attempted car bombing of New York's Times Square. He disclosed the China trip in an interview with Reuters after joining fellow council members
to release sweeping recommendations designed to create a less oil-dependent U.S. transportation system. "Reliance on petroleum has created
unsustainable risks to American economic and national security," said the council's report, titled Transportation Policies for America's Future. The
trip in mid-March will bring council members to a seminar with the Energy Research Institute of China's National Development and
Reform Commission. Discussions will include "new energy development and China-U.S. cooperation," said Justin Kitsch, a spokesman for
Securing America's Future Energy, the council's parent group. He did not spell out which other council members would join Blair on the trip. Wang
Baodong, a Chinese embassy spokesman in Washington, replied: "I'd say China and the U.S. have shared interests in safeguarding energy
security and developing new energy. "We're ready to enhance cooperation with the U.S. for win-win results in this field," he added in an
email. China, the world's most populous country and the No. 2 oil consumer after the United States, has been scrambling to lock up long-term oil
supply deals abroad to diversify its energy supply sources
***Solvency
Communication Turn
Plan causes breakdown in military communication
Laracy 07 (Joseph R. Laracy1 Complex Systems Research Laboratory, Damien Bador2, Danielle Adams3, Annalisa Weigel4
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, with Richard Chambers, Daniel Kwon, David Proudfoot, Shen
Qu, and Ted Shoepe, 11/26/2007, http://lean.mit.edu/docman/view-document-details/1702-solar-power-satellites-historicalperspectives-with-a-look-to-the-future.html )
Atmospheric side effects were a large concern. The most sensitive issues dealt with the ionosphere, a layer between 50 and
400 km from the Earth’s surface. Concerns arose regarding the ability of the microwave power beam from the SPS to heat
the ionosphere sufficiently to alter its electron density. This would harm communication systems that depend on dense
electron regions. This could also lead to undesirable scattering in the microwave beam path. The rocket effluents from the
SPS launches could also interact with the ionosphere to reduce electron density. Another fear was that weather could be
altered in the troposphere due to the exhaust of frequent launches. This is an area of large uncertainty.30 A major concern
about the SPS design was its potential for interference with other electronic systems. As mentioned in the CDEP Final
Program review, “Electromagnetic systems likely to experience SPS interference would include military systems, public
communications, radar, aircraft communications, public utility and transportation system communications, other satellites,
and radio and optical astronomy.”31 Such a long and varied list clearly puts this issue into the realm of a serious social
problem. In particular, military systems close to the transmitter or receiver would be threatened. Also, radio and optical
astronomy would be very difficult with an SPS system in place. For radio astronomy, Earth based systems close to
receiving antenna sites would be affected by interference. Meanwhile, optical astronomy would be limited because the SPS
would create light pollution.32
Satellite and ground communications are crucial to readiness and operational success
Daniels 07 (Gerald B. Daniels, Colonel, USA, 2007, AIR WAR COLLEGE AIR UNIVERSITY THE LOSS OF MILITARY
SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY AND ITS IMPACT TO NATIONAL SECURITY)
war and win without space. Today, a string of satellites is the backbone of the communications, command and control
infrastructure the military depends on. Over the past decade there has been a “shift in understanding” about what space can
bring to the fight. Today’s joint warfighters are more appreciative of “the decisive, precise combat effects space brings to
the battlefield” - General Lance W. LordVIII The ability to communicate is fundamental to military activities providing
information to filed commanders, commanding and controlling forces, and sending targeting information to combat units.
Military strategy doctrine, theory, and rhetoric are increasingly occupied with information and its potential for improving
combat performance. The challenge is how to measure the impact if satellite communications is lost. In order to assess the
impact, one must have a good understanding of what “bandwidth” represents to make trade-off decisions on different types
of capabilities. In logisticians, for example, it is easier to express the number of short tons of logistic throughput as C-5
aircraft equivalents. The vision of a C-5 conjures up three important aspects of transportation: capacity (an aircraft load),
overall capability (total number of available airframes and sortie rates), and cost. Using this analogy, a commander
immediately understands what it takes to move his or her requirement forward in terms of time, cost, and level of effort.
Unfortunately, a similar analogy does not exist for bandwidth although one could use the airlift comparison to illustrate
some aspects of bandwidth. Simply put, the greater the volume of VIII General Lance W. Lord, Commander of Air Force
Space Command 20 information to be transmitted, the larger the requirement for bandwidth to move it- higher bandwidth
allows faster transmission of information.31 Modern military forces in the war on terrorism are light, lean, mobile,
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
12
533562354
DDW 2011
1
autonomous, and expeditionary. These forces feed off a constant flow of information they need for positioning and timing,
mobile communications, ISR and warning to achieve their varied and dangerous missions. In many cases, this data is
primarily provided by space systems. Without these critical space capabilities, our forces would lose situational awareness
and connectivity. That could spell disaster at a critical time when ground forces are trying to find a specific target or
location, are involved in a firefight or are just trying to get from one place to another in countries with few, if any, road
signs. That’s where satellite communications, GPS and imagery help make operating in Iraq and Afghanistan successful
and effective. Less than 15 years ago, relying on spaced-based capabilities to direct battles on the ground was a relatively
new capability for the U.S. military. Not even in their wildest dreams would most people think it would one day be possible
for a pilot to sit in an air-conditioned room at some stateside base and “fly” an unmanned aerial vehicle over Afghanistan to
gather intelligence, carry on surveillance, do reconnaissance — even fire Hellfire missiles at enemy forces.32Chapter 7
Conclusion U.S. leaders have more accurate and current information on developments, issues, and crises in virtually all
parts of the world. Due in large part to space systems, U.S. military forces know more about their adversaries, see the
battlefield more clearly, and can strike more quickly and precisely than any other military force in history. Space systems
are inextricably woven into the fabric of America’s national security. - Peter B. TeetsIX The purpose of this document was
to assess the loss of military satellite communications capability and its impact to national security. The U.S. will continue
to face a broad spectrum of conflicts ranging from peacetime competition to global war. The diversity of missions and the
lethality of future battlefields require the integration of capabilities that will increase readiness, combat power, and force
survivability. The U.S. military must be capable of adapting to the demands of the situation. The employment of
communications satellite systems enhances our warfighting capabilities, reduces the military footprint, and improves the
"tooth-to-tail" ratio. The ability to see and communicate, regardless of distance or theater maturity, enables U.S. forces to
react faster than the enemy and to execute their missions more effectively and efficiently. The bandwidth provided by
communications satellites supplies the means for enhancing command and control, facilitating the maneuver of forces,
reducing the commander's uncertainty, and improving fire support, air defense, intelligence collection, and combat service
support operations.
Last printed 2/15/2016 9:20:00 PM
13