533578671
DDW 2011
1
1NC- SPS- QQ-JO
1NC- SPS- QQ-JO............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Russian Oil ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
SKFTA .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Counterplan ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Aerospace Frontline.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Weaponization Frontline ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Warming Frontline .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Resource Wars Frontline ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Solvency ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Russian Oil
A. The Russian economy will grow, but oil exports are key
Bloomberg 7/22. Bloomberg News a premier site for updated business news and financial information “Putin Sees High Oil
Prices, Balanced Budget This Year” Moscow Times http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/putin-sees-high-oil-pricesbalanced-budget-this-year/440909.html
Russia may be able to balance its budget this year thanks to higher oil prices and a growing economy, Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin said after the surplus widened in June. "We hope the deficit this year will be minimal, and perhaps we'll be
able to make it through this year without one," Putin told a government meeting in Moscow on Thursday. The government
expects deficits in 2012-14 and will need "strenuous work" to rein in costs. The federal budget surplus surged to 640.2
billion rubles ($23 billion) through June, equivalent to 2.7 percent of gross domestic product, the Finance Ministry said
Thursday on its web site. The surplus in June widened to 5.9 percent of GDP from 5.3 percent a month earlier. Russia
needs crude to average $115 a barrel this year to balance the budget, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said last month in St.
Petersburg. It will average $125 for the next three years, according to preliminary budget parameters the Finance Ministry
presented earlier this month. "I would ask you again to minimize expenses that are non-essential, and state bodies need to
take a balanced approach to their spending on state programs," Putin said. "We know what the forecasts are for 2012 to
2014, and it's not by accident that we're planning for a small deficit." The budget, which usually sees higher spending in
the second half, was in deficit at this time last year, Kudrin said at the meeting. The government is maintaining its forecast
for a full-year shortfall of "just over 1 percent," he said, down from the 3.6 percent gap projected in the original budget
plan.
B. Transition to alternatives tanks oil prices – hurts Russian economy
Carey ‘3 John Carey senior correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau “Taming the Oil Beast” Businessweek
Yet reducing oil use has to be done judiciously. A drastic or abrupt drop in demand could even be counterproductive. Why?
Because even a very small change in capacity or demand "can bring big swings in price," explains Rajeev Dhawan, director
of the Economic Forecasting Center at Georgia State University's Robinson College of Business. For instance, the
slowdown in Asia in the mid-1990s reduced demand only by about 1.5 million bbl. a day, but it caused oil prices to plunge
to near $10 a barrel. So today, if the U.S. succeeded in abruptly curbing demand for oil, prices would plummet. Higher-cost
producers such as Russia and the U.S. would either have to sell oil at a big loss or stand on the sidelines. The effect would
be to concentrate power--you guessed it--in the hands of Middle Eastern nations, the lowest-cost producers and holders of
two-thirds of the known oil reserves. That's why flawed energy policies, such as trying to override market forces by rushing
to expand supplies or mandating big fuel efficiency gains, could do harm.
C. Decrease oil prices collapses political stability in Russia
McGiffert ‘7 Carola McGiffert senior fellow and director of Smart Power Initiatives at CSIS 2007 “Global forecast: the top
security challenges of 2008”
While it is obviously difficult to predict major discontinuity in Russia or elsewhere, the next administration will need to
keep in mind that Russia for much of its history has shown a remarkable proclivity toward discontinuity and
unpredictability. The current economic recovery and apparent political stabilization sit on a fairly fragile foundation. A
crash in the price of oil will upset the current stability just as it was a precursor to major change and then collapse in the
Soviet Union 20 years ago. There is no question that Putin and his team see themselves presiding over a stable authoritarian
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
1
533578671
DDW 2011
1
modernization of Russia for the next two to three decades. But history is replete with nations pursuing authoritarian
modernization plans that have gone awry.
D. Russian economic decline results in nuke war
Steven R David professor of political science 99 professor of political science at the john Hopkins U, Foreign Affairs, January/February.
AT NO TIME since the civil war of 1918 -- 20 has Russia been closer to bloody conflict than it is today. The fledgling
government confronts a vast array of problems without the power to take effective action. For 70 years, the Soviet Union
operated a strong state apparatus, anchored by the KGB and the Communist Party. Now its disintegration has created a
power vacuum that has yet to be filled. Unable to rely on popular ideology or coercion to establish control, the government
must prove itself to the people and establish its authority on the basis of its performance. But the Yeltsin administration has
abjectly failed to do so, and it cannot meet the most basic needs of the Russian people. Russians know they can no longer
look to the state for personal security, law enforcement, education, sanitation, health care, or even electrical power. In the
place of government authority, criminal groups -- the Russian Mafia -- increasingly hold sway. Expectations raised by the
collapse of communism have been bitterly disappointed, and Moscow's inability to govern coherently raises the specter of
civil unrest. If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the
GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in
1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the
official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the
revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without
well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an
American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political
crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian
people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian
rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control
remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military
commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean
inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between
the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray
and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between
military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for
housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces.
Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would
support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it
virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more
independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will
beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and
less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own
constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet
policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control
inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow
responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and
Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An
embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees
would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from
the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within
Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the
privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real
possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has
ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains
some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the
country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however,
Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of antiAmerican groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces.
And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war.
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
2
533578671
DDW 2011
1
SKFTA
Going to pass- predictive uniqueness evidence – this will be replaced for the debate with a more updated
uniqueness card- sorry!
Froomkin 7/25, [Dan Froomkin, Huffington Post, 7/25/11, “Free Trade Deals: Lobbying Fever Foreshadows Winners, Losers”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/free-trade-agreements-lobbying_n_906623.html|AF]
The most reliable and active opposition to trade agreements typically comes the AFL-CIO and other American 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
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 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
3
533578671
DDW 2011
1
SPS tanks political capital
David 08, [David Leonard, Pentagon, 5/15/08, “Space Based Solar Power- Harvesting Energy from Space”,
http://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=69|AF]
Overall, pushing forward on SBSP "is a complex problem and one that lends itself to a wide variety of competing
solutions," said John Mankins, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, LLC, in Ashburn, Virginia.
"There's a whole range of science and technology challenges to be pursued. New knowledge and new systems concepts are
needed in order to enable space based solar power. But there does not appear, at least at present, that there are any
fundamental physical barriers," Mankins explained. Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space
and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if
we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring
clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble
effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he
added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This
could create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this,"
Teets said.
Polcap is key
Wall Street Journal 10, [Wall Street Journal, 12/6/10, “A Korea-US Trade Deal, At last: the korea pact is a step forward, but
now the president has to sell it”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704767804576000542290721476.html|AF]
What a long, strange trip it's been for the South Korea-U.S. free trade agreement. The two sides announced this weekend
that they've reached a deal on revisions to the draft that was signed in 2007 but never ratified. It comes not a moment too
soon, given the boost this will give to a U.S. economy stumbling its way to recovery and with tensions rising on the Korean
peninsula.The saga is also a lesson to future U.S. Presidents on the importance of trade leadership. Having campaigned
against the pact in 2008, President Obama rediscovered its benefits once in office. Yet by then he was forced to re-open
negotiations to justify his earlier opposition. The result is a deal that is slightly better than the excellent 2007 text in some
ways, but slightly worse in others. And this after a delay that has cost the U.S. global credibility on economic issues, not to
mention the cost to U.S. growth. The good news is that the 2007 agreement stays mostly in place. South Korea still offers
significant opening of its sheltered economy to American manufactured goods, agriculture and services. Within five years
of ratification the deal will eliminate tariffs on 95% of the countries' trade in goods, and it also clears the way for greater
trade in services by, for instance, opening Korea's banking industry. Meanwhile, some of the changes to that 2007 text are
helpful. The trade in cars was the main sticking point, especially as Detroit worried about Korea's longstanding use of
technical barriers like onerous safety standards to limit imports. Negotiators have added a provision that ensures new
environmental standards proposed by Seoul over the past three years won't become de facto trade barriers. Yet some of the
new auto provisions are worse than what Detroit had before. Conspicuously, Korea's current 8% tariff on imported U.S.
cars—which would have been eliminated immediately upon ratification under the 2007 deal—now will be cut in half
immediately but eliminated only after five years. Compare that to the European Union's agreement with Korea, which is
signed and due to take effect next July. That deal gradually phases out Korea's 8% car tariff over four years. That means
that over the next few years Detroit will miss what would have been the advantage of zero tariffs compared to rates of 2%
to 6% on EU cars, and toward the end of the five-year period tariffs on EU cars will be lower than on American cars. The
biggest mistake Mr. Obama and Democrats made was allowing one vocal lobby—Detroit and its unions—to hijack debate
on a comprehensive deal covering almost all trade. Consider the main "victory" for Detroit: Korea has agreed to let
America phase out its 25% tariff on pickup trucks more slowly. That will come at a stiff price to American buyers of those
trucks, including many small businesses that delayed purchases during the recession. Some farmers have also become
collateral damage. Seoul couldn't walk away from re-opened talks empty-handed, and one concession it extracted is a twoyear delay, to 2016, in eliminating tariffs on some U.S. pork. American pork producers are excited about any deal, but they
still would have been better off under the 2007 text. Chilean pork already enjoys lower tariffs thanks to the Chile-Korea
FTA and has been gaining market share. The new tariff-elimination date also falls only six months before Korea's tariffs on
EU pork will end under that deal, leaving Americans far less than the two-and-a-half years they would have had under the
earlier text to get a marketing jump on their competitors. These caveats should not deter Congress from ratifying what is
still an excellent deal. Mr. Obama has asked GOP House Speaker-designate John Boehner to assist in getting the pact
approved, and we're told Mr. Boehner has suggested grouping this deal together with pending agreements with Colombia
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
4
533578671
DDW 2011
1
and Panama in a single House vote. This would make it easier for pro-trade forces in Congress to concentrate their political
capital. Mr. Boehner will bring a majority or more of his GOP Members along, butMr. Obama will have to spend his own
political capital to rebuild American public support for free trade and gain Democratic support. The President would have
made more progress toward his goal of doubling American exports if he had supported this deal in 2008 and pressed it
through Congress in 2009. The failure in leadership was to side with the United Auto Workers and other unions against the
national interest. Those who think they'll lose from trade always have the strongest motivation to lobby, while the
consumers and businesses that benefit (such as American pickup truck buyers) are harder to organize. Every American
President since Hoover in the 1920s has taken the broad view, speaking up for the many trade beneficiaries. U.S. public
support for freer trade has eroded amid the recession and the lack of Presidential leadership. It is crucial for U.S.
competitiveness in particular, and the world economy more broadly, that Mr. Obama and his allies make a strong and
unapologetic case that trade is in the best interests of American businesses and workers.
SKFTA key to US Free-trade leadership and open up trade globally
CSM 10, No author given, Christian Science Monitor, “South Korea trade pact: US beachhead for pacts with Japan, China”
December 14th 2010 http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/1206/South-Korea-trade-pact-US-beachheadfor-pacts-with-Japan-China
But even more, ratifying a deal with South Korea – America’s seventh-largest trading partner – could also help create the
possibility for free-trade pacts with Asia’s two economic giants, Japan and China. America’s trade history is full of
attempts to roll back Asia’s twin problems in economics: an approach to business that curbs competition and a “command
economy” in which governments favor domestic industries and set up nontariff trade barriers. US lawmakers would also be
wise to act soon on the Korea pact as Seoul is racing to firm up trade deals with Europe, India, Australia, and other nations.
Also, the recent attacks by North Korea that killed South Korean civilians serve as one more reason to reinforce the two
nations’ military alliance by pushing more trade cooperation. (The US is only 10 percent of the South’s export market.) For
Obama, winning approval of this pact in Congress will bolster his leadership in achieving other successes on the economy.
And with the recent global recession triggering a resurgence of protectionism in many countries, the US must again assume
the mantle of leadership and keep trying to open foreign markets. Far more American jobs have been created over time than
lost because the US remained open to the world. Trade forces companies to be more efficient, creative, and nimble – the
very qualities that have kept the US as the world’s biggest economy, and can continue to do so.
Effective free trade prevents nuclear war
Copley News Service 99 (Copley News Service, 12/13/99, copleynews.org)
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of
nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's
meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not
just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the
threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy
themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not.
They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually,
most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or
philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to
work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO
nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs.
As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major
disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to
the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we
produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations
benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not
the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a
growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other
companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would
lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's
a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
5
533578671
DDW 2011
1
the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about
world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.
Counterplan
The United States federal government should
lift the cap on H-1B visas,
give companies incentives to dump large quantities of iron into high nutrient no chlorophyll regions of
the ocean,
provide Fischer-Tropsch fuels for the Department of Defense,
amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to make algae-derived fuels eligible for all tax
credits, subsidies, and price supports,
and harden current satellites by using nanotechnology.
H1Bs solve aerospace workforce crisis
AIAA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2003, Informational Paper, “Recruiting, Retaining, and Developing a
World-Class Aerospace Workforce”
If talented young engineers are not recruited, retained, and developed to replace the workforce generation that is near
retirement, then the U.S. stands to lose the valuable economic and critical national security benefits of the domestic
aerospace industry. As shown in Figure 22, large percentages of engineers are working outside the science and engineering
professions. Engineering students burdened with college loans are seeking greener pastures. As shown in Figure 33,
aerospace engineering salaries are low compared to other industries. If the U.S. is to retain its edge in this industry, salaries
need to rise and incentives given for entering the industry. Further, since 1980, the number of nonacademic science and
engineering jobs has grown at more than four times the rate of the U.S. labor force as a whole2. With a growing number of
science and engineering jobs anticipated, the supply of visas set aside under law for “highly qualified foreign workers,” –
65,000 a year4 – is not enough. A decline in student, exchange, and temporary high-skilled worker visas issued since 2001
interrupted a long-term trend of growth. The number of student visas and of temporary high-skilled worker visas issued
have both declined by more than 25% since FY 2001. These declines were due both to fewer applications and to an increase
in the proportion of visa applications rejected2.To add to the supply pressures of science and engineering workers in our
economy, there is increased recruitment of high-skilled labor, including scientists and engineers, by many national
governments and private firms. For example, in 1999, 241,000 individuals entered Japan with temporary high-skill work
visas, a 75 percent increase over 1992.
Algae solves warming
Pyle 08 (Statement of Jason Pyle Chief Executive Officer, Sapphire Energy, “Renewable Fuels And Food Prices,” CQ Congressional
Testimony, 6/12/08, pg nexis)
First, let me thank the Committee for its leadership on alternative, renewable fuels. Your keen focus and vision have
resulted in the first ever Renewable Fuel Standard. Although there will inevitably be elements of RFS that will improve
over time, you've guided the country along on the right path. Second, within the RFS debate, I want to thank this
Committee for its vision and support for technology neutrality in RFS legislation, even though that vision did not survive
final passage. As you predicted by supporting a technology neutral position, we are now seeing the evolution of an entirely
new generation of renewable fuels. These fuels transcend the use of food as fuel feedstock. The current dilemma that pits
fuel against food is just the first of many consequences of a technology-specific RFS. Without a technology-neutral RFS,
this nation will not meet its goals of providing 32 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. Although last year's Energy
Independence and Security Act has yet to foster such solutions, this Committee should be applauded for anticipating an
ever-expanding universe of alternative and renewable fuels. That's why I am here. I'm Jason Pyle, Chief Executive Officer
of Sapphire Energy. Sapphire is one of several of this nation's best technology companies working to produce the next
generation of renewable fuels. At Sapphire, we focus on the production of current fuel products, such as gasoline, diesel
and aircraft fuel, from completely renewable sources, such as photosynthetic microorganisms, or algae. Our mission is to
produce fuels for today's oil and gasoline infrastructure, and two weeks ago we announced that Sapphire had produced the
first ever renewable, ASTM-compliant, 91 octane gasoline from microorganisms. Please refer to the attached two
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
6
533578671
DDW 2011
1
documents for more background on Sapphire Energy. The Problem One of the many reasons we have cheap food is the
availability of cheap energy. We cannot expect to turn large amounts of food back into energy in an economic manner. In
today's debate between food and fuel, we should not have to make a choice. Both are critical to the economy, the
environment and the world at large; we should not match one against the other. But when price and demand rise for one,
both suffer. Instead of a Pyrrhic choice between food and fuel, I offer the opportunity to transcend the debate and produce
ample supplies of both, leading this nation toward energy independence. Instead of a dispute between two basic necessities,
we need a dialogue that supports truly sustainable alternative fuel sources. Over the past year we have all seen prices and
demand rise for commodities such as corn, sugar and vegetable oil. The entire world now feels the pressure. Daily we are
faced with reports of people who struggle to afford essentials. A host of factors has contributed to price increases for food
and fuel: weather, heightened demand, a weaker dollar, decreasing supplies. Just like energy, food is linked in a global
market. Once we begin fueling our cars with food crops, we witness international repercussions. Riots occurred in Mexico
earlier this year over expensive corn flour. This price increase has been attributed to U.S. demand for corn-based ethanol
products, leaving less maize available for export. Protests over similar issues have occurred around the world, contributing
to inflation and political instability. Even at an increased rate of production, current domestic biofuel processes will meet
part, but not all, of U.S. demand. If the entire annual domestic soybean crop of 3 billion bushels were converted to biodiesel
at the current efficiency of 1.4 gallons per bushel, it would provide about 6.5% of U.S. diesel fuel production. Though
certainly a valuable asset to our fuel supply, it is clear that a spectrum of additional and diverse biofuels sources will be
necessary to fulfill demand. Congress first adopted the Renewable Fuels Standard in 2005, but wisely recognized that
neither biodiesel nor ethanol would be the final solution. It created the program as a bridge to a new generation of fuels, and
established a system of incentives to create a marketplace for new technologies. Congress should consider whether the
incentives are neutral and fair. Ask whether these mechanisms will lead to the support and development of fuels that will
give America true energy independence. Congress should ensure that the next round of incentives can be applied to
advanced technologies such as Sapphire's. American innovation is the heart of our people and our economy; I urge you to
support this with additional legislation that promotes a technology-neutral RFS. The Solution Food for fuel concerns are
real, but can be managed. Industries such as ethanol from corn and biodiesel from vegetable oil can continue to play an
important role in the energy mix. However, if we intend to practically and economically reach the goals of the RFS, we
must be ready to rapidly embrace new fuel technologies. We must call on American ingenuity and entrepreneurialism for
the solutions. When Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it put the country on a path toward an energy future
independent of imported resources. As Americans, we must support this vision. We should strive to maximize production,
create fuel-efficient cars, reduce the amount of driving we do and, finally, develop alternatives to fossil fuels. All these
efforts deserve increased support. But without a truly new source of fuel, the system will remain in turmoil, prices will soar
and the conflict between food and fuel will persist. Senators, my colleagues and I at Sapphire Energy have been thinking
about this for a long time. We knew that an energy source based on agriculture would serve this country best as a stepping
stone to a green energy future. We knew that energy requiring vast amounts of fresh water resources was not a viable
option. And, finally, if we wanted to make a difference quickly, we knew we needed a fuel that could be transported and
refined just like petroleum. Two years ago we asked ourselves, "In a perfect world, how should the next generation of fuel
be produced and distributed?" These were our founding principles: 1.Fuel production must not use farmland. Period. 2.Fuel
production must be carbon neutral. 3.Fuel production and delivery must use the existing petroleum infrastructure. 4.Fuel
production must scale domestically to reach tens of billions of gallons per year. 5.The next generation of fuels must be
compatible with today's vehicles. That sounded like a tall order. But Americans have dreamed big and delivered in the past
- atomic energy, highways and railroads that crisscross our nation, a man on the moon, mapping the human genome. Now,
a similar ingenuity has developed a completely renewable and homegrown source of gasoline. I offer that we do not have to
sacrifice food production for fuel production. We do not have to choose between powering our industries and feeding the
hungry. The Sapphire processes and technologies are so revolutionary that the company is at the forefront of an entirely
new industrial category called "Green Crude Production". Products and processes in this category differ significantly from
other biofuels because they are made solely from photosynthetic microorganisms, sunlight and CO2; do not result in
biodiesel or ethanol; enhance and replace petroleum-based products; are carbon neutral and renewable; and don't require
any food crop or agricultural land. The Sapphire process produces a replica of light sweet crude, green crude that can be
used in traditional refining to make real gasoline, diesel, and aircraft fuel. Our feedstocks produce 10 to 100 times more
energy per acre than cropland biofuels. A side benefit of our process is that the microorganisms consume pollutants and
convert them to fuel. Using the Sapphire process, we have dramatically altered the domestic energy and petrochemical
landscape and avoided the food versus fuel debate. Please allow me to reiterate, the Sapphire process does not create
ethanol; it does not produce biodiesel; it does not use crops or valuable farmland. Sapphire fuel is the fuel we use today, the
kind that is in your car or truck or airplane right now. It's gasoline, diesel and aircraft fuel. Senators, this is a solution. This
is a truly renewable, truly sustainable, alternative fuel- "Sapphire's green crude oil". This fuel, Sapphire fuel, is the world's
first truly renewable petrochemical product, produced by converting sunlight and CO2 into a renewable, carbon-neutral
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
7
533578671
DDW 2011
1
alternative to conventional fossil fuels, without the drawbacks of current biofuels. This fuel is compatible with the current
energy infrastructure- cars, refineries, and pipelines. Sapphire's scalable production facilities will produce this fuel
economically because production will be modular, transportable, fueled by sunlight, and not constrained by arable land,
crops, or other natural resources. Sapphire has turned sunlight into gasoline.
Iron fertilization solves global warming and stimulates phytoplankton reproduction
Marine Technology Reporter ’09 (1/29/09, “Natural Iron Fertilization and Geo-engineering,” pg online @
http://www.seadiscovery.com/mt/mtStories.aspx?ShowStrory=1027782126)
The efficacy of geo-engineering the oceans through iron fertilization so as to mitigate the effects of climate change is
evaluated by results published this week in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. The research was conducted by an
international team led by Professor Raymond Pollard of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton. Large oceanic
regions are high in nutrients, and yet have relatively low biological productivity. This is because such ‘high-nutrient lowchlorophyll’ (HNLC) regions are deficient in iron, which is needed to support the growth of phytoplankton - the freefloating, microscopic plant-like organisms that dominate new production in the world’s oceans. Phytoplankton use sunlight
to make their food through the process of photosynthesis, and sit at the base of the marine food chain. Through
photosynthesis, they also draw large amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide down out of the atmosphere, thereby
influencing climate. A proportion of this carbon sinks down out of the surface layer and is sequestered (‘locked away’) by
the deep ocean and bottom sediments. Artificial augmentation of this so-called ‘biological carbon pump’ through ocean
geo-engineering has been proposed as a potential way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby
ameliorating global warming. One possible way to do this is through ‘iron fertilization’, where iron is artificially added to
the oceans so as to induce greatly increased phytoplankton population growth. Experiments in the Southern Ocean, a large
and important HNLC region, have shown that the addition of iron allows phytoplankton to exploit other available nutrients,
leading to the development of large algal blooms. Although these algal blooms take up increased amounts of carbon, much
of it is released back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Exactly how much carbon is exported from the surface layer,
and how long it remains out of circulation, is unknown. For iron fertilization to be useful in the battle against global
warming, the oceans and bottom sediments would need to hold on to the sequestered carbon for many decades, effectively
stopping it from returning to the atmosphere, at least until carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of hydrocarbons (oil,
coal and gas) are reduced sufficiently to halt or reverse the seemingly relentless increase in the concentration of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. As part of the CROZEX experiment, Pollard and his team focused on the seas around the
Crozet Islands and Plateau (hereafter Crozet) at the northern boundary of the Southern Ocean, about 1,400 miles (2,200 km)
southeast of South Africa. The seas around Crozet are naturally supplied with iron from the islands, which have a volcanic
origin, and the surrounding plateau. Ocean currents flow northward past Crozet, so that iron is not carried south of Crozet
and HNLC conditions prevail. But north of Crozet, the iron accumulates over the dark winter, and each spring, once there is
enough light, an enormous phytoplankton bloom develops. This annual bloom contains billions of individual
phytoplankton, and covers 120,000 square kilometres (the size of Ireland). The researchers observed significant differences
in the magnitude, timing, duration and community structure of plankton blooms north and south of Crozet. South of Crozet,
in the region deficient in iron, phytoplankton peaked in early December and the bloom was short-lived. But north of Crozet,
phytoplankton peaked in October, and the bloom lasted for many weeks. They show that natural iron fertilization enhanced
phytoplankton growth and productivity and the amount of carbon exported from the surface layer (100 metres) by 2-3 fold.
Fischer-Tropsch solves forward deployment and peak oil
Bartis & Van Bibber ’11 James T. Bartis [Ph.D. in chemical physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Sc.B. in
chemistry, Brown University] Lawrence Van Bibber [RAND senior policy researcher] 2011 “Alternative Fuels for Military
Applications” RAND Corp
Considering economics, technical readiness, greenhouse gas emissions, and gen- eral environmental concerns, FT fuels
derived from a mixture of coal and biomass represent the most promising approach to producing amounts of alternative
fuels that can meet military, as well as appreciable levels of civilian, needs by 2030. But whether this technology will reach
its potential depends crucially on gaining early produc- tion experience—including production with carbon capture and
sequestration—in the United States. At present, no agency of the U.S. government has announced plans to promote early
commercial use of FT fuels derived from a mixture of coal and biomass.
Hardening key to space leadership
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
8
533578671
DDW 2011
1
Rebecca Johnson 07, senior advisor to the United Nations' United Nations Monitoring, Verification and
Inspection Commission and PhD and The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, “Space without
Weapons”, The Acronym Institute provides reporting, analysis and strategic thinking on a range of issues
relevant to peace and security, with special emphasis on treaties and multilateral initiatives, 10/8,
http://www.acronym.org.uk/space/congo.htm,
Instead of turning to the sledgehammer of space weaponisation to deal with the potential vulnerabilities of space assets, a
more sensible approach (and one consistent with the United Nations Charter) would combine arms control efforts with the
technical hardening and shielding of as many satellites as possible, plus space situation awareness, redundancy and other
'passive' defence means. Progress in nuclear disarmament, strengthening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT), negotiating a nuclear weapons convention, further efforts to restrict missile proliferation, building on the
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation
(HCoC) would also contribute to security and reduce the chances of space becoming a battleground - which would be in
nobody's interests. [1] Former commander-in-chief of SPACECOM, General Joseph W. Ashy (CINCSPACE), quoted in
'USSC Prepares for Future Combat Missions in Space', William B. Scott, Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 5,
1996. [2] Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organisation,
Washington D.C. (Public Law 106-65), January 11, 2001, pp 7-10. This Commission is usually referred to as the Rumsfeld
Commission on Space, after its Chair Donald Rumsfeld became the Bush administration's first Defense Secretary. [3] Ibid.
p 16. [4] Lt. Col. Peter L. Hays, United States Military Space: Into the Twenty-First Century, INSS Occasional Paper 42,
(Colorado, Institute for National Security Studies, September 2002). [5] To this must be added the objectives of power
projection and military control: "As space systems become lucrative military targets, there will be a critical need to control
the space medium to ensure US dominance on future battlefields... to ensure space superiority."
Aerospace Frontline
No aerospace shortage – enrollment, retention, and recession
Tim McAward, Vice President and Product Leader of Kelly Engineering Resources (KER), September 1, 2010, Aerospace
Engineering Onlinee, “The future of engineering is here”, http://www.sae.org/mags/aem/8789
Yet, even though 49% of all American engineers are employed by organizations that specialize in one of these four
disciplines, more engineering students have either enrolled in the following five programs, or have attained degrees in one
of these niche disciplines, than in the “Big Four” occupational specialties, in the last five years: • Aerospace: 30% increase
in the number of graduates • Biomedical: 50% increase in the number of graduates • Chemical: 50% increase in
undergraduate enrollment • Environmental: 100% increase in undergraduate enrollment • Petroleum: 100% increase in
undergraduate enrollment and in the number of students graduating. In the meantime, although the manufacturing sector
continues to employ the largest percentage of American engineers, many service-based industries, including professional,
scientific, and technical, have begun to hire an increasing number of engineers as well. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook for 2010, about 30% of all engineering professionals currently work in one of
these industries. If engineers are not employed within the manufacturing sector or in service-based industries, they
generally work for federal, state, or local governments, within a variety of capacities, including the U.S. Department of
Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, or U.S. Department of Energy; the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA); or highway and public works departments. U.S. engineers approach retirement as college
enrollment rates increase U.S. engineers approach retirement as college enrollment rates increase Many U.S. engineers are
approaching the traditional retirement age of 55 or older. As a result, some well-experienced engineers are no longer
working full-time, thus creating a nationwide engineering talent shortage that will lead many organizations to generate
more flexible work options for their employees to retain them for longer durations of time. During the coming years, the
future U.S. engineering workforce will be increasingly comprised of multiple generations of workers, including Baby
Boomers and Generation X and Y employees. As engineers continue to retire and organizations search for future top talent,
recent engineering graduates and current students should certainly maintain positive attitudes as they will likely find highpaying, meaningful positions, even in the midst of the ongoing national economic recession. Meanwhile, according to the
American Society for Engineering Education, undergraduate engineering program enrollment rates essentially increased by
7% between the years of 2000 and 2005. Such an increase had originally led some organizations to believe that an
engineering “youth movement” had begun. However, although a large number of students had enrolled into programs,
enrollment increases did not translate into a higher number of graduates from 2005 to 2009. Nevertheless, the recent
economic recession has truly created a spike in undergraduate engineering enrollment. In fall 2009, more than 427,000
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
9
533578671
DDW 2011
1
students enrolled for collegiate engineering classes, a 6% increase over a one year period and a 16% increase since 2005.
As the recession forced many unemployed workers to upgrade their current skills and to pursue new career opportunities, it
appears a high number of individuals will begin their new careers within the next couple years—a sign that the current
engineering labor shortage may slowly start to decrease throughout the upcoming decade.
Case can’t overcome structural factors plaguing the aerospace industry
Charles River Associates, leading global consulting firm that offers economic, financial, and business management expertise to
major law firms, industries, accounting firms, and governments around the world, October 2009, “Innovation in Aerospace and
Defense”, http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/innovate_2009/criver_whitepaper_2009_final.pdf
The U.S. post-secondary education system remains the finest in the world. Science and engineering programs have greatly
expanded over time and continue to attract students, at all levels, from every other country in the world. In fact, in science
and engineering in particular, there are disproportionate numbers of foreign students enrolled in U.S. degree programs, and
by and large U.S. students are not seeking education in these areas outside the U.S. So, it would seem that the quality of our
educational system is not a problem. But, is it producing enough talented workers to supply the needs of the aerospace and
defense industry? At present, the absolute number of engineers is not the problem. Recent, significant job cuts have meant
that, if anything, there are likely more engineers being trained in the U.S. than there are jobs available. Indeed, the trends in
the number of graduates reflect the trends in manufacturing industries in general and trends in the aerospace industry in
particular. These industries have become increasingly automated, both in design and manufacturing. This has meant that
fewer workers are required to produce a given level of output. These industries have also become increasingly globalized,
which has meant that fewer workers are required in the U.S. as more and more design and production capacity has moved
overseas.
The industry is adapting to less workers and innovating now
Charles River Associates, leading global consulting firm that offers economic, financial, and business management expertise to
major law firms, industries, accounting firms, and governments around the world, October 2009, “Innovation in Aerospace and
Defense”, http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/innovate_2009/criver_whitepaper_2009_final.pdf
As depicted in the illustration that appears as an Appendix to this paper, the aerospace and defense industry has long been a
source of great innovation and continues today to produce cutting edge technologies that push the envelope of human
achievement. However, at present, the indicators of innovation in aerospace and defense are mixed. Some, such as high
profile program failures and an aging workforce, would suggest a looming crisis of innovation in the industry. Still others,
concerning how innovators secure the necessary financial and human resources and then organize those resources for
optimum results, underscore that the rules of the innovation game in aerospace and defense are changing. Together, these
indicators are upsetting conventional attitudes toward innovation, and the natural friction and travail associated with the
process of adapting to change are stoking anxieties. But upon closer examination one finds that there are at least as many
encouraging indicators of risk-taking, innovative achievement, and successful adaptation to cast doubt on the reflexive
conclusion that aerospace and defense today is experiencing a crisis in its propensity to innovate. The state of innovation in
aerospace and defense is not in crisis; it is being transformed To explore the changing nature of innovation from the 20th to
21st centuries, from the ColdWar to a post-9/11 world, Charles River Associates undertook a comprehensive study to
assess the state of innovation in the aerospace and defense industry today. The study analyzed the trends and identified
changes that are fostering the innovations that will become the 21st century icons of progress. This White Paper is the
culmination of that study. It draws on expertise from both academia and industry and includes the findings from recent
interviews conducted with top executives at more than a dozen top tier firms.
Air power fails
Loren B Thompson, is Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive Officer of Source
Associates, 2008, http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/97942/decaying-us-air-power-reflects-largerproblems.htm, “Decaying Air Power Reflects Larger Problems”
During the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Air Force simplified the discussion of its mission capabilities by dividing
them into three categories -- global strike, global mobility, and global awareness. If we look at each of these areas, we see that
age-related decay has now become generalized across the entire force. With regard to strike capabilities, Rebecca has already
noted that we have very few stealthy fighters in the force today, and the plan of record is to terminate the most capable nextgeneration fighter at less than half the stated requirement. While the service will soon begin receiving a sizable number of F-35
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
10
533578671
DDW 2011
1
Joint Strike Fighters to replace aging F-16s, the F-35 was designed to operate in tandem with the more capable F-22, so the fact
that we may purchase less than half of the F-22s required does not bode well for the tactical air fleet. The F-15 that the F-22 is
supposed to replace has grown so aged that it trains on flight restriction due to metal fatigue, and has literally begun falling out
of the sky. These problems are made worse by the inability of the service to afford a next-generation escort jammer, since
electronic warfare is our main alternative to stealth in protecting penetrating airframes. The situation in the long-range bomber
force is even worse, with less than 200 airframes remaining to cover the world. Only 10% of the heavy bomber force is fully
stealthy, and yet many observers doubt the service will be able to afford the recently announced next-generation bomber that is
supposed to debut in ten years.
Hegemony is inevitable – No viable competitor and empirics
Haas 9 (Lawrence Haas, former senior White House official and Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the American Foreign Policy Council,
2009, http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d16Haas.pdf)
After reviewing the ills that beset America, from a weak economy to a misguided energy policy, from failing schools to
costly health care, Barack Obama focused on the nation’s mood. ‘Less measurable, but no less profound,’ the new President
suggested in his inaugural address, ‘is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America’s decline is
inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.’ If such fear nags at Americans, it may be because of what we so
often hear. Journalists, scholars, and diplomats seem to compete for the pithiest way to pronounce that, when it comes to
America, as a French foreign minister put it, ‘The magic is over… It will never be as it was before.’ Pithy enough? How
about ‘Waving Goodbye to Hegemony’ (from a New York Times magazine headline) or ‘U.S. influence is in steep decline’
(from the Washington Post) or ‘The United States’ unipolar moment is over’ (from the Council on Foreign Relations’
Richard Haass) or ‘It will not be the New American Century’ (from a French scholar). We’ve been here before – not as a
nation in decline, mind you, but as one stressing about it. Today, a cursory look at America might justify the fears. But a
more serious survey of the global landscape suggests that, despite its current troubles, America will retain its top spot in the
world’s pecking order, and that it may emerge from today’s global downturn even stronger than before relative to its
competitors. While, in America, we face serious problems, our would-be challengers – from China to Russia, from Europe
to the Middle East to Latin America – are mired in their own problems that may prove even more daunting. America’s path
is in America’s hands. We have the power to fix every one of our problems, no matter how large any single one may seem.
History suggests that we will do so – eventually. What Winston Churchill said of us still rings true: ‘Americans can always
be counted on to do the right thing… after they have exhausted all other possibilities. Declinism of past and present
Declinism, as it applies to America, has a rich tradition but, to date, a history of failed prophecy. Like the cicadas that
blanket Washington’s trees and sidewalks every 17 years, the declinists rear their heads about once a generation,
propagating the latest versions of their thesis, showcasing evidence of America’s creeping weakness – from economic
stagnation to military setback to diplomatic reversal. From a momentary setback or perhaps a string of them for the United
States, the declinists offer visions of long-term corrosion. The intellectual parlour game is as old as the Republic.
Europeans widely expected the ‘American experiment’ to fail. British contempt for the young nation led to the War of
1812. Nor did America’s rise to global behemoth by the late 19th Century deter the doomsday-ers. If anything, they grew
bolder. No sooner had the United States emerged victorious from World War II than critics lamented Soviet supremacy in
the Cold War that had just begun. ‘We’ve lost the peace,’ John Dos Passos wrote in early 1946 in Life. ‘Friend and foe
alike look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American.’ Mao’s victory
in China in 1949, America’s stalemate in Korea in the early 1950s, Soviet suppression of Hungary in 1956, Moscow’s
launch of Sputnik in 1957, and candidate John Kennedy’s warning of a U.S.-Soviet ‘missile gap’ in 1960 all seemed to
prove that history favoured communism over capitalism. American prosperity and Kennedy-era optimism provided a short
respite from further declinism. The U.S. debacle in Vietnam, North Korea’s capture of the USS Pueblo, Soviet and Cuban
adventurism in Africa, Iran’s seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and America’s
economic struggles in the 1970s painted the United States as a helpless giant. President Nixon transformed declinism into
national policy, seeking détente with the Soviets to ease U.S. entry into a new world of balance with the Soviet Union,
Europe, China, and Japan. President Carter reinforced decline fever, lamenting our ‘crisis of confidence’ in his ‘malaise’
speech. After President Reagan sought to reassert U.S. supremacy, launching a military build-up and confronting the
Soviets in hotspots the world over, Yale’s Paul Kennedy warned (in his best-selling The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers)
of America’s ‘imperial overstretch,’ in which our global obligations would surpass our ability to finance them. Other
declinists of the period included David Calleo (Beyond American Hegemony) and Walter Russell Mead, (Mortal Splendor).
America’s victory in the Cold War mocked declinism, but recent events have ignited its rebirth. Today’s declinists includes
veterans of past battles, notably Kennedy, and new players – Fareed Zakaria (The Post-American World), Charles Kupchan
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
11
533578671
DDW 2011
1
(The End of the America Era), Francis Fukuyama (America at the Crossroads), Andrew Bacevich (The Limits of Power),
and a host of government officials and journalists. They write books and op-eds and appear on TV and radio, reviewing
America’s missteps while suggesting they presage a more multi-polar world. For some, like Kennedy, declinism is a life’s
work, as his recent Wall Street Journal oped, ‘American Power Is on the Wane,’ makes clear. For others, it’s a step along an
intellectual journey. While Fukuyama moved from Western triumphalism (in his The End of History and the Last Man of
1992) to declinism, Mead moved the other way, predicting recently in the New Republic that America will emerge from
today’s global economic crisis in a stronger position atop the international power rankings. Today’s declinists do not agree
on what will cause America’s relative downfall. For some, it’s Iraq that strained our military and displayed the limits of
U.S. power. For those who acknowledge America’s startling turnaround in Iraq, it’s Afghanistan that will engulf America
in a Vietnam-style quagmire. For others, today’s economic crisis exposed the excesses of U.S.-led capitalism. Their
prescription – more governmental regulation that will weaken the leader of the free-market pack. For still others, it’s
China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence, the first of which will shift global power to the East and the second of which will
restrict U.S. activity abroad. And for others, it’s no one event or U.S. error but instead the unsustainable nature of U.S.
unipolarity and the inevitable rise of nations or blocs to counteract it. Questions for today’s declinists Well, maybe. But,
declinists have a few questions to answer. Why will today’s economic distress and military challenge bring America’s
decline when prior challenges of greater magnitude did not? What would a post-America world look like, and why should
we buy the starry-eyed hopes of America’s fiercest critics that a U.S. retreat would make the world more peaceful and more
just? Who or what will supplant the United States atop the world stage, especially when no alternative nation or bloc seems
ready to assume the mantle? To be sure, the United States faces big challenges, probably the most complex set in decades.
On the economic front, businesses are shedding jobs, credit is frozen, financial institutions are teetering, stocks are weak,
and consumer confidence is collapsing. On the military front, America’s armed forces are strained, Afghanistan offers no
easy solution, and exploding budget deficits will encourage Obama and Congress to seek the first defense cuts of the post9/11 period. On the diplomatic front, the United States will try to convince Iran to scrap its nuclear program, to improve its
relations with Pakistan while targeting the Taliban and al-Qaeda strongholds in the Northwestern territories, and to
strengthen its ties to its European allies even as it clashes with them over strategy and military contributions in Afghanistan.
But step back a bit, and prospects for continued U.S supremacy look brighter. The economy has not reached the depths of
the 1981-82 recession and – to state the obvious – it will eventually recover. The issue is how bad things will get and when
the recovery will arrive. Economists project unemployment will top nine percent before it’s over, the turnaround will not
begin until at least the end of 2009, and it may take years to restore strong growth. As for defense, even with cuts, the gap
between annual U.S. expenditures and those of any other nation remains huge. Moreover, the United States spends just four
percent of its Gross Domestic Product on defense and international affairs, a historically low figure – compared to, for
instance, 10 percent under President Kennedy. It has fewer active duty troops than in the 1950s, drawn from a population
that’s twice as large. The notion that America can’t afford its military obligations has never been less true. Not long ago,
nations or blocs that were ready to challenge America seemed plentiful. Today, each is plagued with problems. China is
reeling from the global economic crisis, with rising unemployment and smouldering domestic discontent. Russia is
suffering from the dramatic drop in oil prices, the resulting squeeze on governmental revenues, and deep-seated social and
economic problems. Iran and Venezuela, America’s two loudest nemeses, are also reeling from low oil prices, forcing their
leaders to address surging economic woes and stabilize their own rule. A united Europe, with a combined military and
foreign policy, remains a pipe dream. Today, despite its problems America remains the world’s ‘goliath,’ in the words of
Michael Mandelbaum. It is the go-to power for maintaining peace, ensuring global commerce, and responding to
humanitarian disasters. U.S. security treaties encompass more than half of the world. As Robert J. Lieber put it, ‘In many
instances, and particularly in urgent and dire cases such as the Balkan crises, the choice boils down to this: either the United
States will act or no one will.’ We should not expect that reality to change any time soon.
Heg doesn’t solve war
Benjamin H. Friedman, Research Fellow in Defense and Homeland Security Studies @ Cato Institute, July 20, 2010,
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-bf-07202010.html, “Military Restraint and Defense Savings”
Another argument for high military spending is that U.S. military hegemony underlies global stability. Our forces and
alliance commitments dampen conflict between potential rivals like China and Japan, we are told, preventing them from
fighting wars that would disrupt trade and cost us more than the military spending that would have prevented war. The
theoretical and empirical foundation for this claim is weak. It overestimates both the American military's contribution to
international stability and the danger that instability abroad poses to Americans. In Western Europe, U.S. forces now
contribute little to peace, at best making the tiny odds of war among states there slightly more so.7 Even in Asia, where
there is more tension, the history of international relations suggests that without U.S. military deployments potential rivals,
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
12
533578671
DDW 2011
1
especially those separated by sea like Japan and China, will generally achieve a stable balance of power rather than fight. In
other cases, as with our bases in Saudi Arabia between the Iraq wars, U.S. forces probably create more unrestthan they
prevent. Our force deployments can also generate instability by prompting states to develop nuclear weapons. Even when
wars occur, their economic impact is likely to be limited here. 8 By linking markets, globalization provides supply
alternatives for the goods we consume, including oil. If political upheaval disrupts supply in one location, suppliers
elsewhere will take our orders. Prices may increase, but markets adjust. That makes American consumers less dependent on
any particular supply source, undermining the claim that we need to use force to prevent unrest in supplier nations or secure
trade routes.9 Part of the confusion about the value of hegemony comes from misunderstanding the Cold War. People tend
to assume, falsely, that our activist foreign policy, with troops forward supporting allies, not only caused the Soviet Union's
collapse but is obviously a good thing even without such a rival. Forgotten is the sensible notion that alliances are a
necessary evil occasionally tolerated to balance a particularly threatening enemy. The main justification for creating our
Cold War alliances was the fear that Communist nations could conquer or capture by insurrection the industrial centers in
Western Europe and Japan and then harness enough of that wealth to threaten us — either directly or by forcing us to
become a garrison state at ruinous cost. We kept troops in South Korea after 1953 for fear that the North would otherwise
overrun it. But these alliances outlasted the conditions that caused them. During the War, Japan, Western Europe and
South Korea grew wealthy enough to defend themselves. We should let them. These alliances heighten our force
requirements and threaten to drag us into wars, while providing no obvious benefit. Another argument employed to justify
our defense budget is that we must spend heavily on defense today to prepare for future rivals. But the best hedge against an
uncertain future is a prosperous and innovative economy, unburdened by excessive debt and spending. Advocating
substantial defense spending cuts does not require predicting that the current, historically-benign threat environment will
never chang
Weaponization Frontline
Space is too vulnerable to be effective
Lt Col Donald Christy, MA in Strategic Studies, 2006. “United States Policy on Weapons in Space,”
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil307.pdf
Space is a fragile weapons platform. For defense, space is as static as an earth bound fortification. 53 It takes a great amount of energy to
achieve a particular orbit and it is both time and energy consuming to change an orbit. 54 As a result, satellite systems are
typically deployed in constellations requiring large numbers and increased expense to achieve global coverage. Like a weakness in a
fortification, this allows an adversary to concentrate on one point and potentially overwhelm the system. 55 Space systems reside
in stable, observable and predictable orbits. The laws of orbital mechanics govern their motion. A satellite’s presence is observable through
the electro-optical spectrum. Therefore, an adversary will likely know the precise current and future location of any satellite system.
Command, control and logistics are expensive and complex. Command and control nodes provide terrestrial targets as necessary to the overall
systems function as the space based segment. The cost per pound to place objects in orbit is very high and launches occur from a few static terrestrial locations.
Command and control relies on terrestrial networks subject to jamming or destruction. Maintenance, refueling and rearming (if
necessary) are impractical or, at best, orders of magnitude more difficult than for aircraft.
Weaponization Turn:
China is playing catch up with US on Space Weaponization for protection
Blazejewski 08 (Kenneth Blazejewski, private practice in New York City, focusing primarily on international corporate and
financial transactions, JD from NYU Law, 2008. “Space Weaponization and US China Relations,”
http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2008/Spring/blazejewski.pdf)
On this account, China’s primary concern with US space weaponiza- tion is its contribution to a US multilayered missile
defense shield. In- deed, China’s campaign for PAROS negotiation at the CD seems to inten- sify after each new
development in United States BMD plans.20 Although China could respond to a BMD shield with effective
countermeasures,21 future technological developments may permit the BMD system to viti- ate China’s nuclear
deterrent.22 In the case of a conflict over Taiwan, for example, a US space-based BMD system could prove very valuable
to the United States. According to this view, if the United States decides to advance with such a BMD program, China will
respond so as to main- tain its nuclear deterrence. It will modernize its ICBM fleet (a program it has already initiated),
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
13
533578671
DDW 2011
1
develop further countermeasures to circumvent the BMD shield, and develop the means to launch multiple ASAT attacks.
Ultimately, an arms race could ensue. This, however, would not be China’s chosen outcome. Its development of space
weapons is merely a counter- strategy to what it views as likely US space weaponization.23 China would much prefer that
the United States negotiate a PAROS agreement not to build the BMD shield.24 If this were the case, China’s January
ASAT test would appear to be an attempt to get the United States to the negotiating table. By launching the ASAT, China
sought to put the United States on notice that any attempt to weaponize outer space would lead to this mutu- ally
undesirable path.
And action now is key- Obama working towards ban
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
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.
Weaponization inevitably leads to miscalculations – extinction
Mitchell Gordon R., Associate Professor of Communications @ the University of Pittsburgh, “ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile
Defence,” No. 6 2001
A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationale
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
14
533578671
DDW 2011
1
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.
Space militarization causes arms races and nuclear war
Rick Rozoff, writer for Stop Nato, 2009. “Militarization of Space: The Threat of Nuclear War on Earth,”
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/militarization-of-space-threat-of-nuclear-war-on-earth-byrick-rozoff/
That is, the
militarization of space can result in a nuclear conflagration on earth not only by accident or the law of unintended
consequences but fully by design. If the US plan is, by a combination of ground, sea and air delivery systems, to destroy any ability to
retaliate after a devastating first blow, the Russian general warned of what in fact would ensue: “The Americans will never manage to implement this
scenario because Russian strategic nuclear forces, including the Russian Strategic Missile Forces, will be capable of delivering a retaliatory
strike given any course of developments. “After receiving authorization from the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces it
will not take our strategic missile force more than two-three minutes to carry out the task of launching missiles.” [38] What
Solovtsov has described is the nightmare humanity has dreaded since the advent of the nuclear age: An exchange of nucleartipped intercontinental missiles. One that might result from an attack launched at least partially from space and in one manner
or other in relation to space-based military assets. An analogous warning was issued last year by the then commander of Russia’s Space Forces,
General Vladimir Popovkin, who said, “Space is one of the few places around not yet separated by borders, and any kind of military
deployments there would upset the existing balance of forces on our planet.” [39] This past March American space researcher Matt Hoey
stated that an arms race in space would be “increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war while shortening the time for sanity
and diplomacy to come into play to halt crises.” “If these systems are deployed in space we will be tipping the nuclear balance between
nations that has ensured the peace for decades.
Warming Frontline
Can’t solve warming – mitigation alone requires 0 emissions to solve
Romm sighting Caldeira 08 (Ken Caldeira atmospheric scientist, Department of Global Ecology Carnegie
Institution of Washington, JOE ROMM is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, omm was acting
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
15
533578671
DDW 2011
1
assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration,
and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. Feb
28, 2008, http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/02/28/202398/stabilizing-climate-requires-near-zero-emissions/)
Avoiding climate catastrophe will probably require going to near-zero net emissions of greenhouse gases this century. That
is the conclusion of a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters (subs. req’d) co-authored by one of my favorite climate
scientists, Ken Caldeira, whose papers always merit attention. Here is the abstract: Current international climate mitigation
efforts aim to stabilize levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, human-induced climate warming will
continue for many centuries, even after atmospheric CO2 levels are stabilized. In this paper, we assess the CO2 emissions
requirements for global temperature stabilization within the next several centuries, using an Earth system model of
intermediate complexity. We show first that a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally
averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absence
of additional emissions. We then show that to hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero future
carbon emissions. Our results suggest that future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize
global-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to
warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales. Since the rest of the article is behind a firewall, let me
extract a couple of key findings: … our results suggest that if emissions were eliminated entirely, radiative forcing from
atmospheric CO2 would decrease at a rate closely matched by declining ocean heat uptake, with the result that while future
warming commitment may be negligible, atmospheric temperatures may not decrease appreciably for at least 500 years. In
short, the time for dramatic action is upon us. The study concludes: In the absence of human intervention to actively
remove CO2 from the atmosphere, each unit of CO2 emissions must be viewed as leading to quantifiable and essentially
permanent climate change on centennial timescales. We emphasize that a stable global climate is not synonymous with
stable radiative forcing, but rather requires decreasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. We have shown here that
stable global temperatures within the next several centuries can be achieved if CO2 emissions are reduced to nearly zero.
This means that avoiding future human-induced climate warming may require policies that seek not only to decrease CO2
emissions, but to eliminate them entirely. Bottom line: Stopping global warming is very hard — easily the greatest
challenge the human race has ever faced. The best we can hope for at this point is to limit warming to below the threshold
where the carbon-cycle feedbacks kick into overdrive, bringing about catastrophe (80 feet of sea level rise, widespread
desertification, >50% species loss). In all likelihood we need to slow cut emissions deeply and quickly enough that we get
to the point this century where we can actually have net negative emissions, by removing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere while emitting almost none
China is a bigger polluter than all of North America
The Guardian 11 (Simon Rogers and Lisa Evans, Simon Rogers edits the Guardian Datablog and Datastore - and is a news editor
for the Guardian. Previously worked as a researcher for Where Does My Money Go?, now a data researcher for The Guardian.
January 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-country-data-co2)
On pure emissions alone, the key points are: • China emits more CO2 than the US and Canada put together - up by 171%
since the year 2000 • The US has had declining CO2 for two years running, the last time the US had declining CO2 for 3
years running was in the 1980s • The UK is down one place to tenth on the list, 8% on the year. The country is now behind
Iran, South Korea, Japan and Germany • India is now the world's third biggest emitter of CO2 - pushing Russia into fourth
place • The biggest decrease from 2008-2009 is Ukraine - down 28%. The biggest increase is the Cook Islands - up 66.7%
But that is only one way to look at the data - and it doesn't take account of how many people live in each country. If you
look at per capita emissions, a different picture emerges where: • Some of the world's smallest countries and islands emit
the most per person - the highest being Gibraltar with 152 tonnes per person • The US is still number one in terms of per
capita emissions among the big economies - with 18 tonnes emitted per person • China, by contrast, emits under six tonnes
per person, India only 1.38 • For comparison, the whole world emits 4.49 tonnes per person
We’ll adapt to warming
Hendrick Tennekes, former director of research at the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, 7-15-2008,
http://climaterealists.com/index.php/forum/?id=1554
“Fortunately, the time rate of climate change is slow compared to the rapid evolution of our institutions and societies. There
is sufficient time for adaptation. We should monitor the situation both globally and locally, but up to now global climate
change does not cause severe problems requiring immediate emission reductions. Successive IPCC reports have
presented no scientific basis for dire warnings concerning climate collapse. Local and regional problems with shorter
time scales deserve priority. They can be managed professionally, just as the Dutch seem to do.” The so-called scientific
basis of the climate problem is within my professional competence as a meteorologist. It is my professional opinion that
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
16
533578671
DDW 2011
1
there is no evidence at all for catastrophic global warming. It is likely that global temperatures will rise a little, much as
IPCC predicts, but there is a growing body of evidence that the errant behavior of the Sun may cause some cooling in the
foreseeable future.
Backstoppping turn:
A. Alternative energy development forces increased oil production – 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
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.
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
17
533578671
DDW 2011
1
Resource Wars Frontline
No resource wars – plenty of reserves
Raymond J. Learsy, Commodities trader and member of the Wilson Council at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, 2005, Over a Barrel: Breaking the Middle East Oil Cartel, pg. 18-20
Second, Iran and Iraq also stopped drilling around the same time. This occurred not because they were trying to avoid
finding more oil, bur because the’ were at war with each other and mired in political turmoil. With the region’s three
biggest potential sources of discovery calling a timeout, wildcatting was stepped up in less likely places like Oman, Syria,
and Yemen. Not surprisingly, the reservoirs of oil found in those countries were smaller. Even so, the odds are that the
announced size of the discoveries isn’t the last word on the subject. Experience shows that reserves are almost always
revised upward as fields are thoroughly explored and new technology is applied to production. The supposed dwindling
pace of new oil discoveries is simply a red herring. It proves nothing about the amount of oil left to be found. While it
seems unlikely that other fields as large as those in the Persian Gulf remain to be discovered, a large part of the world has
yet to be thoroughly probed, and no one can rule out the possibility of equally significant discoveries at some point in the
future. So let's state the facts clearly and forcefully: The world is not running out of oil, as alarmists insist. On the contrary,
the industry is more likely to run out of markets long before the supply of oil peters out. So say experts like Morris A.
Adelman, the respected oil analyst and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology “Just as the Stone Age did
not end for lack of stones,” Adelman wrote in his 199s book, Genie Out of the Bottle (paraphrasing, ironically enough,
former Saudi oil minister Ahmed Zaki Yamnani), “the Oil Age will not end because of the scarcity of oil. Rather, oil will
inevitably be surpassed in convenience by a new source of energy in the future.” In other words, we will never use it all.
We began by using up the easiest oil to find and the cheapest to produce, and we are progressing to increasingly more
difficult and costly wells as the inexpensive fields are drained. Earth’s last drop of oil will never be pumped, because
extracting it would cost many times its highest conceivable value as fuel. No matter the scenario, a point will inevitably be
reached where what remains isn’t worth the cost of bringing it out of the ground.
Resources are infinite
Geddes 04, [marc geddes, writer, 2/12/04, http://solohq.com/War/MonsterFAQ.shtml|AF]
Answer: A significant disruption to supplies of critical resources can cause temporary problems, but in a free market, if
resources start to become scarce, prices rise, leading to a search of substitutes and improved conservation efforts. The pool
of resources is not fixed, because human ingenuity can find substitutes or new sources of resources. Supplies of most raw
materials have been increasing throughout the 20th century, and the cost has been falling (See the entry on Natural
resources). For instance, between 1950 and 1970, bauxite (aluminium source) reserves increased by 279 per cent, copper by
179 per cent, chromite (chromium source) by 675 per cent, and tin reserves by 10 per cent. In 1973 experts predicted oil
reserves stood at around 700 billion barrels, yet by 1988 total oil reserves had actually increased to 900 billion barrels.
Production of certain kinds of resources such as fossil fuels may finally be beginning to peak but there are renewable
energy sources in development which can serve as substitutes. Simplistic thermodynamic analysis of energy production is
misleading, because it's not the quantities of energy used or produced that determine economic value, but the utility, or
usefulness if that energy to humans. If energy is being used more efficiently you don't need as much of it, and some forms
of energy are more valuable than others- for instance kinetic energy in the form of wind power is less valuable than the
same quantity of latent energy in the form of oil. Solar power is a virtually inexhaustible supply of new energy for
stationary sources and the hydrogen fuel cell can serve for transportation in place of fossil fuels. Developing these
technologies costs money, so to avoid resource shortages a good economy is essential. Libertarian capitalism is the system
which generates wealth the fastest.
Solvency
Communication turn:
Plan causes breakdown in military communication
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
18
533578671
DDW 2011
1
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,
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
Last printed 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
19
533578671
DDW 2011
1
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 3/9/2016 8:33:00 PM
20