Planet Debate 2011 - Space Mars Colonization Affirmative

Planet Debate 2011 -- Space 1
Mars Colonization Affirmative

1AC – Inherency..............................................................................................................................3
1AC – Advantage – Get off the Rock..............................................................................................4
1AC – Advantage – Competitiveness..............................................................................................5
1AC – Plan.....................................................................................................................................12
1AC -- Solvency.............................................................................................................................13
1AC -- Solvency.............................................................................................................................18
1AC – Solvency..............................................................................................................................20
1AC - Solvency..............................................................................................................................22
1AC – Solvency..............................................................................................................................23
### Get Off the Rock Advantage Extensions ###.........................................................................24
Get Off the Rock or Die.................................................................................................................24
### Competitiveness Advantage Extensions ###..........................................................................25
Competitiveness Solvency.............................................................................................................26
Competitiveness Advantage-Uniqueness.......................................................................................28
Competitiveness Advantage -- Uniqueness....................................................................................29
Competitiveness Advantage-Hegemony Impact............................................................................30
Competitiveness Advantage-Hegemony Impact............................................................................32
Competitiveness Advantage-Economy Impacts.............................................................................33
Competitiveness Advantage – Economy Impacts..........................................................................34
Competitiveness Advantage-Economy Impacts.............................................................................35
Competitiveness Advantage – Economy Impacts..........................................................................36
Competitiveness Advantage-A2: Funding Alt Cause....................................................................37
Competitiveness Advnatage-A2: Economy DAs Turn Competitiveness.......................................38
Hegemony Good 2AC....................................................................................................................39
Hegemony Good 2AC....................................................................................................................42
Balancing 2AC...............................................................................................................................43
Hegemonic War 2AC.....................................................................................................................44
Hegemonic War 2AC.....................................................................................................................45
Hegemonic War 2AC.....................................................................................................................46
Hegemony Uniqueness 2AC..........................................................................................................48
Hegemony Sustainable...................................................................................................................50
Hegemony Sustainable-A2: Economic Crisis................................................................................51
Hegemony Sustainable-A2: Dollar Shift........................................................................................52
Hegemony Sustainable-A2: Iraq....................................................................................................53
Hegemony Sustainable-A2: Overstretch........................................................................................54
Hegemony Sustainable-A2: Obama...............................................................................................55
A2: Bad Alliances..........................................................................................................................56
A2: Multilaterialism Good.............................................................................................................57
A2: Soft Power Good.....................................................................................................................58
A2: Anti-Americanism Turn..........................................................................................................59
A2: Anti-Americanism Turn..........................................................................................................60
### Solvency Extensions ###.........................................................................................................60
Sustainability Solvency..................................................................................................................61
A2: PMNS......................................................................................................................................62
A2: Jumping to Mars from the Moon Won’t Work.......................................................................63
1
A2: Technology Doesn’t Exist Yet................................................................................................64
A2: We Can’t Go Faster than the Speed of Light..........................................................................65
A2: Mars Travel Too Complicated................................................................................................66
A2: Can’t Land on Mars.................................................................................................................67
A2: Human Bodies Can’t Take Long Duration Space Flight........................................................68
A2: We Can’t Land Humans on Mars...........................................................................................69
A2 Psychological/Too Long to Be Away From Home..................................................................70
A2: Interstellar Travel Not Possible...............................................................................................71
A2: Payload Limits.........................................................................................................................72
A2: Too Costly...............................................................................................................................73
A2: Radiation.................................................................................................................................74
A2: Explorers Can Survive Isolated...............................................................................................75
### Life on Mars ###.....................................................................................................................76
Life on Mars...................................................................................................................................77
A2: Mars Isn’t Habitable By Humans............................................................................................78
There is Life on Mars.....................................................................................................................79
There is Life on Mars.....................................................................................................................80
### Terraforming Extensions ###..................................................................................................81
A2: A Nuclear Explosion Would Destroy the Planet.....................................................................82
A2: Outer Space Treaty Means No Nukes in Space......................................................................83
### Disadvantage Answers ###.....................................................................................................84
Disease/Virus Disadvantage Answers............................................................................................85
Disease/Virus Disadvantage Answers............................................................................................86
Spending Disadvantage Answers...................................................................................................87
### Counterplan Answers ###.......................................................................................................88
A2: Robotics Exploration Counterplan..........................................................................................89
A2: Robotics Exploration Counterplan..........................................................................................90
A2: Robots Exploration Counterplan.............................................................................................91
A2: Explore Other Places Counterplans.........................................................................................92
A2: Explore Other Places Counterplan..........................................................................................93
A2: Explore Other Places Counterplan..........................................................................................94
A2: Private Actors Counterplan.....................................................................................................95
### Kritik Answers ###................................................................................................................96
Space Exploration Creates Meaning to Life...................................................................................97
A2: One Way Mission Unethical...................................................................................................98
### Topicality ###..........................................................................................................................99
“Space Exploration”.....................................................................................................................100
2
1AC – Inherency
Current funding for a Mars mission is inadequate
Michael Robinson, Ph.D. University of Hartford, 2010, The Problem of Human Missions to Mars,
Journal of Cosmology, October-November, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars134.html, DOA: 1/11/11
Despite this apparent compatibility of visions of Mars, plans to sent astronauts to Mars
have repeatedly failed. The Constellation Program is only the most recent Mars project to
come up short. Wernher von Braun championed the idea of human Mars expeditions in the
1950s, followed by the Project EMPIRE study of the 1960s, the Space Task Group plan of
the1970s, the Space Exploration Initiative in the 1990s, and the Vision for Space
Exploration in 2000s. For those looking to place boots on Mars, NASA seems to be
drifting in a Sargasso Sea of underfunded programs and policy revisions, never able
to chart its course for the New World.(von Braun 1952, NASA 1989).
3
1AC – Advantage – Get off the Rock
Contention II – Advantages
Advantage 1: Human Extinction
Earth-based human extinction is inevitable. It’s literally try to get off the rock or die
One: Solar expansion will inevitably cause human extinction
Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D.1, Robert Staretz, M.S., October-November, 2010, Journal of

Cosmology, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html. Mitchel is the Apollo 14 Lunar module
pilot. Sixth person to walk on the Moon. DOA: 1/11/11 “Our Destiny – A Space Faring Civilization?”
There are many other reasons to travel to other worlds and beyond besides the urge to
explore the unknown. One is the obvious long term motivation to become an inter-stellar
space faring civilization. At some point in the distant future we will have no choice but to
leave our home world. Our sun, already a middle aged star, is powered by fusing
hydrogen in the nuclear inferno at its core. As the remaining fuel is consumed, the sun
will continue to expand in size and with it the intensity of the radiation increasing at
the planets. Already the sun’s output is 15% greater than it was a few billion years
ago and eventually it will destroy all life on the planet. The long term prognosis is that
the sun will expand to such a large degree that in due course it will cause our oceans
to boil away into the vacuum of space leaving an uninhabitable desert wasteland
behind.
Two: Ecological overshoot makes human extinction inevitable if we stay on the planet

More immediate concerns for inter-planetary travel but perhaps less well known by most
of humanity are the issues associated with insuring a sustainable future for our
civilization. Much of our planet’s non renewable resources such as ores and precious
metals will not last forever especially with our already large and exponentially
growing population. Mining and refining these ores in space for shipment to Earth
will be necessary within short order if we are to maintain and broaden our current
standard of living on the planet. Establishment of space colonies will also teach us much
about sustainability issues and many will have direct applicability to the future of Earth.
Until now our planet has had a thriving ecosystem because nature has long ago
evolved and fine tuned Earth’s biogeochemical processes to maintain its long term
stability. That stability is now being threatened by our own doing.
4
1AC – Advantage – Competitiveness
Advantage 2 – International Competitiveness
The U.S. is falling behind in the global competitiveness race-peer competitors are making
massive gains with the U.S. suffers critical Science & Technology human capital shortages
Towsend, Kerrick and Turpen 9 [Frances Fragos Townsend, Co-Chair, Former Assistant to
President Bush for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Donald Kerrick,
Co-Chair Former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Clinton, Elizabeth Turpen,
Ph.D., Project Director, Senior Associate, The Henry L. Stimson Center and Task Force
“Leveraging Science for Security: A Strategy for the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories in the 21st
Century” Stimson Center: March 2009]
Among the dominant challenges confronting the nation in the 21 century is the decline of the
United States’ leadership role in science and technology – termed a “quiet crisis” by journalist
and commentator Thomas Friedman. In the past few years, the United States has been slipping
precipitously from its long-dominant position in an increasingly global and competitive S&T
enterprise. Countries like China and India have made significant gains in technology innovation
and in attracting high-technology and e- commerce opportunities. These governments are
making substantial investments to build up their technical education systems and attract talent to
their countries. In addition, they have focused heavily on their national research and
development (R&D) infrastructures by paying special attention to harvesting their domestic S&T
knowledge and talent base within research institutes and universities and by prioritizing their
respective engineering, manufacturing, and Information Technology (IT) industries.2 The rise
in global S&T competence sharply contrasts with the accelerating – and parallel – decline of the
United States’ comparative advantage in knowledge discovery and innovation. Although
according to all indices, the US still maintains the strongest innovation system in the world, that
lead is expected to shrink dramatically by 2015, particularly when compared to the developing
economies of China and India. Both governments have prioritized the enhancement of their
R&D capabilities and have gone to great lengths to establish comprehensive, government-
sponsored supportive frameworks. Indeed, by 2015, this component – at just 70% of what is
considered optimal for any country – will be the weakest link in the US innovation system.3
Similarly, in the area of human capital, the US is expected to witness the erosion of its pre-
eminence. A recent government-commissioned study predicts a mere 2% improvement US S&T
talent, with China and India benefiting from a rise of 19% and 15% respectively.4 Such trends
extend beyond the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) economies to include many countries
in the developing world.
5
Competitiveness is the key internal link to U.S. primacy-gains in S&T leadership are
necessary to stave off rising hegemonic challenges
Adam Segal, Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign
Relations and the author of Digital Dragon: High Technology Enterprises in China, December
2004 (Is America Losing its Edge?, CFR, Foreign Affairs)
The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies
and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and
technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military
power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal
computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this
technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is
coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and
development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel,
Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of
future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by
scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly
becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing,
supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South
Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and
telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced
technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors,
aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical
dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable
pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts
both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to
it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it
can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be
easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering
technological entrepreneurship at home.
6
And, the international balance of power is on the brink of transition-now is a key time to
secure US dominance
Rebecca Grant, UPI, 18 March 2009 (Russia, China preparing new challenges to the United
States, http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2009/03/18/Russia-China-
preparing-new-challenges-to-the-United-States/UPI-65681237385842/)
The balance in international military power may be shifting again. In the last two years, Russia,
India and China have all announced or clarified major defense programs that include everything
from the development of advanced fighters to upgrading aircraft carriers. It turns out that
adversaries took careful note of the way the United States and its allies used air dominance in all
its operations. They reshaped their defense plans to make inroads on that asymmetric advantage.
They are building advanced missiles, aircraft and subsystems, and there's also a world market for
their best wares. For all these reasons, conventional deterrence is moving up the list of jobs
for America's military. Adm. Michael Mullen, the current chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of
Staff, said, "A big part of credibility, of course, lies in our conventional capability. The
capability to project U.S. military power globally and conduct effective theater-level
operations across the domains of land, sea, air, space, cyberspace and information -- including
the capability to win decisively -- remains essential to deterrence effectiveness. We must
therefore address our conventional force structure and its readiness as a deterrent factor,
especially after seven years at war." Mullen wrote that analysis in his article "From the
Chairman: It's Time for a New Deterrence Model," in the fall 2008 issue of Joint Force Quarterly.
No one is suggesting that deterrence in this multipolar world will be the same as the Cold War.
Far from it. For one thing, the United States will not have the same economic dominance it once
enjoyed. The U.S. economy will still probably be the biggest for a time, but economic and
financial peers are already on the scene. Some forecast that China's economy may grow fast
enough to overtake the United States at some point in the coming century. With China and other
nations, military deterrence will be one part of a much wider relationship encompassing trade
agreements, financial deals, diplomacy and yes, other competition for global influence as China
navigates its "peaceful rise." Instead of spies and the Berlin Wall, the deterrence of the 21st
century will include gala state dinners, toasts with strong liquor and a shifting series of
international consortia and negotiations on everything from trade to climate change. However,
low-level military friction is likely to be a constant. Russia will be active on its borders, and
China will continue to build global ties. Expect the spheres of influence of the major world
powers to collide from time to time. Conventional deterrence will have a big role in shaping
those collisions.
7
The impact is a global power vacuum that causes great power wars
Robert Knowles 2009, Assistant Professor – New York University School of Law, AMERICAN
HEGEMONY AND THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS CONSTITUTION, Arizona State Law Journal,
Vol. 41, 2009
First, the "hybrid" hegemonic model assumes that the goal of U.S. foreign affairs should be the
preservation of American hegemony, which is more stable, more peaceful, and better for
America's security and prosperity, than the alternatives. If the United States were to withdraw
from its global leadership role, no other nation would be capable of taking its place. n378 The
result would be radical instability and a greater risk of major war. n379 In addition, the United
States would no longer benefit from the public goods it had formerly produced; as the largest
consumer, it would suffer the most.
8
And, these wars go nuclear-we control magnitude and probability-every conflict is

inevitable and escalates
Robert Kagan, Senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Senior
transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, August and September 2007 (End of Dreams,
Return of History, Policy Review,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.htm)
This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively benign international configuration of power. The unipolar order with the
United States as the predominant power is unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. It inspires fears and jealousies. The United States is not immune to error, like all other nations, and
because of its size and importance in the international system those errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations. Compared to the
ideal Kantian international order, in which all the world 's powers would be peace-loving equals, conducting themselves wisely,
prudently, and in strict obeisance to international law, the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. Compared to any
plausible alternative in the real world, however, it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major
war between great powers. It is also comparatively benevolent, from a liberal perspective, for it is more conducive to the principles
of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many others value. American predominance does not stand in the way of
progress toward a better world, therefore. It stands in the way of regression toward a more dangerous world. The
choice is not between an American-dominated order and a world that looks like the European Union. The future international order
will be shaped by those who have the power to shape it. The leaders of a post-American world
will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington. The return of great powers and great games If the world is
marked by the persistence of unipolarity, it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time
immemorial. During the Cold War, this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for wealth and power was largely suppressed by the two
superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not been powerful enough, and probably could never be powerful enough, to suppress by itself the
normal ambitions of nations. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity, since none of the large powers is in range of competing with the superpower for global influence.
large powers are now competing for regional predominance, both with the United
Nevertheless, several
States and with each other. National ambition drives China's foreign policy today, and although it is tempered by prudence and the
desire to appear as unthreatening as possible to the rest of the world, the Chinese are powerfully motivated to return
their nation to what they regard as its traditional position as the preeminent power in East Asia.
They do not share a European, postmodern view that power is passé; hence their now two-decades-long military buildup and modernization. Like the Americans, they believe power, including
military power, is a good thing to have and that it is better to have more of it than less. Perhaps more significant is the Chinese perception, also shared by Americans, that status and honor, and not
just wealth and security, are important for a nation. Japan, meanwhile, which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring postmodern power -- with
its pacifist constitution and low defense spending -- now appears embarked on a more traditional national course.
Partly this is in reaction to the rising power of China and concerns about North Korea 's nuclear weapons. But it is also driven by Japan's own national ambition to be a leader in East Asia or at
least not to play second fiddle or "little brother" to China. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest with each trying to augment its own status and power and to prevent the other 's rise to
predominance, and this competition has a military and strategic as well as an economic and political component. Their competition is such that a nation like South Korea, with a long unhappy
history as a pawn between the two powers, is once again worrying both about a "greater China" and about the return of Japanese nationalism. As Aaron Friedberg commented, the East Asian
Russian foreign policy, too, looks more like something

future looks more like Europe's past than its present. But it also looks like Asia's past.
from the nineteenth century. It is being driven by a typical, and typically Russian, blend of national resentment and ambition. A postmodern Russia simply seeking
integration into the new European order, the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev, would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO, would not insist on predominant influence over
its "near abroad," and would not use its natural resources as means of gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia 's international status in an attempt to regain the lost glories of the Soviet
empire and Peter the Great. But Russia, like China and Japan, is moved by more traditional great-power considerations, including the pursuit of those valuable if intangible national interests:
honor and respect. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their security from NATO and the United States, the Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and
national identity than with plausible external military threats. 16 Russia's complaint today is not with this or that weapons system. It is the entire post-Cold War settlement of the 1990s that Russia
resents and wants to revise. But that does not make insecurity less a factor in Russia 's relations with the world; indeed, it makes finding compromise with the Russians all the more difficult. One
could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. India 's regional ambitions are more muted, or are focused most intently on Pakistan, but it is
clearly engaged in competition with China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees itself, correctly, as an emerging great power on the world scene. In the Middle East there is Iran, which
mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership in its region. 17 Its nuclear program is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian
territory from attack by the United States. Even the European Union, in its way, expresses a pan-European national ambition to play a significant role in the world, and it has become the vehicle
for channeling German, French, and British ambitions in what Europeans regard as a safe supranational direction. Europeans seek honor and respect, too, but of a postmodern variety. The honor
they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the world, to exercise moral authority, to wield political and economic influence as an antidote to militarism, to be the keeper of the global
conscience, and to be recognized and admired by others for playing this role. Islam is not a nation, but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism, and the leaders of radical Islam,
including al Qaeda, do seek to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass a wide swath of the Middle East and beyond. Like national movements elsewhere,
Islamists have a yearning for respect, including self-respect, and a desire for honor. Their national identity has been molded in defiance against stronger and often oppressive outside powers, and
also by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers. China had its "century of humiliation." Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on, a humiliation of which
Israel has become the living symbol, which is partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even their support to violent extremists who can turn
the tables on the dominant liberal West, and particularly on a dominant America which implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in their midst. Finally, there is the United States itself. As a
matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in
East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War,
beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle
East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and
Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern
power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as "No. 1" and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for
practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and
The jostling for status and influence

claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe.
among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new
post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is
international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from
9
intensifying -- its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish
its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would
settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation
but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar
world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less
likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in
providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant
naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly
allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials
such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely
multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their
own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as
well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the
world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American
power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe ’s
the United States could step in to check any dangerous

stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that
development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without
renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present
American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American
power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in
International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped
place. But that ’s not the way it works.
by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of
the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with
different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it
would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no
War could
guarantee against major conflict among the world ’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt.
erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt
between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or
suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does
conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great
powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States
pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of
regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has
a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to
supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious,
independent, nationalist Japan. In
Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it
remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an
even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem
to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to
the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet
communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in
time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in
turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle
East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open
to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-
handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became
threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region,
In the Middle East,

both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation .
competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic
fundamentalism doesn ’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The
alternative to
American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states
within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external
influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18
And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful
that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn ’t changed that
much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back
10
in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is
likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the
future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.
11
1AC – Plan
The United States Federal government should provide necessary support for the
colonization of Mars.
12
1AC -- Solvency
US should launch a mission to Mars to explore outer space
Robert Zubrin, austronautlical engineer, PHd, President of the Mars Society, Journal of Cosmology,
October-November 2010, Human Mars Exploration: The Time Is Now,
http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html, DOA: 1/11/11
1. The Time Has Come

The time has come for America to set itself a bold new goal in space. The recent
celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the Apollo Moon landings have reminded us of
what we as a nation were once able to accomplish, and by so doing have put the question to
us: are we still a nation of pioneers? Do we choose to make the efforts required to continue
to be the vanguard of human progress, a people of the future; or will we allow ourselves to
be a people of the past, one whose accomplishments are celebrated not in newspapers, but
in museums? There can be no progress without a goal. The American space program,
begun so brilliantly with Apollo and its associated programs, has spent most of the
subsequent four decades without a central goal. We need such an overriding goal to
drive our space program forward (Zubrin 1997). At this point of history, that goal can
only be the human exploration and settlement of Mars (Mitchell & Staretz, 2010;
Schmitt 2010; Schulze-Makuch & Davies 2010).
Some have said that a human mission to Mars is a venture for the far future, a task for “the
next generation.” Such a point of view has no basis in fact (Zubrin 1997). On the contrary,
the United States has in hand, today, all the technologies required for undertaking an
aggressive, continuing program of human Mars exploration, with the first piloted
mission reaching the Red Planet Mars within a decade. We do not need to build giant
spaceships embodying futuristic technologies in order to go to Mars. We can reach the
Red Planet with relatively small spacecraft launched directly to Mars by boosters
embodying the same technology that carried astronauts to the Moon more than a
quarter-century ago. The key to success comes from following a travel light and live off
the land strategy that has well-served explorers over the centuries humanity has wandered
and searched the globe. A plan that approaches human missions to the Red Planet in
this way is known as the “Mars Direct” approach. Here’s how it would work.
2. The Mission
At an early launch opportunity, for example 2018, a single heavy lift booster with a
capability equal to that of the Saturn V used during the Apollo program is launched
off Cape Canaveral and uses its upper stage to throw a 40 tonne unmanned payload
onto a trajectory to Mars. Arriving at Mars 8 months later, it uses friction between its
aeroshield and Mars' atmosphere to brake itself into orbit around Mars, and then
lands with the help of a parachute (Zubrin 1997). This payload is the Earth Return
Vehicle (ERV), and it flies out to Mars with its two methane/oxygen driven rocket
propulsion stages unfueled. It also has with it 6 tonnes of liquid hydrogen cargo, a 100
kilowatt nuclear reactor mounted in the back of a methane/oxygen driven light truck, a
small set of compressors and automated chemical processing unit, and a few small
scientific rovers.
As soon as landing is accomplished, the truck is telerobotically driven a few hundred
meters away from the site, and the reactor is deployed to provide power to the
compressors and chemical processing unit. The hydrogen brought from Earth can be
quickly reacted with the Martian atmosphere, which is 95% carbon dioxide gas
(CO2), to produce methane and water, and this eliminates the need for long term
13
storage of cryogenic hydrogen on the planet's surface. The methane so produced is
liquefied and stored, while the water is electrolyzed to produce oxygen, which is stored,
and hydrogen, which is recycled through the methanator. Ultimately these two reactions
(methanation and water electrolysis) produce 24 tonnes of methane and 48 tonnes of
oxygen. Since this is not enough oxygen to burn the methane at its optimal mixture ratio,
an additional 36 tonnes of oxygen is produced via direct dissociation of Martian CO2. The
entire process takes 10 months, at the conclusion of which a total of 108 tonnes of
methane/oxygen bipropellant will have been generated. This represents a leverage of 18:1
of Martian propellant produced compared to the hydrogen brought from Earth needed to
create it. Ninety-six tonnes of the bipropellant will be used to fuel the ERV, while 12
tonnes are available to support the use of high powered chemically fueled long range
ground vehicles. Large additional stockpiles of oxygen can also be produced, both for
breathing and for turning into water by combination with hydrogen brought from Earth.
Since water is 89% oxygen (by weight), and since the larger part of most foodstuffs is
water, this greatly reduces the amount of life support consumables that need to be hauled
from Earth.
The propellant production having been successfully completed, in 2020 two more boosters
lift off the Cape and throw their 40 tonne payloads towards Mars. One of the payloads is an
unmanned fuel-factory/ERV just like the one launched in 2018, the other is a habitation
module containing a crew of 4, a mixture of whole food and dehydrated provisions
sufficient for 3 years, and a pressurized methane/oxygen driven ground rover. On the way
out to Mars, artificial gravity can be provided to the crew by extending a tether between the
habitat and the burnt out booster upper stage, and spinning the assembly. Upon arrival, the
manned craft drops the tether, aero-brakes, and then lands at the 2018 landing site where a
fully fueled ERV and fully characterized and beaconed landing site await it. With the help
of such navigational aids, the crew should be able to land right on the spot; but if the
landing is off course by tens or even hundreds of kilometers, the crew can still achieve the
surface rendezvous by driving over in their rover; if they are off by thousands of
kilometers, the second ERV provides a backup. However assuming the landing and
rendezvous at site number 1 is achieved as planned, the second ERV will land several
hundred kilometers away to start making propellant for the 2020 mission, which in turn
will fly out with an additional ERV to open up Mars landing site number 3. Thus every
other year 2 heavy lift boosters are launched, one to land a crew, and the other to
prepare a site for the next mission, for an average launch rate of just 1 booster per
year to pursue a continuing program of Mars exploration. This is only about 15% of
the rate that the U.S. currently launches Space Shuttles, and is clearly affordable. In
effect, this dogsled approach removes the manned Mars mission from the realm of
mega-fantasy and reduces it to practice as a task of comparable difficulty to that faced in
launching the Apollo missions to the Moon (Zubrin 1997).
The crew will stay on the surface for 1.5 years, taking advantage of the mobility
afforded by the high powered chemically driven ground vehicles to accomplish a great
deal of surface exploration. With an 12 tonne surface fuel stockpile, they have the
capability for over 24,000 kilometers worth of traverse before they leave, giving them the
kind of mobility necessary to conduct a serious search for evidence of past or present life
on Mars - an investigation key to revealing whether life is a phenomenon unique to Earth or
general throughout the universe. Since no-one has been left in orbit, the entire crew will
have available to them the natural gravity and protection against cosmic rays and solar
radiation afforded by the Martian environment, and thus there will not be the strong driver
14
for a quick return to Earth that plagues conventional Mars mission plans based upon
orbiting mother-ships with small landing parties. At the conclusion of their stay, the crew
returns to Earth in a direct flight from the Martian surface in the ERV. As the series of
missions progresses, a string of small bases is left behind on the Martian surface, opening
up broad stretches of territory to human cognizance.
3. We Can Afford It
Such is the basic Mars Direct plan. In 1990, when it was first put forward, it was viewed as
too radical for NASA to consider seriously, but over the next several years with the
encouragement of then NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration Mike Griffin, the
group at Johnson Space Center in charge of designing human Mars missions decided to
take a good hard look at it. They produced a detailed study of a Design Reference Mission
based on the Mars Direct plan but scaled up about a factor of 2 in expedition size compared
to the original concept. They then produced a cost estimate for what a Mars exploration
program based upon this expanded Mars Direct would cost. Their result; $50 billion, with
the estimate produced by the same costing group that assigned a $400 billion price tag to
the traditional cumbersome approach to human Mars exploration embodied in NASA's
1989 "90 Day Report." I believe that with further discipline applied to the mission design,
the program cost could be brought down to the $30 to $40 billion range. Spent over
ten years, this would imply an annual expenditure on the order of 20% of NASA’s
budget, or about half a percent of the US military budget. It is a small price to pay for a
new world.
4. Killing the Dragons
Opponents of human Mars exploration frequently cite several issues which they claim
make such missions to dangerous to be considered at this time. Like the dragons that use to
mar the maps medieval cartographers, these concerns have served to deter many who
otherwise might be willing to enterprise the exploration of the unknown. It is therefore
fitting to briefly address them here.
4.1. Radiation: It is alleged by some that the radiation doses involved in a Mars mission
present insuperable risks, or are not well understood. This is untrue. Solar flare
radiation, consisting of protons with energies of about 1 MeV, can be shielded by 12
cm of water or provisions, and there will be enough of such materials on board the
ship to build an adequate pantry storm shelter for use in such an event. The residual
cosmic ray dose, about 50 Rem for the 2.5 year mission, represents a statistical cancer risk
of about 1%, roughly the same as that which would be induced by an average smoking
habit over the same period.
4.2. Zero Gravity: Cosmonauts have experienced marked physiological deterioration
after extended exposure to zero gravity. However a Mars mission can be flown
employing artificial gravity generated by rotating the spacecraft. The engineering
challenges associated with designing either rigid or tethered artificial gravity systems are
modest, and make the entire issue of zero-gravity health effects on interplanetary missions
moot.
4.3. Back Contamination: Recently some people have raised the issue of possible back-
contamination as a reason to shun human (or robotic sample return) missions to
Mars. Such fears have no basis in science. The surface of Mars is too cold for liquid
water, is exposed to near vacuum, ultra violet, and cosmic radiation, and contains an
antiseptic mixture of peroxides that have eliminated any trace of organic material. It
is thus as sterile an environment as one could ask for. Furthermore, pathogens are
specifically adapted to their hosts. Thus, while there may be life on Mars deep
15
underground, it is quite unlikely that these could be pathogenic to terrestrial plants or
animals, as there are no similar macrofauna or macroflora to support a pathogenic life cycle
in Martian subsurface groundwater. In any case, the Earth currently receives about 500 kg
of Martian meteoritic ejecta per year. The trauma that this material has gone through during
its ejection from Mars, interplanetary cruise, and re-entry at Earth is insufficient to have
sterilized it, as has been demonstrated experimentally and in space studies on the viability
of microorganisms following ejection and reentry (Burchell et al. 2004; Burchella et al.
2001; Horneck et al. 1994, 1995, 2001, Horneck et al. 1993; Mastrapaa et al. 2001;
Nicholson et al. 2000). So if there is the Red Death on Mars, we’ve already got it. Those
concerned with public health would do much better to address their attentions to Africa.
4.4. Human Factors: In popular media, it is frequently claimed that the isolation and stress
associated with a 2.5 year round-trip Mars mission present insuperable difficulties. Upon
consideration, there is little reason to believe that this is true. Compared to the stresses dealt
with by previous generations of explorers and mariners, soldiers in combat, prisoners in
prisons, refugees in hiding, and millions of other randomly selected people, those that will
be faced by the hand-picked crew of Mars 1 seem modest. Certainly psychological factors
are important (Bishop 2010; Fielder & Harrison, 2010; Harrison & Fielder 2010; Suedfeld
2010). However, any serious reading of previous history indicates that far from being the
weak link in the chain of the piloted Mars mission, the human psyche is likely to be the
strongest link in the chain as Apollo astronauts have testified (Mitchell & Staretz 2010;
Schmitt 2010).
4.5. Dust Storms: Mars has intermittent local, and occasionally global dust storms with
wind speeds up to 100 km/hour. Attempting to land through such an event would be a bad
idea, and two Soviet probes committed to such a maelstrom by their uncontrollable flight
systems were destroyed during landing in 1971. However, once on the ground, Martian
dust storms present little hazard. Mars’ atmosphere has only about 1% the density of
Earth at sea-level. Thus a wind with a speed of 100 km/hr on Mars only exerts the same
dynamic pressure as a 10 km/hr breeze on Earth. The Viking landers endured many such
events without damage.
Humans are more than a match for Mars’ dragons.
5. Why Do It? But why do it? There are three reasons.
Reason 1: For the Knowledge. During the summer of 1996, NASA scientists revealed a
rock ejected from Mars by meteoric impact which showed strong evidence of life on
Mars in the distant past (McKay et al., 1996). If this discovery could be confirmed by
actual finds of fossils on the Martian surface, it would show that the origin of life is
not unique to the Earth, and thus by implication reveal a universe that is filled with
life and probably intelligence as well. From the point of view of humanity learning its
true place in the universe, this would be the most important scientific enlightenment
since Copernicus.
Robotic probes can help out in such a search, but by themselves are completely insufficient
(Drake, 2010; Gage 2010; Schmitt 2010). Fossil hunting requires the ability to travel long
distances through unimproved terrain, to climb steep slopes, to do heavy work and delicate
work, and to exercise very subtle forms of perception and on-the-spot intuition. All of these
skills are far beyond the abilities of robotic rovers. Geology and field paleontology requires
human explorers, real live rockhounds on the scene (Schmitt 2010). Drilling to reach
subsurface hydrothermal environments where extant Martian life may yet thrive will
clearly require human explorers as well. Put simply, as far as the question of Martian life is
concerned, if we don’t go, we won’t know.
16
Reason # 2: For the Challenge. Nations, like people, thrive on challenge and decay
without it. The space program itself needs challenge. Consider: Between 1961 and 1973,
under the impetus of the Moon race, NASA produced a rate of technological innovation
several orders of magnitude greater than that it has shown since, for an average budget in
real dollars virtually the same as that today ($19 billion in 2010 dollars). Why? Because it
had a goal that made its reach exceed its grasp. It is not necessary to develop anything new
if you are not doing anything new. Far from being a waste of money, forcing NASA to take
on the challenge of Mars is the key to giving the nation a real technological return for its
space dollar.
A humans-to-Mars program would also be an challenge to adventure to every child in the
country: "Learn your science and you can become part of pioneering a new world." There
will be over 100 million kids in our nation's schools over the next ten years. If a Mars
program were to inspire just an extra 1% of them to scientific educations, the net result
would be 1 million more scientists, engineers, inventors, medical researchers and doctors,
making innovations that create new industries, finding new medical cures, strengthening
national defense, and increasing national income to an extent that dwarfs the expenditures
of the Mars program.
Reason # 3: For the Future: Mars is not just a scientific curiosity, it is a world with a
surface area equal to all the continents of Earth combined, possessing all the elements
that are needed to support not only life, but technological civilization. As hostile as it
may seem, the only thing standing between Mars and habitability is the need to
develop a certain amount of Red Planet know-how. This can and will be done by those
who go there first to explore.
Mars is the New World. Someday millions of people will live there. What language will
they speak? What values and traditions will they cherish, to spread from there as humanity
continues to move out into the solar system and beyond? When they look back on our time,
will any of our other actions compare in value to what we do today to bring their society
into being?
Today, we have the opportunity to be the founders, the parents and shapers of a new and
dynamic branch of the human family, and by so doing, put our stamp upon the future. It is a
privilege not to be disdained lightly.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, the point needs to be made again. We are ready to go to Mars. Despite
whatever issues that remain, the fundamental fact is that we are much better
prepared today to send humans to Mars than we were to send people to the Moon in
1961, when John F. Kennedy initiated the Apollo program. Exploring Mars requires no
miraculous new technologies, no orbiting spaceports, and no gigantic interplanetary
space cruisers (Zubrin 1997). We can establish our first outpost on Mars within a
decade. We and not some future generation can have the eternal honor of being the
first pioneers of this new world for humanity. All that's needed is present-day
technology, some 19th century industrial chemistry, some political vision, and a little bit of
moxie.
17
1AC -- Solvency
Learning to live off the rock will provide critical lessons in ecological sustainability that are
needed prevent ecological overshoot on earth

The visionary Buckminister Fuller often referred to our planet as “Spaceship Earth”. It was
his firm belief that we must all work together as a crew of Spaceship Earth if we are to
survive let alone continue to thrive upon it, along with all other living creatures that share
our beautiful planet. The available evidence suggests that global population growth
fueled by our modern technologies of the last 100 years have created an unsustainable
trajectory for all life on the planet. Our unprecedented consumption of nonrenewable
resources and increasingly strong indications of run-away climate change have been
greatly exacerbated by human activity of the last century. Together these factors
suggest that we may soon be facing our first mass extinction event due to human
activities. All previous extinction events have resulted from natural causes such as
large meteor impacts or super-volcanic eruptions. Are we about to experience one due
to our own inattention and misperceptions of how nature has maintained Earth’s
environment over its entire history by our propensity to interrupt her natural processes on a
massive scale?
Exploiting resources of the solar system, creating colonies in space, exploration of other
planets, establishing colonies on them and eventually travel to other star systems offers
us many lessons for a sustainable Earth although initially on a much smaller scale. Of
necessity space colonies will have to be mostly self sufficient because of the vast distances
from Earth. Aside from the long travel times to reach these remote outposts, the associated
costs of shipping supplies and replacements parts will be prohibitively expensive. Our
space colonies will be forced to live as close to self sufficiency as possible by utilizing
local resources whenever practical. They will also have to make extensive use of
recycling, reusing discarded materials and reducing consumption on a scale that has
here-to-for been unprecedented. In a very real sense, space colonies will have to
emulate consciously what nature has been doing for billions of years on Earth.
Because of vested interests, short sightedness or personal short term gain all at the expense
of long term sustainability, our politicians, many of our leaders and most of our citizenry
have ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented the magnitude and nature of the issues
facing our civilization for far too long. Perhaps even most pressing is our propensity to
resolve our differences by violent rather than by peaceful means. Our technologies are now
so powerful that not only do they enable us to explore the solar system but they are the very
same ones that may lead to our demise if used to promote the goals of one group at the
expense of others. Clearly before we can truly call ourselves a space faring civilization we
must put aside these petty differences that are often driven by intolerance, greed, the need
for power or the need for control that divide us.
Five hundred years ago Christopher Columbus convinced Queen Isabel and King Fernando
of Spain to fund a voyage to find an alternate route to India. Imagine the courage it took to
make that journey. Even though most scholars at the time knew that the world was
spherical, the consensus view of humanity was still that of a flat Earth. Casting aside those
concerns of his crew, Columbus was aware that the trip would likely to be fraught with
18
many unknown and unforeseen dangers. There was also the problem of estimating the
duration of the trip and determining the provisions required to sustain the expedition on
their journey. As the days stretched into weeks and the weeks into months, the mutinous
clamor of the crew increased daily. Finally after 2 1/2 months that eventful journey finally
sighted land and what followed became our history. Unfortunately for Columbus he never
reached India, but instead opened up a whole new world that happened to be in the way.
If we can get beyond the issues described above and some day land on that first foreign
planet, surely whole new worlds will open up for us just as they did for those early
European explorers. At that point we will finally be ready to assume our destiny as a space
faring civilization. We will go not as citizens of the United States, the United Kingdom,
China, Russia or any of the other 195 or so countries of this planet but instead as citizens of
planet Earth. We will go with a common vision and mission for the betterment of all
mankind. No other activity will unite the citizens of the world in a nobler endeavor. After
early exploratory missions, our first objective should be a permanent colony on the
moon and our second will most likely the establishment of one on Mars. The first
manned colonies on both will be far more expensive and far more perilous than Columbus
or his crews could have ever imagined. Columbus’ journey was financed by the court of
Spain. Permanent colonies beyond Earth will be far too expensive for even the richest
nations on Earth. They will likely be funded of necessity by a consortium of nations
representing all of mankind. Our explorations and colonization will be full of challenges,
fraught with dangers, but filled with incredible and unforeseen rewards and benefits to us
all and to our progeny for many generations to come.
Mars exploration solves extinction

Owens and Fitzpatrick ‘6 Mars Science and Exploration Working Group.
ngec.arc.nasa.gov/files/ngec_proceedings/working_groups/MarsScienceWGreport.pdf
Earth is currently challenged environmentally, socio-economically, and by the potential

threat of a large asteroid impact. Each of these challenges could threaten the survivability
of humanity. Human habitation of Mars would decrease the probability of extinction of our
species, and promote and encourage the further spreading of humanity’s seed beyond its
cradle.
19
1AC – Solvency
The US must revitalize its space industry in order to maintain international competitiveness
PR Web, July 21, 2010, US Space Competitiveness Erodes,

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/press/space-competitiveness-index-trends,1391440.html DA:
1/12/11
Bethesda MD (PRWEB) July 21, 2010 -- This week marks the 41st anniversary of the
Apollo 11 mission, the culmination of a space race between the United States and the
Soviet Union, the two dominant space powers of that era. By contrast, the United States
today is one of many spacefaring nations;a fact recognized by the new U.S. National
Space Policy, which places a greater emphasis on international cooperation. Understanding
the capabilities of the many countries now active in space is essential to an effective
implementation of such a policy. The recently-released third edition of Futron's Space
Competitiveness Index: A Comparative Analysis of How Countries Invest in and Benefit
from Space Industry is a tool that can help policymakers, executives, analysts, and others
compare the strengths and weaknesses of major space-participant nations.
The 2010 results show that even as countries continue to collaborate in space,
competition is growing more intense, observes Futron Chief Operating Officer Peggy
Slye. �Dominant actors are increasingly challenged by a second and third tier of space
leaders, and the competitive gaps among all nations are narrowing.�
2010 Competitiveness Trends Among Ten Leading Nations
United States The U.S. remains the clear global leader, but the county's position has
eroded in each of the past three years. The formulation of a new national space policy
is a step in the right direction, but as Futron CEO Joe Fuller notes, �To retain its
leadership position, the U.S. must leverage its secret space weapon -- American
industry and align it with strategy, policy, and budget.
Russia In 2010, Russia was a clear winner, based on the doubling of its space budget and
renewed focus on monetizing national space investment. NASA and the U.S. government
could learn a lot from Russia, says Jonathan Beland, a Futron analyst specializing in the
region. Russia has become partner of choice for space agencies around the work seeking to
develop new capacity. From South Korea to China, from private enterprise to governments,
Russia is capitalizing on its space investments and developing long-term relationships with
emerging powers.
Europe European competitiveness continues to rise as the continent solidifies regional
policy and institutions. Europe's strength lies in its willingness and ability to foster
partnerships, both within the continent and outside of it, notes Futron Senior Program
Manager Cathy De Peuter. However, while government support for European industry has
created strong global competitors, concentration within the sector can limit the innovation
and entrepreneurialism associated with emerging NewSpace opportunities.
Japan Japan continues to realize competitiveness gains as it implements its
comprehensive Basic Space Law, which provides a new military dimension to Japanese
space activity and creates an executive-level space office, the Strategic Headquarters for
Space Activity (SHSP). �Beginning with the reorganization the Japanese space agency in
2003 and ending with the Basic Space Law, this first decade of the 21st century has shown
Japan's clear re-commitment to space at the national decision-making level,� says Futron
Senior Analyst David Vaccaro. �Going forward, it will be important for Japan to reflect
this renewed space engagement at home in its many space partnerships abroad.�
20
China China remains a leading space actor, but the country has recently experienced
slight declines in relative competitiveness due lower launch tempos this past year and
limited commercial space activity. Over the past decade, China has arguably gone
further, faster than any other spacefaring country, notes Vaccaro. But its future
international competitiveness will be more reliant on China establishing an international
commercial space footprint.�
India India's space program continues to mature by incrementally developing new
organizational and technical capability. While 70% of its space program targets societal
benefits mostly communications and Earth observation, the country's exploration program
is fast emerging, including its first dedicated astronomy satellite, Astrosat, and the Indian
military is also investing. As Futron Senior Program Manager Jay Gullish puts it, India has
world-class aspirations for its space program, and the Indian space workforce is
underpinned by a strong belief in hard work and determination. It is clear India is emerging
as a major collaborative space power, but arriving at that goal will be based on the
achievement of steadily escalating technology milestones.
Canada Canada's nuanced approach balances domestic and international space programs,
priorities, and partnerships to yield key competitiveness advantages. According to Gullish,
Canada punches above its weight. Given the country's limited investment, its leaders have
selectively targeted key relationships and technologies that maximize economic and
commercial benefits. Canada provides an important model for emerging space nations to
study as they craft their own policies.
Israel Israel continues to play important niche roles in the optical equipment and small
satellite markets, but lacks a global commercial presence and is inhibited by a lack of clear
government commitment to its national space program. Critical ties to its defense and
military industries, however, provide import commercial synergies. �At the end of the
day, Israel is focused on tactical military space applications, and has been highly effective
in developing critical and innovative technologies such as TecSAR,� notes Gullish. �But
as more players engage in the space sector, maintaining a technological edge will become
more difficult. Absent civilian space investment and sizeable commercial contracts, Israel
is in a precarious position�and it should therefore consider more sustainable approaches
for its space program.�
South Korea South Korea's high visible investment in launch vehicle and spaceport
development has not yet paid competitiveness dividends the country had hoped, as South
Korea lost ground in an increasingly crowded field. Despite launch setbacks, South Korean
policymakers remain committed to developing a domestic space industry and increasing
national technology readiness levels. As Futron Analyst Ian Christensen notes, �On the
one hand, South Korea appears poised to advance as elements of its national space program
come together; on the other hand, one wonders whether South Korea's focus on its launcher
program has detracted from other aspects of its space infrastructure, such as its successful
commitment to Earth observation systems.
21
1AC - Solvency
Working to establish contact with extratrerrestrial civilizations can create a new

consciousness that will prevent human extinction and solve every impact they read

States of consciousness have been studied for centuries by Tibetan Buddhist monks.
The most profound state they refer to is known as Nirvikalpa Samadhi. It is a level of
the highest spiritual attainment and evolution, the state of deep undifferentiated
awareness in which there is only the Self within a transcendent observing entity.
There are no thoughts or objects in mind. It is a state beyond time and space. The Self
expands and merges into the entire field of mind so that pure awareness is all that
exists. After attaining this state one has complete understanding of cosmic wisdom and one
feels that he is in complete union with the Creative Source of all that is. At this point all
ordinary concerns and everything else become subordinate to this union and lose all
meaning. In this state unconditional love is the organizing principle of the universe.
We do not mean to imply that all highly advanced extraterrestrial civilizations have reached
such a state. Perhaps the oldest and most advanced have. It is likely that if their entire
civilization and all individuals comprising it had reached it, they likely would no
longer be interested with the Earthly concerns of humans on this little remote planet
in the backwaters of the Milky Way Galaxy.
It is more likely that for evolved self reflective beings throughout the cosmos, there is
a spectrum of consciousness that reaches from two extremes. On the left end of this
spectrum a state of consciousness exists with concern only for promoting the self,
accompanied with outright disdain or malevolence towards other living beings. On
the opposite end of such a spectrum perhaps is a state of consciousness similar to
Nirvikalpa Samadhi. On such a cosmic scale most humans would be placed to left of
center busily pursuing their own self interests where their use of technology has far
outpaced the values and ethics necessary to use them wisely. Our expectation is that
extra-terrestrial intelligences are shifted by varying degrees beyond human
civilization more to the right end of the spectrum. Hopefully as humanity takes its
place among space faring civilizations we will evolve more to the right as well. If
human history teaches us anything, failure to do so is no longer a viable option.
22
1AC – Solvency
A mission to Mars will restore US science and technology leadership
Bethany L. Ehlmann1,, 2002, Jeeshan Chowdhury2, R. Eric Collins3, Brandon DeKock4, F. Douglas Grant5,
Michael Hannon6, Stuart Ibsen7, Jessica Kinnevan8, Wendy Krauser9, Julie Litzenberger10, Timothy Marzullo11,
Rebekah Shepard12, All authors contributed equally to this work 1. Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Washington
University, St. Louis, MO 63130 (blehlman@artsci.wustl.edu) 2. School of Medicine, University of Alberta 3. School of Oceanography,
University of Washington. 4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Oklahoma 5. Department of Chemistry, University of
Mississippi 6. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Notre Dame 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns
Hopkins University 8. Department of Electrical Engineering, University of New Hampshire 9. Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Mercer University 10. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University 11. Department of Neuroscience, University
of Michigan 12. Department of Geology, Oberlin College, Humans to Mars: The Political Initiative and Technical
Expertise Needed for Human Exploration of the Red Planet http://www-
rsicc.ornl.gov/ANST_site/space.pdf. DA: 1/12/11
As the technological demands of the American lifestyle steadily increase, inspiration of the
next generation of scientists and engineers becomes critical. A human mission to Mars
has the unique ability to invigorate America’s future scientists and engineers. We are
not proposing a program that will replace any of our nation’s educational programs but one
that operates in tandem, adding an inspirational vision to supplement the efforts of teachers.
2.2 Boosting Economics: Human Exploration, Industry, and Commerce
The health of a nation’s economy and its competitiveness internationally is in part a
measure of national investment in research and development in science and
engineering. Although the United States has maintained a strong, if not leading, market
position in high technology since 1980, competitive pressures from a growing number
of nations contributed to a decline in America’s global market share for aerospace.
While U.S. share of the world aerospace market has dropped 15% since the 1980s, the
Chinese have increased their world aerospace shipments by nearly 80% (NSF, 2000). The
emergence of high technology industries in newly industrialized economies threatens
the current U.S. economic predominance in these industries.
NASA has devoted its facilities, labor force, and expertise to generating innovative
technologies that overcome the challenges of space and then sharing mission
technologies with the nation’s industries (NASA, 2001). These countless technologies
have successfully contributed to the growth of the U.S. economy, e.g. satellite
technology which today is an $85 billion industry that improves our daily lives
through a myriad of communication, navigation, and weather forecasting services
(Synthesis Group, 1991).
23
### Get Off the Rock Advantage Extensions ###
Get Off the Rock or Die
Have to get off the rock to avoid extinction

Houston Chronicle 10/19/2
With Apollo astronaut John Young leading the charge, top aerospace experts warned Friday that humanity's survival
may depend on how boldly the world's space agencies venture into the final frontier. Only a spacefaring culture with
the skills to travel among and settle planets can be assured of escaping a collision between Earth and a large asteroid
or devastation from the eruption of a super volcano, they told the World Space Congress. "Space exploration is the
key to the future of the human race," said Young, who strolled on the moon more than 30 years ago and now serves
as the associate director of NASA's Johnson Space Center. "We should be running scared to go out into the solar
system. We should be running fast." Scientists believe that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs more than 60
million years ago, and are gathering evidence of previously large collisions. "The civilization of Earth does not have
quite as much protection as we would like to believe," said Leonid Gorshkov, an exploration strategist with RSC
Energia, one of Russia's largest aerospace companies. "We should not place all of our eggs in one basket."
This is the biggest possible impact
Bostrom 3, www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html
However, the true lesson is a different one. If what we are concerned with is (something like) maximizing the
expected number of worthwhile lives that we will create, then in addition to the opportunity cost of delayed
colonization, we have to take into account the risk of failure to colonize at all. We might fall victim to an existential
risk, one where an adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life or permanently and
drastically curtail its potential.[8] Because the lifespan of galaxies is measured in billions of years, whereas the time-
scale of any delays that we could realistically affect would rather be measured in years or decades, the consideration
of risk trumps the consideration of opportunity cost. For example, a single percentage point of reduction of
existential risks would be worth (from a utilitarian expected utility point-of-view) a delay of over 10 million years.
Therefore, if our actions have even the slightest effect on the probability of eventual colonization, this will outweigh
their effect on when colonization takes place. For standard utilitarians, priority number one, two, three and four
should consequently be to reduce existential risk. The utilitarian imperative “Maximize expected aggregate utility!”
can be simplified to the maxim “Minimize existential risk!”.
24
### Competitiveness Advantage Extensions ###
25
Competitiveness Solvency
Only increased funding in this budget cycle will save Mars exploration, which is key to US
tech leadership and competitiveness
Braun, 2-5-2008, [www.marssociety.org/portal/mars-news-from-the-san-diego-
chapter/TMSSD_News_34372 David and Andrew Lewis Associate Professor of Space Technology Guggenheim
School of Aerospace Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology ]
For the past twenty years, I have been proud to be a part of the Mars exploration community. Whether part of a flight mission team, developing
mission and technology concepts, serving on a project review board, or simply watching with fascination as the secrets of this scientifically
compelling, Earth-like world have been uncovered, I am an unabashed supporter of NASA’s Mars exploration program. Paced by the robotic
exploration successes of the past few years, our country has completed the critical first steps of a truly phenomenal exploration adventure. In the
past decade, NASA’s robotic explorers have shown Mars to be a complex and dynamic world, provided intriguing evidence of present-day water
on Mars, and offered tantalizing clues regarding the potential that Mars could once have harbored life. It is not any one mission or science
measurement which has singularly changed my view of Mars. Rather, it is the conglomeration of evidence, gathered through an interconnected set
of measurements, obtained by a carefully engineered sequence of science missions. This is the definition of a successful exploration program.
Rather than flying a series of independent missions, the Mars program has constructed a system that is greater than
the sum of its parts. Each mission in the Mars program builds upon the scientific discoveries and the technological
breakthroughs that arise from the previous missions. There is continuity of people and processes that enable cost-effective
exploration of Mars, with a success rate that belies the inherent risks of these endeavors. Is there any doubt that Phoenix has been helped
immensely by Odyssey and MRO, that MER was aided by Odyssey, and that MER ground truth has influenced our selection of MSL landing
sites? Would we even attempt MSL today without the scientific knowledge and engineering confidence gained from the missions that have
preceded it? This week, in stark contrast to the successful performance of the Mars exploration program, NASA
announced a significant reduction in the FY09 budget for Mars exploration. Not only is the Mars exploration program budget
contained within this Agency request in direct contradiction to the guidance NASA received in the FY08 Congressional Appropriations Act, but
this budget is clear evidence of the gutting of what the American people consider one of NASA’s most successful programs.
For reference, the FY08 Congressional Appropriations Act, enacted into law in December 2007 states: “The Appropriations Committees agree
with the comments in the House report commending NASA for its robotic Mars program which is one of the agency's most successful programs
that has made major scientific discoveries and engaged the public. The Appropriations Committees continue to strongly support a robust Mars
Exploration Program with a rate of at least one mission at every opportunity (every 26 months), which is consistent with the Administration's
fiscal year 2008 request of $625,700,000. Full funding is provided to: continue operating all present missions (Odyssey, Mars Reconnaissance
Orbiter, Spirit and Opportunity); prepare Phoenix for launch in 2007, Mars Science Lab for a launch in 2009, and Scout in 2011; and to start the
definition and development of Mars Science orbiter for launch in 2013, and the Astrobiology Field Lab or Mid size rovers for launch in 2016 .”
Funded at $386.5M, well below the FY08 Congressionally-mandated floor ($626.4M) and void of launches in
several opportunities over the next decade, NASA’s FY09 budget request for Mars exploration is neither aligned
with the past success of this program or this recent Congressional direction. In fact, this budget request includes more
than a $200M reduction (~35%) relative to that planned for FY09 in the December 2007 enacted legislation. Making this
request even more alarming is the proposed five-year annual budget average for Mars exploration of about $350M, with only $300M in FY10
(less than one-half of the FY07 Mars program budget). This compares to an average annual budget plan of about $620M from FY09 to FY12 in
last year’s budget request. By removing any semblance of a continuous exploration sequence, this week’s announcement
puts the future Mars program on a path toward irrelevance. Let’s take a closer look at one likely future. Following the Phoenix
landing later this year, MSL will be launched in 2009. Beyond this date, the future Mars program launch opportunities consist of: nothing in 2011,
a Mars Scout orbiter in 2013, the potential for a single medium-class mission in 2016, nothing in 2018, and the glimmer of hope for an
international MSR campaign that may begin in 2020. Of course, since this is a five-year budget request that runs through FY13, there need be
essentially no funds for MSR contained within it. This is not a program that will produce compelling science. It is the
beginning of the end of what has been a dramatic advancement in our understanding of the Mars system. In addition,
this budget request portends a potential decade gap between MSL and our next Mars surface mission. The NASA
administrator has spoken eloquently about the ramifications that a gap in human spaceflight would have on our
Nation. Is this Mars surface exploration gap no less significant or concerning for the scientific and engineering
literacy of our country? What of the scientific and engineering talent that has been developed over the last decade? These people are
currently at the top of their game. However, NASA’s FY09 budget request sets into motion a means by which the
engineering and science talent that delivered these recent exploration achievements will be lost . Already Mars program
personnel at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and some of the NASA Centers are making plans to pursue other endeavors in FY09 (just eight months
from now). As a country, we have invested a great deal of time and effort in these people and the technologies they have advanced. They are ready
to take on the next challenge of Mars exploration today. Do you truly believe they will be sharp, ready and willing to begin implementing a MSR
campaign subsequent to 2014, after a 5+ year hiatus? As an aerospace engineering faculty member, I know firsthand the impact which
the Mars program has had on drawing engineering and science students into our Nation’s universities. I hear the
students’ stories and dreams of one day being part of the Mars program every day. We have a pipeline of new science and
engineering talent just beginning to come into our program. What will continue to inspire them to work to improve
our Nation’s scientific drive, technological leadership and economic edge? Like me, you might wonder, what can I do about
this? As a start, come to the MEPAG meeting planned for February 20-21 in Monrovia, CA. Among the discussion, will be a presentation on the
future of the Mars program, given by SMD AA Dr. Alan Stern. Listen carefully to what he has to say. Think critically about the feasibility of this
plan. Then, decide for yourself: • Is this a Mars program or a random set of missions that happen to have a common destination? • Is this a
program that I am proud to be a part of? • Is the interconnected nature of the past-decade Mars program important to me? • Do I believe we are
actually on a path that will enable sample return? We are at a critical juncture in planning this program . Now is the time for your
voice to be heard. Planetary exploration is a unique symbol of our country’s scientific drive, technological leadership
26
and pioneering spirit. Over the past decade, the Mars program has been the strongest and most successful element in NASA’s exploration
portfolio. This program has addressed scientific questions of fundamental importance, inspired our children, built the
scientific and engineering literacy of our country, and increased our economic and technological competitiveness .
Now is the time to accelerate, not curtail, the pace and scope of our Mars exploration program. Let’s not let our program go without ample
consideration.
Tech leadership key to heg
Segal 4, Foreign Affairs Nov/Dec. Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on
Foreign Relations
The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries
faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have
ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the
semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-
so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased
investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are
improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal
articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest
producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the
world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And
even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors,
aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the
globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system . Indeed, as the
United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it .
The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant
only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the
world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.
27
Competitiveness Advantage-Uniqueness
The U.S. is falling behind global challengers in S&T innovation and competitiveness
Towsend, Kerrick and Turpen 9 [Frances Fragos Townsend, Co-Chair, Former Assistant to
President Bush for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Donald Kerrick,
Co-Chair Former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Clinton, Elizabeth Turpen,
Ph.D., Project Director, Senior Associate, The Henry L. Stimson Center and Task Force
“Leveraging Science for Security: A Strategy for the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories in the 21st
Century” Stimson Center: March 2009]
The United States is quickly losing its leadership position in science and technology (S&T). We
are seeing this in our schools, our research institutes, in the intelligence community, and in our
National Laboratories.* Thus, it is imperative that a set of new and strategic grand challenges be
identified and pursued to re-establish and assure the nation's global S&T leadership in the 21st
century. In addition, turning the tide to address this crisis will require formidable leadership in
key Cabinet and White House positions and steadfast emphasis on science as a catalyst to the
economic recovery, competitiveness, and security. Most importantly, the new administration
must devise a national S&T strategy that brings all of the nation’s laboratories together in
collaboration with industry and academe to tackle the nation's dominant challenges, particularly
those pertinent to national security.
Global S&T leadership eroding now

National Academies 7 [Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century:
An Agenda for American Science and Technology, National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing
and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future” SBN: 978-0-309-10039-7, 592 pages,
6 x 9, hardback (2007) ES-1]
Having reviewed trends in the United States and abroad, the committee is deeply concerned that
the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at
a time when many other nations are gathering strength. We strongly believe that a worldwide
strengthening will benefit the world’s economy—particularly in the creation of jobs in countries
that are far less well-off than the United States. But we are worried about the future prosperity of
the United States. Although many people assume that the United States will always be a world
leader in science and technology, this may not continue to be the case inasmuch as great minds
and ideas exist throughout the world. We fear the abruptness with which a lead in science and
technology can be lost—and the difficulty of recovering a lead once lost, if indeed it can be
regained at all.
28
Competitiveness Advantage -- Uniqueness
Federal R&D agencies are facing a severe human capital shortage

Jackson 7 [Shirley Ann Jackson president of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, former
chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Waking up to the “Quiet Crisis” in The
United States” The College Board Review 210 Winter/Spring 2007 p 21-24]
The looming trouble extends to the public sector at all levels. Officials in federal agencies with a
stake in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce, particularly
the U.S. Departments of Educat ion, Homeland Security, Commerce, Labor, Energy, and Defense
have voiced their concerns. In August 2005, then Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Michael
W. Wynne,3 speaking at a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Systems and
Technology Conference, noted that the U.S. Department of Defense [DOD], along with the vast
defense industry, must fill vacant STEM positions with top secret “cleared” or “clearable” STEM
professionals (restricted to U.S. citizens). He readily acknowledged the increasing difficulty of
doing so. A November 2006 report from the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation
notes that “Nearly one-third of the civilian scientific and technical workforce in the Department
of Defense (DoD) is currently eligible to retire.” The report also predicts that the percentage may
rise to nearly 70 percent over the next seven years, and that at least 13,000 DoD laboratory
scientists are likely to retire within the next decade, while more than one-quarter of the current
aerospace workforce will be eligible to leave by next year.4 As a June 2006 U.S. House of
Representatives Science Committee overview documented, “More than 30 percent of NASA’s
employees are currently eligible for regular or early out retirement. NASA estimates that by
2011, 28 percent of its engineers and 45 percent of its scientists will be eligible to retire….less
than 20 percent of NASA’s overall workforce is under 40, and less than 10 percent of NASA’s
scientists are under 40.”5
29
Competitiveness Advantage-Hegemony Impact
Competitiveness is the vital internal link to hegemony and determines the direction of all
other factors-the U.S. is falling behind in innovation and research
Michael Dabney, a former bioscience communicator at the University of California, San Diego,
is a freelance writer based in Chula Vista, Calif., specializing in science and education, 15
August 2010 (The Epoch Times, U.S. Competitive Edge in Jeopardy, l/n)
In his seminal 2002 best-seller “The Creative Class,” author Richard Florida had a thing or two to
say about America’s diminishing leadership in innovation. He wrote: “The United States
appears to have thrown its gearshift into reverse. At all levels of government and even in the
private sector, Americans have been cutting back crucial investments in creativity—in education,
in research, in arts and culture—while pouring billions into low-return or no-return public
projects like sports stadiums … If these trends continue, the U.S. may well squander its once-
considerable lead.” It is America’s declining hegemony in high-tech innovation and research
that has got decision makers in the U.S.—from the Oval Office and the National Science
Foundation in Washington to researchers, business leaders, and educators across the country—
concerned. “For more than half a century, the United States has led the world in scientific
discovery and innovation. It has been a beacon, drawing the best scientists to its educational
institutions, industries and laboratories from around the globe,” The Task Force on the Future of
American Innovation wrote in the report “The Knowledge Economy: Is the United States Losing
Its Competitive Edge?” “However, in today’s rapidly evolving competitive world, the United
States can no longer take its supremacy for granted. Nations from Europe to Eastern Asia are on a
fast track to pass the United States in scientific excellence and technological innovation,” the
report said. Indeed, there are warnings on the horizon. Here are just some of them: Fewer
graduates in science and engineering: America’s educational system was once at the forefront of
producing the best scientists and engineers; but today, undergraduate science and engineering
degrees in the United States are being awarded less frequently than in other countries. For
example, according to the Council on Competitiveness, the ratio of first university degrees in
natural sciences and engineering to the college-age population in the United States is only 5.7
degrees per 100. Some European countries, including Spain, Ireland, Sweden, the United
Kingdom, France, and Finland, award between 8 and 13 degrees per 100. Japan awards 8 per
100, and Taiwan and South Korea each award about 11 per 100. Stagnant growth: Although the
United States remains a competitive leader in innovation, it has made the least progress of all
developing nations in competiveness and innovation capacity over the last decade, according to a
2009 report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation titled “The Atlantic
Century: Benchmarking EU & U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness.” A fall from grace in key
high-tech sectors: From 1998 to 2003, the balance of trade in the manufacture of aircraft—which
for years was one of the strongest U.S. export sectors—fell from $39 billion to $24 billion, a loss
of $15 billion, reflecting increased sales of foreign-made commercial aircraft to U.S. carriers. In
areas of information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and fusion energy science, the
United States is also losing ground to Asia and some countries in the European Union (EU).
“‘Can America compete?’ is the nation’s new No. 1 anxiety, the topic of emotional debate,”
wrote Fortune magazine’s Geoffrey Colvin. “We’re not building human capital the way we used
to. Our primary and secondary schools are falling behind the rest of the world’s. Our universities
are still excellent, but the foreign students who come to them are increasingly taking their
educations back home. As other nations multiply their science and engineering graduates—
building the foundation for economic progress—ours are declining, in part because those fields
are seen as nerdish and simply uncool.” To be sure, experts are quick to point out that despite
these challenges, no one is saying that Americans can’t adapt and get back on track. The Task
Force on the Future of American Innovation report stated: “The United States still leads the
30
world in research and discovery, but our advantage is rapidly eroding, and our global competitors
may soon overtake us.” To remain competitive in the global arena, the task force said, the
United States must redirect its attention to the factors that have driven American innovation for
years: research (especially that which is funded through federal and private entities for science
and engineering), education, the technical workforce, and economic growth. Columbia
University professor Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, cited in Colvin’s article, underscores this point. In a
competitive global market, he said, it is science and technological breakthroughs that
fundamentally influence economic development, and in an economy where technology leadership
determines the winners, education trumps everything. That’s a problem for America, Bill Gates
told Fortune magazine. He said while American fourth-graders are among the world’s best in
math and science, by ninth grade they’ve fallen way behind. "This isn’t an accident or a flaw in
the system; it is the system,” said Gates. That is why America’s decline in producing top-notch
scientists and engineers is such a serious concern, experts say. While America lags, “low-cost
countries—not just China and India but also Mexico, Malaysia, Brazil, and others—are turning
out large numbers of well-educated young people fully qualified to work in an information-based
economy,” said Colvin. For example, he said, China in 2005 produced about 3.3 million college
graduates, India 3.1 million (the majority of them English-speaking), and the United States just
1.3 million. In engineering, China’s graduates numbered over 600,000, India’s 350,000 and the
United States’ only about 70,000, making it highly probable that the United States may be
required to outsource its research and development overseas eventually if this trend is not
addressed. “Americans who thought outsourcing only threatened factory workers and call-center
operators are about to learn otherwise,” Colvin warned. While many studies exploring the
competitiveness of America in science and technology indicate that America still leads other
countries in key areas of these fields, the 2009 report from the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation found cause for both the United States and the EU to be concerned in the
face of increasing Asian competition. The report evaluated and rated global innovation-based
competitiveness in science and technology of 40 nations and regions (including the EU-10 and
the EU-15) as they currently stand, and in terms of the progress they have made over the last
decade. In it, the United States was rated fourth place in global competitiveness among all
nations, and the EU 18th place. However, the study found that the United States has made the
least progress of the 40 nations and regions in improvement in international competitiveness and
innovation capacity over the last decade, while China was rated first in this category. The EU-
15 region was found to have made more improvements over the last decade than the United
States but slower than the overall average and, as a result, was ranked 29th among the 40 nations
and regions. “If the EU-15 region as a whole continues to improve at this faster rate than the
United States, it would surpass the United States in innovation-based competitiveness by 2020,”
the report said. However, with the positive showing of Asian nations in the study, the report’s
authors Robert Atkinson and Scott Andes wrote, “To find global leaders [in high tech], Asia is
the place to look.” The study’s findings also have significant implications for Europe and the
United States, the authors said. First, the rise of global economic competition means that the
United States and Europe need to think of themselves as a big state or a big nation, and
proactively put in place national or continental economic development strategies.
31
Competitiveness Advantage-Hegemony Impact
Competitiveness key to hegemony

Gelb 10 (Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior official in the state and
defense departments, is currently president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations,
Fashioning a Realistic Strategy for the Twenty-First Century,” Fletcher Forum of World Affairs
vol.34:2 summer 2010 http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/34-2pdfs/Gelb.pdf)
LESLIE H. GELB: Power is what it always has been. It is the ability to get someone to do
something they do not want to do by means of your resources and your position. It was always
that. There is no such thing in my mind as “soft” power or “hard” power or “smart” power or
“dumb” power. It is people who are hard or soft or smart or dumb. Power is power. And people
use it wisely or poorly. Now, what has changed is the composition of power in international
affairs. For almost all of history, international power was achieved in the form of military power
and military force. Now, particularly in the last fifty years or so, it has become more and more
economic. So power consists of economic power, military power, and diplomatic power, but the
emphasis has shifted from military power (for almost all of history) to now, more economic
power. And, as President Obama said in his West Point speech several months ago, our economy
is the basis of our international power in general and our military power in particular. That is
where it all comes from. Whether other states listen to us and act on what we say depends a
good deal on their perception of the strength of the American economy. A big problem for us in
the last few years has been the perception that our economy is in decline.
32
Competitiveness Advantage-Economy Impacts
Titus Galama and James Hosek, National Defense Research Institute, 2008 (U.S.
Competitiveness in Science and Technology,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.pdf)
In traditional views on the nature of economic strength, a nation’s labor supply, capital, and
natural resources drive its wealth. Econo- mists of the 1930s and 1940s explained long-term
economic growth as a combined function of investments in capital and natural increases in the
labor supply resulting from population growth (e.g., Domar, 1946). Although population growth
and increases in savings are associated with increased output (e.g., Kendrick, 1956), these
models could not explain a large part of the observed variation in nations’ economic
productivity. In 1956, Robert Solow introduced a Nobel Prize–winning economic model that
attributed growth in production over time not just to increases in capital and labor, but also to
technological change. Indeed, Solow reasoned that technological progress could account for the
large residual of economic growth not attributable to increases in capital and labor. He estimated
that technological progress accounted for 80 percent of the growth in output per worker in the
United States since the turn of the 20th century (Solow, 1956, 1957). While subsequent
estimates of the role of technological change have been lower, Solow’s insight into the
importance of technological progress endures. Analysts and policymakers now realize that
human capital and knowledge/technology3 are a substantial source of national wealth (e.g.,
Warsh, 2006, 2007; Eaton and Kortum, 2007). Solow’s model assumed that technological
change occurred at a given rate determined by outside factors (Solow, 1957). Eaton and Kortum
(2007) suggest that until the industrial revolution, economic progress seems to have taken this
form, where economies grew simply through the serendipitous arrival of ideas. But with the
industrial revolution came active and systematic efforts to discover and apply new
technologies. Innovation today results from substantial R&D investments by firms. Romer
(1990) introduced a model in which the pace of technological discovery is driven by economic
agents in response to market incentives, and his model implicitly places importance on the
institutional infrastructure—laws, policies, and regulations—that support research and
innovation. Thus, capability to innovate and adopt new technologies, including those invented
elsewhere, is crucial to the employment, sales, and profitability of U.S. firms and hence to the
U.S. economy and standard of living. Science and technology have historically contributed
significantly not only to economic growth but also to well-being (improved public health,
longer life expectancy, better diagnoses and treatments of many illnesses, etc.), standard of
living (refrigerators, cars, iPods, etc.), and national security (atomic bomb, radar, sonar, etc.).
The strength of the U.S. economy and military provide it with the foundation for its global
leadership. If claims of diminishing U.S. leadership in S&T are true and its future ability to
compete globally is in question, the prognosis is indeed serious. S&T is directly linked not only
to America’s economic strength but also to its global strategic leadership.
33
Competitiveness Advantage – Economy Impacts
Economic growth is dependent on the development of innovation-driven industries-

competitiveness is key
6 x 9, hardback (2007) ES-1]
The United States takes deserved pride in the vitality of its economy, which forms the
foundation of our high quality of life, our national security, and our hope that our children and
grandchildren will inherit ever- greater opportunities. That vitality is derived in large part from
the productivity of well-trained people and the steady stream of scientific and technical
innovations they produce. Without high-quality, knowledge-intensive jobs and the innovative
enterprises that lead to discovery and new technology, our economy will suffer and our people
will face a lower standard of living. Economic studies conducted even before the information-
technology revolution have shown that as much as 85% of measured growth in US income per
capita was due to technological change.1
34
Competitiveness Advantage-Economy Impacts
S&T developments generate capital necessary for economic expansion
6 x 9, hardback (2007) ES-1]
Although the US economy is doing well today, current trends in each of those criteria indicate
that the United States may not fare as well in the future without government intervention. This
nation must prepare with great urgency to preserve its strategic and economic security. Because
other nations have, and probably will continue to have, the competitive advantage of a low
wage structure, the United States must compete by optimizing its knowledge-based resources,
particularly in science and technology, and by sustaining the most fertile environment for new
and revitalized industries and the well-paying jobs they bring. We have already seen that
capital, factories, and laboratories readily move wherever they are thought to have the greatest
promise of return to investors.
Failure to take the lead in international competitiveness threatens economic decline rivaling
post-WW2 Europe
Richard Freeman 2006 (Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten
U.S. Economic Leadership?, Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 6)
But the U.S. will also face economic difficulties as its technological superiority erodes. Wfhat is
good for the world is not inevitably good for the U.S.. The group facing the biggest danger from
the loss of Amer ica's technological edge are workers whose living standards depend critically
on America's technological superiority. The decline in monop oly rents from being the lead
country will make it harder for the U.S. to raise wages and benefits to workers. The big winners
from the spread of technology will be workers in developing countries, and the firms that
employ them, including many U.S. multinational corporations. In the long term, the spread of
knowledge and technology around the world will almost certainly outweigh the loss of U.S.
hegemony in sci ence and technology and make the U.S. better off. But the transition period is
likely to be lengthy and difficult?more formidable than that associated with the recovery of
Europe and Japan after World War II. The more similar the production technologies and
composition of out put in lower wage countries becomes to that of the U.S., the greater will be
the downward pressures on U.S. wages.
35
Competitiveness Advantage – Economy Impacts
S&T competitiveness is the vital internal link to the economy-it gives the U.S. an exporting
edge
Richard Freeman 2006 (Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten
U.S. Economic Leadership?, Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 6)
Leadership in science and technology gives the U.S. its comparative advantage in the global
economy. U.S. exports are disproportionately from sectors that rely extensively on scientific and
engineering work ers and that embody the newest technologies. In 2003, with a massive
national trade deficit, the smallest deficit relative to output was in high technology industries.
Aggregate measures of scientific and technologi cal prowess place the U.S. at the top of global
rankings.3 Trade aside, the U.S. is the leading capitalist economy because it applies new
knowledge in more sectors than any other economy. Many companies on the technological
frontier are American multinationals: IBM, Microsoft, Intel, Dupont and so on. Analysts
attribute the coun try's rapid productivity growth in the 1990s/2000s to the adaptation of new
information and communication technologies to production. Scientific and technological
preeminence is also critical to the nation's defense, as evidenced by the employment of R&D
scientists and engi neers in defense related activities and in the technological dominance of the
U.S. military on battlefields. To be sure, other factors also contrib ute to U.S. economic
leadership,4 but in a knowledge-based economy, leadership in science and technology
contributes substantially to economic success.
36
Competitiveness Advantage-A2: Funding Alt Cause
You say alt cause-funding-lack of money isn’t the problem human capital shortages
magnify the impact of funding shortfalls
David Attis, Educase, 2007 (Higher Education and the Future of U.S. Competitiveness,
http://www.educause.edu/thetowerandthecloud/PUB7202h)
While most people accept (and econometric evidence supports) the contention that federal R&D
funding contributes to U.S. economic growth, in a global innovation environment it is no longer
true that basic research performed in the United States will necessarily benefit American firms or
American workers. Rather, the economic benefits depend on the degree to which universities
(together with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and corporations) can translate the results of
basic research into marketable innovations. The benefits now also depend on how corporations
choose to commercialize and produce those innovations through global networks. Doing the
research here no longer necessarily means that the technologies, the factories, or the jobs will be
created here. This is not to say that federal R&D spending is a waste of money, but it does force
us to think about the mechanisms by which such funding promotes innovation in the United
States. If knowledge is universal, why should it matter where it is produced? Geographical origin
may not matter from the perspective of a peer review panel, but a large amount of scholarship has
shown that from the perspective of someone trying to commercialize knowledge, place does
matter. Venture capital, for example, is highly localized, and innovative activity tends to “spill
over” from universities to the regions that surround them. The main reason is that tacit
knowledge—the kind of knowledge that cannot be captured explicitly in publications or patents
—is often the most valuable kind of knowledge. Cutting-edge scientific and technical knowledge
is embodied in people more than in machines or equations. And it flows through informal
networks that tend to be highly concentrated in specific locations. As regional economic
development expert Randall Kempner likes to say, “Innovation is a contact sport.” And the lesson
from economic geographers and regional economic developers is that it is the personal
connections between academics, corporate researchers, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists that
enable innovation. These networks are very difficult to copy and can take decades to evolve.
What does this mean for higher education? It means that the degree to which higher education
contributes to innovation depends not just on the level of inputs but perhaps even more strongly
on how the people at educational institutions engage with the outside world, particularly within
their region. This is an area in which government policies play very little role and where
individual institutions are struggling to find better ways to encourage new forms of behavior. It
requires a rethinking of how faculty are rewarded and how students are educated.
37
Competitiveness Advnatage-A2: Economy DAs Turn Competitiveness
Economic performance doesn’t implicate U.S. leadership
Robert Kudrle February 2003 (Hegemony Strikes Out: The U.S. Global Role in Antitrust, Tax
Evasion, and Illegal Immigration, International Studies Perspectives, Volume 4, Number 1,
February 2003 , pp. 52-71)
Strong economic performance does not give the U.S. a decisive role in determining the global
economic policy environment. The Bush steel tariffs have bred widespread plans for retaliation,
long-standing corporate income tax breaks as export subsidies have been ambiguously
condemned and may lead to a trade war, and an earlier American attack on Japanese film
distribution was rebuffed. The forum of opposition to each of these major U.S. policies has been
the World Trade Organization, an institution some point to as a manifestation of U.S. hegemony.
38
Hegemony Good 2AC
Hegemony solves balancing-competitor states have no theory of victory
Christopher Layne, Professor Texas A&M School of Government, 2009, International Security,
Vol. 34, No. 1, Summer, p. 159-60
Because it uniquely combines overwhelming economic and military power, the United States enjoys
unchallenged preeminence in the international system (pp. 34–35). Its huge military edge over
potential challengers dissuades others from competing against it. Moreover, combined with collective-action
problems, U.S. hard power advantages pose an insuperable barrier to states that might want to
engage in external balancing against the United States (pp. 35–37). Also, Brooks and Wohlforth say, other states will
not balance against the United States because the “threat” posed by a hegemonic—but geographically distant—United States pales in comparison
to the regional security threats that they confront in their own neighborhoods (pp. 39, 40–41). Brooks
and Wohlforth also argue
that there is no structurally induced soft balancing against the United States. Although other
states may favor “multipolarity” rhetorically, they simultaneously want to enjoy the benefits of
cooperation with the United States and, hence, will not balance against it (pp. 62–63, 71).
Primacy preserves a peaceful international order – military might prevents power struggles
and supports a peaceful economic order
Bradley Thayer, Assc. Prof., Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State Univ.,
In Defense of Primacy, The National Interest, November-December 2006, ln
A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's
number one power--the diplomatic, economic and military leader. Those arguing against primacy claim that the United States should
retrench, either because the United States lacks the power to maintain its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because
the maintenance of primacy will lead the United States into the trap of "imperial overstretch." In the previous issue of The National Interest,
Christopher Layne warned of these dangers of primacy and called for retrenchment.1 Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a
diverse lot. They include isolationists, who want no foreign military commitments; selective engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to
centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want a modified form of selective engagement that would have the United States abandon
its landpower presence abroad in favor of relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests. But retrenchment, in any of its guises,
must be avoided. If the United States adopted such a strategy, it would be a profound strategic
mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world, imperil American security
and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy. There are two critical issues in any discussion of
America's grand strategy: Can America remain the dominant state? Should it strive to do this? America can remain dominant due to its prodigious
military, economic and soft power capabilities. The totality of that equation of power answers the first issue. The
United States has
overwhelming military capabilities and wealth in comparison to other states or likely potential
alliances. Barring some disaster or tremendous folly, that will remain the case for the foreseeable
future. With few exceptions, even those who advocate retrenchment acknowledge this. So the debate revolves around the desirability of
maintaining American primacy. Proponents of retrenchment focus a great deal on the costs of U.S. action--but they fail to realize what is good
about American primacy. The price and risks of primacy are reported in newspapers every day; the benefits that stem from it are not. A
GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of the
U.S. homeland and American global interests. These interests include ensuring that critical
resources like oil flow around the world, that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish and
that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected. Allies are a great asset
to the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in
Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In contrast, a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental
objectives of the United States. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present
grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses
to play in international politics. Washington cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from
threats. Whether they are terrorists, rogue states or rising powers, history shows that threats must
be confronted. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home", thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-
pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a
declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators
prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If
there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the United
States is what protects the country from such threats. And when enemies must be confronted, a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging
39
enemies overseas, away from American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to
wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. This requires a physical, on-the-ground
presence that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present,
commands the "global commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its
borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies
are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased.2 This is not an advantage that
should be relinquished lightly. A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and
unambiguously on display--is that countries want to align themselves with the United States. Of course, this is not out
of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States
for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security
is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military
powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned
with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies. U.S.
primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in international
politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions.
Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of
like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through
the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by
opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to
conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and
unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can
count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of
course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is
friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is
clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even
Beijing is intimidated by the United
States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other
mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon
which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is
likely to refrain from
testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we
shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the
"Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-
American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace
and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the
United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics.
Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free
trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing
respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment
proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead
wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international
orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established
at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as
assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important
to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within
the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first
has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical
antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated
relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan,
India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars
still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's
likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the
United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism.
Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the
Spring 2006 issue, liberal
democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be
sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states
are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is
not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more
transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S.
40
leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics
have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at
windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers
from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence
on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their
people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women,
voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January
2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in
Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style
democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all
accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along
with the growth in the number of democratic
states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States
has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and
commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The
economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the
poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of
America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well
because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology,
helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former
Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence
India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor
countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and
globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic
systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the
United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its
interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of
positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those
missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global
paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever
there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought,
volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after
Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United
States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and
Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by
providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only
the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical
reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces. American
generosity
has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure.
Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of
America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October
2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded
immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the
United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a
lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the
United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-
spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When
people in the
Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly
positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas
and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the
equivalent of a blitzkrieg.
41
Hegemony Good 2AC
Loss of leadership causes nuclear wars, systemic global instability, and magnifies impacts
Ferguson 2004, Niall Ferguson, Professor, History, School of Business, New York University and Senior Fellow, Hoover
Institution, Stanford University, September-October 2004 (“A World Without Power” – Foreign Policy) p. infotrac
Sowhat is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into
fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might
quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the
ninth century. For the world is much more populous--roughly 20 times more--so friction between the world's disparate "tribes" is bound to be more frequent.
Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be
Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to
finite.
obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital--has raised living standards
throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of
globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even
depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it
would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as
Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible,
increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China
would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires.
Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would
be felt on the edges of the waning great powers.The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to
Shanghai-- would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the
freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports
secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean
peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek
solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa , the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would
continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish
to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it
frightened the heirs of Charlemagne.If the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks
on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar
harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be
multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than
rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.
42
Balancing 2AC
Credible military threat reduces intervention, deters conflicts, and promotes sustainable
leadership
Robert Kagan, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Columnist for the Washington Post, and
Contributing Editor at the Weekly Standard and the New Republic, and William Kristol, Editor and Publisher of the Weekly
Standard, Spring 2000 (“The Present Danger” – National Interest) p. ebscohost
A strong America capable of projecting force quickly and with devastating effect to important regions
of the world would make it less likely that challengers to regional stability will attempt to alter the
status quo in their favor. It might even deter them from undertaking expensive efforts to arm
themselves for such a challenge. An America whose willingness to project force is in doubt, on the other
hand, can only encourage such challenges. In Europe, in Asia and in the Middle East, the
message we should be sending potential foes is: “Don’t even think about it.” That kind of
deterrence offers the best recipe for lasting peace, and it is much cheaper than fighting the wars
that would follow should we fail to build such a deterrent capacity.
Overwhelming hard power and resolve not only deters enemies, but prevents security
competition that causes balancing
Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for United States Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, 2004 (Power, Terror, Peace,
and War) p. 30
Over time, there has been a distinct shift in American strategic thinking toward the need for overwhelming
military superiority as the surest foundation for national security. This is partly for the obvious reasons of greater security, but it is
partly also because supremacy can have an important deterrent effect. If we achieve such a
degree of military supremacy that challenges seem hopeless, other states might give up trying.
Security competition is both expensive and dangerous. Establishing an overwhelming military
supremacy might not only go far to deter potential enemies from military attack, but it might also deter other
powers from trying to match the American buildup.
43
Hegemonic War 2AC
Transition to multipolarity and multilateralism increases the risk of systemic instability
Thomas J. Lynch & Robert S. Singh, Lecturer and Professor Foreign Policy, University of
London,
2008, After Bush: the case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 264-5
Even among Bush critics, however, dissident voices raised important notes of skepticism to this growing “un-Bush” consensus. For example, the
foreign editor of the London Times, surveying the stand-off between the US and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program noted that “The central
question about Ahmedinejad, and Bush, is whether they are aberrations. More likely, they are the shape of the future.” Arguing that “We’re all
multilateralists now, but we inhabit a world that makes the Cold War seem like the good old days,” David Ignatius observed: “The
difficulty is that nobody today has any real experience with how a genuinely multilateral system
might work. And the more you think about it, the more potential obstacles you begin to see in
the passage from unilateral hell to multilateral heaven.” Offering past examples of failed predictions of new
multilateral dawns, Ignatius quoted the nuclear strategist, Herman Kahn, whose 1983 essay on “multipolarity and stability” had
prophesied that by 2000 a stable multipolar world with orderly rules would have worked itself
out, comprising six economic giants (the US, Japan, the USSR, China, France, and Brazil). But the central problem
Kahn had foreseen was the transition from a bipolar to a multipolar system, the moment of
maximum danger and instability in world affairs. Needless to say, neither that problem nor that
world arose.
Hegemonic decline makes world war more probable

William R. Thompson, Political Science Professor-Williams University, 2009, Systemic
Transitions: past, present, and future, ed. W. Thompson, p. 68
The decline of the incumbent global leader makes global war more probable. So does a
diminishing gap between global and regional military positions. This outcome may sound as if the same variable,
naval, concentration, is being counted twice. Yet the correlation between the decline of global sea power and the gap between global sea and
regional land power positions remains fairly moderate (r = 0.482). On the other hand, if one examines regional military concentration by itself,
the coefficient is statistically insignificant and incorrectly signed. Thus knowing
something about the decline of the
global leader and how this plays out vis-à-vis continental aspirations improve our understanding
of movements toward systemic transition.
Transition violence risks nuclear conflict
Jacek Kugler & Ronald L. Tammen, International Relation Professors Claremont College & U.
Georgia, 2009, Systemic Transitions: past, present, and future, ed. W. Thompson, p. 174
The consequences of such transitions are of some concern. Based on the formal empirical material reported above,
when parity is achieved and the norms and rules of international politics are challenged, war is
likely. A remarkable event is waiting in the wings. While the large population base of China and India will generate GDPs larger than any in
the world, individual productivity will remain low. The average citizen in those countries will be far less affluent than those in the G6 or Japan.
This gap is important because as
China and India become the new giants in world politics, they may
advance preferences inconsistent with those advocated by the liberal democracies that have
dominated international norms since 1945. Based on power transition theory, we contend that the forthcoming
transitions need to be carefully considered and managed. Otherwise conditions for conflict will
emerge that may have devastating consequences in the nuclear era.
44
Hegemonic War 2AC
Hegemonic power shifts risk war

Robert A. Pape, Political Science Professor University of Chicago, 2009, The National Interest,
January/February, p. lexis
Most disturbing, whenever there are major changes in the balance of power, conflict routinely ensues.
Examining the historical record reveals an important pattern: the states facing the largest declines in power compared
to other major powers were apt to be the target of opportunistic aggression. And this is surely not the only
possible danger from relative decline; states on the power wane also have a history of launching preventive
wars to strengthen their positions. All of this suggests that major relative declines are often
accompanied by highly dangerous international environments. So, these declines matter not just in
terms of economics, but also because of their destabilizing consequences.
45
Hegemonic War 2AC
International system transformation in polarity poses the biggest risk of world war
Charles F. Doran, International Relations Professor-Johns Hopkins U., 2009, Imbalance of
Power: US
hegemony and international order, ed. I. Zartman, p. 90-1
Structural change thus precedes and causes the change in political stability. Structural change causes
war, not the other way round. States move up and down their power cycles in a single dynamic
of state and system. Each power cycle includes points of nonlinear change, points where an abrupt, massive,
and unpredictable inversion from the prior trend occurs, where the “tides of history” shift for state and system. At
these critical points, where political uncertainty is at a maximum, where everything changes structurally and
diplomatically, and where the very identity of the members of the central system may be in doubt, the probability of major war is
highest. Power cycle theory thus shifts focus from the type of system and the amount or degree of
world order to the period between the collapse of one system and the emergence of a new system
(systems transformation). Systems transformation is defined as that interval in which a number of major
states pass through critical points on their respective power cycles at about the same time in history. It is
this movement between systems where the danger of war is greatest. It is systems
transformation that is responsible for the most massive forms of political instability and the
largest wars—world war.
All alternatives to US primacy are worse-risks disintegration of the system into endless war
London, 2008, After Bush: the case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 269-
It remains possible, however, that Americans themselves may turn temporarily against primacy as too costly a burden. But if the costs
strike many Americans as excessive, what alternatives exist? Three appear to be the principal
contenders to an America era of hegemony. Each is feasible. None is attractive.
The most immediate and – in Europe – popular alternative is a multipolar world, one that sees a
configuration of great power rivals exercising a benign and prudent balance of power. On this view,
security issues become the province of the key regional powers most directly concerned. But this
vision has grievous problems. Previous balances of power have been anything but stable and
benign. One need merely consider the consequences prior to 1914, and in the inter-war years, of such balances. Even were some new concert
of major powers to be thrashed out, it is doubtful that such a set of rival powers would resolve the failed
states, humanitarian crises, ethnic cleansing, genocides, and Islamism that together threaten the
international order today. Perhaps more pointedly, the rival powers are themselves inhibited by all
manner of problems ranging from demographics to energy needs. The EU, for example, faces acute
demographic problems that deeply complicate the still unresolved institutional and political dilemmas in its development. China’s remarkable
economic growth and the dynamics of Southeast Asian security constrain its prospects for constructive international intervention. Jihadist
Islamism remains a threatening international force but has yet, mercifully, to achieve the garb of a nuclear state.
A second alternative, perhaps not apparent until the 2020s, envisions a return to a bipolar world of two
superpowers, the US and China. As with the First Cold War, such bipolarity might see the entire world stabilized through ties to
the superpowers’ respective spheres of influence. But even if such a bipolar world were to arise – a prospect vastly
complicated by the possibilities of economic crisis and political turmoil in China – the likelihood of its benign character is
minimal. It is worth recalling how close the world came to annihilation during the First Cold
War in this regard. Moreover, China has, like Russia, shown little enthusiasm for the UN’s recent
endorsement of a “responsibility to protect” against ethnic cleansing, one reason why Beijing has proven
congenial to a range of tyrannies from North Korea to Sudan. Its autocracy has proven a key supplier of arms and technology too Pakistan, Iran,
While cooperation may be as plausible an outcome as confrontation between
Sudan, and Egypt.
Beijing and Washington, the former has shown minimal interest in advancing a global balance of
political and economic power that favors freedom. A rising China, as we examined in Chapter 7, poses as many
problems as it does potential solutions to international order.
46
But a third possible alternative to American primacy is an era of apolarity, where an absence –
not a balance – of power gives rise to a new era of violence and economic stagnation. As Niall
Ferguson has argued, the assumption that power, like nature, abhors a vacuum is not as well grounded as is often assumed:
“a world with no hegemon at all may be the real alternative to US primacy. Apolarity could turn
out to be an anarchic new Dark Age: an era of waning empires and religious fanaticism; of
endemic plunder and pillage in the world’s forgotten regions; of economic stagnation and
civilian’s retreat into a few fortified enclaves.”
If Americans succumb to the three deficits – manpower, budgets and attention span – that
Ferguson identifies as inhibiting a decisive action by Washington, while an aging Europe and
Russia, a crisis-ridden China, and a warring Islamic civilization fail to act, that bleak new era has
ever prospect of being realized.
47
Hegemony Uniqueness 2AC
Thomas Friedman, NYT, 9/4 (Superbroke, Superfrugal, Superpower?, New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05friedman.html?_r=1)
In recent years, I have often said to European friends: So, you didn’t like a world of too much
American power? See how you like a world of too little American power — because it is coming
to a geopolitical theater near you. Yes, America has gone from being the supreme victor of World
War II, with guns and butter for all, to one of two superpowers during the cold war, to the
indispensable nation after winning the cold war, to “The Frugal Superpower” of today. Get used
to it. That’s our new nickname. American pacifists need not worry any more about “wars of
choice.” We’re not doing that again. We can’t afford to invade Grenada today. Ever since the
onset of the Great Recession of 2008, it has been clear that the nature of being a leader —
political or corporate — was changing in America. During most of the post-World War II era,
being a leader meant, on balance, giving things away to people. Today, and for the next decade at
least, being a leader in America will mean, on balance, taking things away from people. And
there is simply no way that America’s leaders, as they have to take more things away from their
own voters, are not going to look to save money on foreign policy and foreign wars. Foreign and
defense policy is a lagging indicator. A lot of other things get cut first. But the cuts are coming —
you can already hear the warnings from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. And a frugal
American superpower is sure to have ripple effects around the globe. “The Frugal Superpower:
America’s Global Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era” is actually the title of a very timely new
book by my tutor and friend Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy
expert. “In 2008,” Mandelbaum notes, “all forms of government-supplied pensions and health
care (including Medicaid) constituted about 4 percent of total American output.” At present rates,
and with the baby boomers soon starting to draw on Social Security and Medicare, by 2050 “they
will account for a full 18 percent of everything the United States produces.” This — on top of all
the costs of bailing ourselves out of this recession — “will fundamentally transform the public
life of the United States and therefore the country’s foreign policy.” For the past seven decades,
in both foreign affairs and domestic policy, our defining watchword was “more,” argues
Mandelbaum. “The defining fact of foreign policy in the second decade of the 21st century and
beyond will be ‘less.’ ” When the world’s only superpower gets weighed down with this much
debt — to itself and other nations — everyone will feel it. How? Hard to predict. But all I know
is that the most unique and important feature of U.S. foreign policy over the last century has been
the degree to which America’s diplomats and naval, air and ground forces provided global public
goods — from open seas to open trade and from containment to counterterrorism — that
benefited many others besides us. U.S. power has been the key force maintaining global stability,
and providing global governance, for the last 70 years. That role will not disappear, but it will
almost certainly shrink. Great powers have retrenched before: Britain for instance. But, as
Mandelbaum notes, “When Britain could no longer provide global governance, the United States
stepped in to replace it. No country now stands ready to replace the United States, so the loss to
international peace and prosperity has the potential to be greater as America pulls back than when
Britain did.” After all, Europe is rich but wimpy. China is rich nationally but still dirt poor on a
per capita basis and, therefore, will be compelled to remain focused inwardly and regionally.
Russia, drunk on oil, can cause trouble but not project power. “Therefore, the world will be a
more disorderly and dangerous place,” Mandelbaum predicts. How to mitigate this trend?
Mandelbaum argues for three things: First, we need to get ourselves back on a sustainable path to
economic growth and reindustrialization, with whatever sacrifices, hard work and political
consensus that requires. Second, we need to set priorities. We have enjoyed a century in which
we could have, in foreign policy terms, both what is vital and what is desirable. For instance, I
presume that with infinite men and money we can succeed in Afghanistan. But is it vital? I am
48
sure it is desirable, but vital? Finally, we need to shore up our balance sheet and weaken that of
our enemies, and the best way to do that in one move is with a much higher gasoline tax.
America is about to learn a very hard lesson: You can borrow your way to prosperity over the
short run but not to geopolitical power over the long run. That requires a real and growing
economic engine. And, for us, the short run is now over. There was a time when thinking
seriously about American foreign policy did not require thinking seriously about economic
policy. That time is also over. An America in hock will have no hawks — or at least none that
anyone will take seriously.
49
Hegemony Sustainable
US Primacy is sustainable
Robert J. Lieber, Government Professor GWU, 2009, International Politics, Vol. 46, p. 136-7
Demography also works to the advantage of the United States. Most other powerful states,
including China and Russia as well as Germany and Japan, face the significant aging of their
populations. Although the United States needs to finance the costs of an aging population, this
demographic shift is occurring to a lesser extent and more slowly than among its competitors. Mark
Haas argues that these factors in global aging ‘will be a potent force for the continuation of US power
dominance, both economic and military’ (Haas, 2007, p. 113). Finally, the United States benefits from two
other unique attributes, flexibility and adaptability. Time and again, America has faced daunting
challenges and made mistakes, yet it has possessed the inventiveness and societal flexibility to
adjust and respond successfully. Despite obvious problems, not least the global financial crisis, there is reason to believe that
America’s adaptive capacity will allow it to respond to future requirements and threats. None of this
assures the maintenance of its world role, but the domestic underpinnings to support this engagement remain
relatively robust. Thus for the foreseeable future, US primacy is likely to be sustainable. America’s own
national interest – and the fortunes of a global liberal democratic order – depend on it.
US dominates the ability to power project

Stephen G. Brooks & William C. Wohlforth, Professors of Government- Dartmouth, 2008,
World Out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy, p. 28-9
These vast commitments have created a preeminence in military capabilities vis-à-vis all the other major powers that is unique after the
seventeenth century. While other powers could contest US forces near their homelands, especially over
issues on which nuclear deterrence is credible, the United States is and will long remain the only
state capable of projecting major military power globally. This capacity arises from “command of the commons” –
that is, unassailable military dominance over the sea, air, and space. As Barry Posen puts it, “Command of the commons is the
key military enabler of the US global power position. It allows the United States to exploit more
fully other sources of power including its own economic and military might as well as the
economic and military might of its allies. Command of the commons also helps the United States to weaken its adversaries,
by restricting their access to economic, military and political assistance….Command of the commons provides the United
States with more useful military potential for a hegemonic foreign policy than any other offshore
power has ever had.
Combination of military and economic potential means US primacy is historically

unprecedented
Posen’s study of American military primacy ratifies Kennedy’s emphasis on the historical importance of the economic foundations of national
It is the combination of military and economic potential that sets the United States apart
power.
from its predecessors at the top of that international system (fig 2.1). Previous leading states
were either great commercial and naval powers or great military powers on land, never both. The
British Empire in its heyday and the United States during the Cold War, for example, shared the world with other powers that matched or
exceeded them in some areas. Even at the height of the Pax Britannica, the United Kingdom was outspent, outmanned, and outgunned by both
France and Russia. Similarly, at the dawn of the Cold War the United States was dominant economically as well as in air and naval capabilities.
But the Soviet Union retained overall military parity, and thanks to geography and investment in land power it had a superior ability to seize
territory in Eurasia. The
United States’ share of the world GDP in 2006, 27.5 percent, surpassed that of
any leading state in modern history, with the sole exception of its own position after 1945 (when
World War II had temporarily depressed ever other major economy). The size of the US economy means that its
massive military capabilities required roughly 4 percent of its GDP in 2005, far less than the
nearly 10 percent it averaged over the peak years of the Cold War, 1950-70, and the burden borne by most of the
major powers of the past. As Kennedy sums up, “Being Number One at great cost is one thing; being the world’s single superpower on the cheap
is astonishing.”
50
Hegemony Sustainable-A2: Economic Crisis
Recent economic crisis doesn’t end US primacy
Robert J. Lieber, Government Professor GWU, 2009, International Politics, Vol. 46, p. 135
The extraordinary financial crisis that has impacted the United States, Europe, large parts of Asia
and much of the rest of the world has provided the impetus for renewed predictions of America’s
demise as the preeminent global power. Of course, present problems are very serious and the
financial crisis is the worst to hit the United States and Europe since the great depression began some
80 years ago. The impact on real estate, banking, insurance, credit, the stock market and overall business activity is quite severe, and a painful
by themselves, these developments do not mean that America will
recession is already underway. Yet
somehow collapse, let alone see some other country assume the unique role it has played in world
affairs. Arguably, the impact of the crisis upon the US economy is actually less than for the major
European powers. For example, the $700 billion bailout for financial firms approved by Congress
amounts to about 5 per cent of the country’s annual gross domestic product, significantly less as a
percentage than the burdens borne by many countries. In addition, while the exchange rate of the euro declined sharply
in the early months of the crisis, as did the British pound, the Russian ruble and many other currencies, the dollar rose sharply in value as foreign
investors sought a safe haven for their funds. (Among the other G-8 currencies, only the Japanese yen experienced a substantial rise.) The
United States will eventually surmount the present crisis, the excesses that helped to cause it will
be corrected, and despite painful costs of adjustment, its economy and financial systems will sooner or later
resume a more normal pattern of activity and growth. The new Obama administration will continue and
even intensify cooperation with other leading countries in efforts to reform the international
economic and financial systems. These may or may not produce a new ‘Bretton Woods’ system, but agreements will be
reached and the United States necessarily will play a central role in this effort.
No economic power transition to China

Finally, even if China benefits more from enhanced global economic interdependence than the
United States, a power transition is simply not in the cards for many decades precisely because the
United States now occupies such a dominant power position in the system. The challengers that Gilpin
discussed were great powers with advanced economies at a comparable level of development to the hegemon. In those circumstances,
aggregate GDP is a far better index of power than in a case where the rising state has a very large
but comparatively poor population. As Chapter 2 established, the power gap between the United States
and China is currently immense, especially in military capabilities; no single factor, including
globalization, can wipe it away anytime soon.
51
Hegemony Sustainable-A2: Dollar Shift
US dollar won’t be replaced as the global currency
In fact, Pape’s scenario is highly improbable. For one thing, there is little reason to think that a switch
to euro oil pricing could occur in the policy-relevant future. In this regard, OPEC’s overall stance is most crucial.
Over the years, “OPEC has many times said that it would continue pricing oil sales in dollars only.” The general aversion of
OPEC to switch away from pricing oil only in dollars is grounded in concrete economic factors.
The various economic advantages of the dollar for OPEC would be less consequential if there were not downsides associated with pricing oil in
multiple currencies. Yet from a transactions cost standpoint, continuing to price oil exclusively in dollars has a
number of advantages. For these and other reasons, it thus appears that “OPEC is unlikely to bring about or even try to shift markets
to euro-priced oil.” The more important point is that even if a switch to euro oil pricing eventually did occur, the
practice of pricing oil in dollars is a very minor contributor to the status of the dollar as the
international reserve currency. Global trade flows—of which oil is obviously just one element—are a tiny
portion of global financial flows: the average daily turnover in foreign exchange markets is now $3.2 trillion per day, while the
value of world exports is just under $12 trillion per year. Significantly, many of the core contributing factors to the
dollar’s status as the reserve currency have the weight of path dependency behind them. The dollar’s
role as the reserve currency is intimately related to the United States’ long-standing position as the largest military and economic power in the
system. The dollar’s status as the reserve currency is also a product of the deep, well-developed nature of US capital and money markets:
“Countries, or more precisely cities within countries, become financial centers when their markets in financial assets are deep, liquid, and stable.
Status as a financial center, once acquired, thus tends to sustain itself. When a country succeeds in attracting a critical mass of transactions in the
relevant securities, other investors bring their business there to take advantage of the liquidity and depth of the market. Incumbency is an
advantage, and the United States is the leading incumbent financial center.” Furthermore, “network externalities” make use of
the dollar very attractive: the dollar has long been widely held (around two-thirds of foreign exchange reserves are
now held in dollars) and widely used, and “the more often a currency is used in international
transactions, the lower the costs associated with using that currency and hence the more attractive
is the currency for conducting international exchanges.”
52
Hegemony Sustainable-A2: Iraq
Four reasons Iraq doesn’t take out primacy
London, 2008, After Bush: the case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 266-8
In the context of American primacy, it is worth recalling William Wohlforth’s observations on measuring power. Four points argue
that the days of American primacy and a unipolar world are not yet over. First, power as a
relational concept and power as resources are quite different concepts. That is, the ability to
achieve certain stated international ends or global public goods need not, of itself, reveal the
relative power of a state. The stalemate reached in Korea in the early 1950s, for instance, did not negate America’s superpower
position in the First Cold War. Similarly, America’s failed counterinsurgency in Vietnam did not bring into
being a multipolar world. Whether or when America “fails” in Iraq, that intervention is equally
unlikely to usher in a new multipolarity. America remains the world’s leading power “after Iraq.” It spends roughly
as much on defense as the rest of the world put together. The Pentagon’s budget bid for fiscal year 2008, of $578
billion, represented approximately 4 percent of GDP, a low proportion by historical standards. Of course, the ability to use those resources and the
need to do so are contingent matters. American power has not been able to establish a secure constitutional democracy in Iraq any more than it
the fact of American primacy endures even in
could decisively quell the communist subversion of South Vietnam. But
the face of a campaign that did not secure its original objectives. The cardinal indicators of a
challenge to that unipolar world – a balancing of other powers against the superpower or a
meaningful increase in rival powers’ defense spending – have simply not occurred. Second,
shifting the goalposts—evaluating US power by its ability to resolve global problems from drug proliferation to climate change—
does not offer a solid perspective. The US did not cease to be superpower after the Bay of Pigs
fiasco or on being ejected from the UN Commission on Human Rights. The failure to intervene
in Darfur will come to be regarded as a global abdication of responsibility to international actors, just as
Rwanda was previously. But it was not authored by Washington and it affects American power not a jot. Third, relying
on a single indicator is typically unreliable in evaluating national power. To be sure, analysis of budget and
trade deficits highlights possible weaknesses in the American economy. But the economy is, on other indicators—growth, inflation,
unemployment—in robust health. Moreover, even
in terms of the financial position of the US, growing
interdependence means that those states (notably China and Japan) that hold most in terms of dollar
reserves are themselves exposed should they abandon them. There exist few states with a
relationship with the US (and all developed states have one) that would not be materially disadvantaged if
America suffered a serious economic downturn. Fourth, analysts often overlook latent power –
the degree to which resources can or could be mobilized by a government. Despite America waging a global
campaign since 9/11, it has been the military rather than the nation as a whole that has been at war. The public has not been asked or required to
make serious material sacrifices either to secure the homeland or to assist the struggle against jihadism abroad. Taxes remain low, America has an
exclusively volunteer army, and fatalities in Iraq – while tragic—do not remotely brook comparison with those of Vietnam, Korea, or the Second
World War. In sum,
America possesses ample reserves with which to defend its global role and
primacy, if needed.
53
Hegemony Sustainable-A2: Overstretch
This theory is flawed-it doesn’t account for potential resources and can’t apply independent
of counterbalancing
Imperial Overstretch. Paul Kennedy coined the term imperial overstretch to describe the fate of
past leading states whose “global interests and obligations” became “far too large for the country
to be able to defend them all simultaneously.” Mounting budget deficits, increased foreign indebtedness, and armed forces
stretched thin in Iraq led many analysts to warn that the United States was in danger of following suit. But these first two strains are chiefly the
result of domestic choices to cut taxes while increasing spending, while the latter can largely be traced to the priority placed on the Pentagon’s
force modernization plan over a significant increase in the size of the army. Analysts
who argue that the United States now
suffers, or soon will suffer, from imperial overstretch invariably fail to distinguish between latent
power (the level of resources that could be mobilized from society) and actual power (the level of
resources a government actually chooses to mobilize). In his original formulation of imperial overstretch, Kennedy had in mind a situation in
which a state’s actual and latent capabilities cannot cope with its existing foreign policy commitments. To date, there is virtually no research on
whether the United States faces this prospect. Part of the problem is that because the Bush administration made no attempt to ask the public for
greater sacrifice,there is no observable evidence of whether it would be possible to extract more
resources for advancing US foreign policy interests. The Cold War experience indicates that the
US public is capable of supporting, over long periods, significantly higher spending on foreign
policy than current levels. Yet this does not necessarily mean that the US public would be willing to support a dramatic increase in
foreign policy spending now if policymakers called for it. The larger issue is that though IR scholars use the term, they have
not theorized or researched imperial overstretch as a constraint independent of counterbalancing.
In the historical cases highlighted by Kennedy and others, leading states suffered from imperial overstretch in
significant part because they faced counterbalancing that demanded more resources than they
were able to extract domestically. As chapters 2 and 3 showed, the United States does not face a
counterbalancing constraint. This raises a key question of whether there are limits to the US polity’s capacity to generate power in
the absence of the threat posed by a geopolitical peer rival. Lacking a focused research effort, scholars can now only answer with speculation.
54
Hegemony Sustainable-A2: Obama
US will retain committed to primacy
Notwithstanding their obvious dissimilarities, the parallels between the Truman and Bush presidencies are
instructive. The Bush presidency was the most important and controversial in American foreign
policy since Truman. But the demise of the Bush presidency marks not the repudiation of an
aberrant or even revolutionary disjuncture in foreign policy but the beginning of the end of the
first phase in a Second Cold War against Jihadist Islam. The past is, in this respect at least, truly prologue, even as
this particular prologue has now passed. Just as Truman left office with his popularity at its lowest ebb, his
party charged with a succession of foreign policy failures, and the nation mired in a seemingly
unwinnable war, so Bush ends his tenure with relatively few commentators either within or outside America mourning his
exit. But, like Truman before him, Bush’s imprint on American grand strategy, his joining a global war on
Islamist terror and establishment of policies at home and abroad to see America prevail in that war will remain substantially intact
under his successors. The central premises and prescriptions of the National Security Strategy (NSS)
documents of 2002 and 2006 will continue to shape American foreign policy in the new administration of
2009-13 and beyond.
Continuity of the terrorist threat and failure of multilateral alternatives make presidential
pursuit of primacy inevitable
For this reason, and despite the hopes of the liberal left and the predictions of realists, there is not a single mainstream US
politician with serious presidential ambitions who would choose the constraints of multipolarity
over the freedom of US primacy. It is inconceivable that a presidential candidate who seeks a permission slip to act on behalf of
American security could win the White House; in 2004, John Kerry’s reference to “a global test” for US foreign policy should pass won him very
few votes. Whilst building the United Nations into the Second Cold War is fine in principle, the
structural and political impediments to doing so are manifold and, we confidently predict, quite beyond
the remit of even the most tactically astute, rhetorically gifted, and politically empowered
American president. The European Union, likewise, offers the United States very little in terms of
enhanced military or diplomatic effectiveness. The freedom of action Bush enjoyed, which included
the freedom to botch disastrously the aftermath of the Iraq War, is one none of his successors will sacrifice. Much as it
pains Bush’s many detractors – on the right and the left – to acknowledge, a change of
administration in Washington will have no measurable effect on Islamist ideology, though it might on
their capacity; a sound policy will negate that capacity, a poor one will advance it. The Bin Laden camp waged war as fiercely
against Bill Clinton as it did against George W. Bush and will continue to do so against their
successors. A jihadist suicide bomber is supposedly afforded seventy-two virgins in heaven whether he kills Democrats or Republicans.
Because the frustrations and ambitions of the enemy are unlikely to change much over time we
should not expect the American response to those ambitions to alter very much either. Continuity
of threat will determine the continuity of American strategy. The imperative will be one few
American presidents can amend without risking catastrophe. We predict the next few will not
try.
55
A2: Bad Alliances
Non unique and US primacy can bring them around
Critics argue that only a hypocritical nation would urge the democratization of states like
Afghanistan and Iraq whilst sustaining the military dictatorships of Pakistan, the autocracy of
Uzbekistan or the feudal theocracy of Saudi Arabia. The war on terror is hardly unique in this
regard. The First Cold War was replete with US alliance-making of dubious moral character.
Such an auditing of both cold wars misses the necessity of nose-holding when facing an
existential threat. In her famous Commentary article, the late Jeanne Kirkpatrick argued that American foreign policy came most unstuck
when it was guided by a naive moral compass. Jimmy Carter was her case study. The fear, for her, was not that friendly dictators would be
replaced by liberal internationalists but by “less friendly autocrats of extremist persuasion.” The logic applied to Iran in 1979 – when a westward-
American interests are rarely
looking dictator was overthrown by anti-American Islamists—applies today in places like Pakistan.
served by abandoning friends on account of their moral turpitude. This enemy-of-my-enemy-is-
my-friend approach explains why the US-Soviet wartime alliance of 1941-5 was so effective,
despite the less than pristine human rights record of Joseph Stalin, and why, in the First Cold War, supporting Pinochet’s junta in Chile was
Ultimately, as Kirkpatrick predicted, right-wing regimes,
preferable to allowing communist subversion across that continent.
like Chile, transitioned into functioning, pro-western democracies. The odds on this happening to
Pakistan and Kazakhstan are perhaps long but only possible at all if they remain within the US
camp.
56
A2: Multilaterialism Good
Multilateralism net worse-leads to inaction
Consistent with the purported moral sanctity of multilateralism is the belief that it is more
effective practically than the unilateralism of any one state. This is open to dispute on a number
of fronts. If anything, the lesson of post 1991 international crises is that if the US government
does not act the EU is unlikely to do so. US ambivalence over the Rwandan genocide (1994) goes
some way to explaining—even if it does not excuse—European inaction. It seems reasonable to argue that,
without an American willingness to take on Serbia in 1994-6 and 1999, EU leaders, as Alikja Izetbegovic, the
president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, is alleged to have said, “would have talked and talked until we are all dead.”
Sometimes the multilateral imperative (which of its very nature requires an illusive consensus) leads to a lethal
inaction.
Primacy doesn’t trade-off with multilateral problem solving

Can American primacy be sustained? Threats from radical Islamist groups, nuclear proliferation, the potential
use of CBRN weapons and competition from authoritarian capitalist powers pose challenges that
require assertive American engagement. In addition, democratic allies and others have shown few
signs of wanting to forego the involvement of the North American ‘Goliath,’7 and despite heated
rhetoric about ‘hyperpower’8 and real or imagined excesses of unilateralism, a good deal of multilateral
cooperation has continued to take place. The NSS of September 2002 included a much-
overlooked endorsement of multilateralism and, at the time, the Bush administration avidly sought to enlarge its coalition of
the willing for the use of force against Saddam. In recent years, there have been six-party talks with North Korea,
deference to Germany, Britain and France (the EU-3) for their ultimately unsuccessful
negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, promotion of the multilateral Proliferation
Security Initiative aimed at strengthening the NPT, co-sponsorship with France of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 calling for the
withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, a massive increase in funding to combat AIDS in Africa, an
expanded NATO role in Afghanistan and UN mandates – UNSC Resolutions 1546 (2004) and 1637 (2005) – for
the US-led multinational force in Iraq.
International cooperation is dependent on unilateralism – it spurs countries into action

Michla Pomerance, Professor of International Law, Hebrew University, Spring 2002 (“U.S.
Multilateralism, Left and Right” – Orbis) p. ScienceDirect
More fundamentally, those who have understood the concept of "multilateralism" best have always
emphasized the dependence of multilateralism on unilateralism. Thus, the foremost American scholar
of international organization, Inis Claude (author of Swords into Plowshares), has written that despite the world’s bias
against unilateralism, "unilateralism … is, in fact, indispensable to effective multilateralism."
"Effective multilateralism starts with resolute unilateralism; the mission of the leader is not respectful
deference to the majority but determined pulling and hauling at it." Or as Thomas Friedman wrote in 1995: If the
Clinton foreign policy team has learned anything these past two years I hope it is this: there is no multilateralism
without unilateralism. Unless you first show people that you are ready to go alone, you will never
have partners to go with you …. Repeat after me: ‘The UN is us. The UN is us.’ From this perspective, the ones who
were paying lip service to multilateralism were not Bush and his Republican followers, who understood this
important lesson instinctively, but rather all those who insisted on untainted "humanitarian" motives for
multilateral actions. Theirs was a prescription for inaction and could provide its pretext.
57
A2: Soft Power Good
No internal link from soft power to primacy
Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 4, July/August, p. 31
Historically, the major forces pushing powerful states toward restraint and magnanimity have been the limits of their strength and the fear of
overextension and balancing. Great powers typically checked their ambitions and deferred to others not because they wanted to but because they
had to in order to win the cooperation they needed to survive and prosper. It is thus no surprise that today’s champions of American moderation
and international benevolence stress the constraints on American power rather than the lack of them. Political scientist Joseph Nye, for
example, insists that “[the term] unipolarity is misleading because it exaggerates the degree to which the United States is able to get the results it
cautions that if the
wants in some dimensions of world politics. ... American power is less effective than it might first appear.” And he
United States “handles its hard power in an overbearing, unilateral manner,” then others might be
provoked into forming a balancing coalition. Such arguments are unpersuasive, however, because
they fail to acknowledge the true nature of the current international system. The United States
cannot be scared into meekness by warnings of inefficacy or potential balancing. Isolationists and
aggressive unilateralists see this situation clearly, and their domestic opponents need to as well. Now and for the foreseeable
future, the United States will have immense power resources it can bring to bear to force or entice
others to do its bidding on a case-by-case basis.
Hard power doesn’t trade-off

William H. Thornton, Professor Cultural Studies National Cheng Kung University, 2005,
New World Empire, p. 6-7
9/11 changed all that in a flash. The 1990s turned out to have been at best a respite between two warring ages. It was made
abundantly clear that order would not simply unfold, but would have to be imposed. In the White House this revelation was so far from bad news
that the challenge was not smiling too broadly in front of the cameras. At home and abroad, security took full priority over all the things the
administration wanted to dispose of anyway. Securitization also enhanced the comparative advantage of America’s military supremacy—this is at
a time when its economic supremacy was flagging. That gain in hard power was not offset by any major loss in
soft power, since America was still swimming with the global tide. Just to make a point however,
Washington let the fact be known that it could go it alone or even swim against the tide if need
be. NATO responded to 9/11 by invoking for the first time a provision of its founding treaty that construes an attack on any member as an
attack on all. But, as if to put multilateralism in mothballs, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz curtly vetoed that collective action, saying
that if the United States needed help, it would ask for it.
Libya proves necessity of hard power to make soft power effective

For others, including ourselves, coercive diplomacy played the more decisive role. Neoconservatives
argued that the example of regime change in Iraq forced Qadaffi’s U-turn—“Saddam was deposed, eight
months ago, on flimsy evidential grounds,” observed the Libyan leader, “just think what will become of me when the Americans have absolute
knowledge of my WMD capacity,” [F]ive days after we captured Saddam Hussein,” noted Dick Cheney pointedly,
“Qadaffi came forward and announced that he was going to surrender all of his nuclear materials
to the United States.” This “Libyan surrender,” concurred Charles Krauthammer, was the product of “a clearly enunciated policy –
now known as the Bush Doctrine – of targeting, by preemptive war if necessary, hostile regimes
engaged in terror and/or refusing to come clean on WMDs …Hussein did not get the message
and ended up in a hole. Qaddafi got the message.” Ronald Reagan had, after all, bombed Tripoli in April 1986 in reprisal for its sponsorship of terrorism. Precedent therefore tended to
support the conclusion, no doubt shared by the Libyan regime, that, through a 9/11-three Ts prism, the US would not balk at doing so again, and more decisively.
The Libyan case is a classic example of liberal internationalists assuming everyone thinks like them. The regime, according to them, responded to inducements to rejoin “the society of nations” rather than to the fear of American violence. It was not the war on terror that accounted for
“Actions by the United States and our allies,”

Qadaffis’s conversion but his empathy with, or threatened exclusion from, a liberal project. Bush was more realistic about why Libya changed course.
sent an unmistakable message to regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass

he said, “have
destruction: Those weapons do not bring influence or prestige. They bring isolation or otherwise
unwelcome consequences.” These “unwelcome consequences” are perennially undervalued,
even eschewed, in liberal statecraft when, in reality, they are a form of hard power that makes
soft power possible. Neither works in isolation, both are only effective in tandem. As Jentleson and
Whytock conclude, “there is greater potential complementarity between force and diplomacy than more singular advocates of one ore the other
tend to convey.”
58
A2: Anti-Americanism Turn
No link between anti-Americanism and hard power-only risk of a turn
London, 2008, After Bush: the case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 198
Such perceptions reflect and reinforce a widespread view of America that is untroubled by dispassion and balance. Any objective
analysis of American military interventions can hardly cast Washington as a regional villain or
Islamophobic power. During the last half-century, in eleven of twelve major conflicts between
Muslims and non-Muslims, the US sided with the Muslim/Arab groups. American backing for Israel has
been the sole significant exception, with the US helping Israel to survive efforts from Arab states and terrorists to remove it from the map. As
Barry Rubin notes: “It
has been the United States’ perceived softness in recent years, rather than its
bullying behavior, that has encouraged anti-Americans to act on their beliefs. After the United
States failed to respond aggressively to many terrorist attacks against its citizens, stood by while
Americans were seized as hostages in Iran and Lebanon, let Saddam Hussein remain in power
while letting the shah fall, pressured its friends and courted its enemies, and allowed its prized
Arab-Israeli peace process to be destroyed, why should anyone have respected its interests or fear
its wrath?...further concessions will only encourage even more contempt for the United States and make
the anti-American campaign more attractive…If Arab anti-Americanism turns out to be grounded in domestic
maneuvering rather than American misdeeds, neither launching a public relations campaign nor changing Washington’s policies will affect it…
Only when the systems that manufacture and encourage anti-Americanism fail will popular
opinion also change.”
Soft power net more likely to provoke anti-Americanism

London, 2008, After Bush: the case for continuity in American foreign policy, p. 199
The tenacity with which febrile notions of American designs and influence win currency in the
Islamic world is remarkable. Indeed, this should be factored into discussions of American “soft”
power winning “hearts and minds.” As Bernard Lewis noted, when Khomeini and other fanatics labeled
America the “Great Satan” they chose their term carefully. Satan is a seducer more than he is a
warrior. It is the power to tempt “good Muslims” into a degenerate, infidel mindset and lifestyle that is the devil’s greatest threat. It is
not what America does that accounts for Muslim rage. To parrot this notion as a rational explanation,
demanding a change in policy that will then lead to cordial relations, is to ignore the reality that,
for Islmaists, what America is generates resentment, anger, and envy. It is this paradox (“Yankee go
home! And take me with you!) that, among other problems, precludes the success of a “hearts and minds”-based
strategy. As Lewis observed: “from the writings of Khomeini and other ideologists of Islamic fundamentalism, it is cleat that it is the
seductive appeal of American culture, far more than any possible hostile acts by American governments, that they see as offering the greatest
menace to the true faith and the right path as they define them. By denouncing America as the Great Satan, the late Ayatollah Khomeini was
paying an unconscious tribute to that seductive appeal.” Given this, and the societal, economic, and political deficiencies that generate anti-
Americanisms in the region, what can feasibly be done?
59
A2: Anti-Americanism Turn
Radicalism not driven by US primacy

Another reason for concluding that the threat is deep-seated and long term has to do with the
fundamental sources of radical Islamism. Those who downplay the threat tend to argue that the most important causes stem from specific provocations by
America, Israel or the West, particularly the Iraq War, the American presence in the Middle East, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the affront caused by ‘occupation’ of Arab or Muslim lands
(see Pape, 2005a). Such interpretations not only do not take into account the far deeper origins of radical Islam, but they also tend to over-simply the explanation of contemporary conflicts. In
Moghadam of the Olin Institute for Security Studies at Harvard has provided a compelling refutation
contrast, Assaf
of the idea that suicide terrorism is primarily motivated by a resistance to ‘occupation.’ Instead he
emphasizes the way in which it has evolved into a ‘globalization of martyrdom’ (Moghadam, 2006; see
also Doran, 2002). The fundamental causes of radical jihadism and its manifestations of apocalyptic
nihilism lie in the failure to cope successfully with the disruptions brought by modernity and
globalization and in the humiliation experienced, especially by parts of the Arab–Muslim world,
over the past four centuries. These reactions have been expressed at both individual and societal levels. For example, in an implied reference to the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire and thus the end of the Muslim Caliphate which had extended back some 13 centuries to the time of the Prophet, Osama bin Laden’s October 2001 video invoked 80 years of
Muslim ‘humiliation’ and ‘degradation’ at the hands of the West (Al-Jazeera, 2001). In turn, the 2002 UN Arab Human Development Report has described the contemporary Arab world as
afflicted by profound deficits in freedom, in empowerment of women, and in knowledge and information. These failures have, in some cases, been amplified by the experiences of individuals who
the 9/11
have become detached from one world and yet have been unable to integrate into another (see Lewis, 2002; Ajami, 2006; Murawiec, 2008). It is noteworthy too that
attacks took place before the US-led invasion of Iraq, and that terrorist strikes against American
targets abroad were carried out in 1990s when the Israel–Arab peace process seemed to be
making real progress. Suicide terrorism elsewhere has had little to do with ‘occupation’ by the
West or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Attacks in Bali, Mumbai, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Amman, the murder of
the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, the effort to blow up the Indian parliament, the destruction of the Shiite golden dome mosque in Samarra,
deadly Sunni–Shiite violence in Iraq, mass casualty attacks on public transportation in London and trains in Madrid, and numerous interrupted
are among multiple indications not only of the wider threat posed by radical jihadism, but
plots
also of a deep- seated and fundamental rage against modernity and those identified with it.
### Solvency Extensions ###
60
Sustainability Solvency
Space exploration enables us to develop a sustainable model of exploration
Mihai G. Netea, Ph.D.1,2, Frank L. van de Veerdonk, Ph.D.1,2, Marc Strous, Ph.D.2,3, and Jos W.M.
van der Meer, Ph.D.1,2, 1Department of Medicine and 2Nijmegen Institute for Infection, Inflammation and
Immunity (N4i), Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3Max
Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology, Bremen, Germany, Journal of Cosmology, October-November,
2010, Infection Risk of a Human Mission to Mars, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars129.html:
DA 1/11/11
"Space junk" has already become a problem and poses dangerous and potentiality
catastrophic risks to astronauts. Species destruction and environmental damage is also more
or less uncontrolled (Ceballos et al., 2010; Cains 2010; Moriarty and Honnery 2010; Reese,
2010; Trainer 2010). Many believe we are facing a 6th extinction crisis (Ceballos et al.,
2010; McKee 2010; Jones 2009; Tonn 2010). Clearly our existing moral principles when it
comes to life and the environment are far from ideal. Perhaps we should be careful not to
continue exploring space based on the same values we employ on Earth. One important
benefit of space exploration could, therefore, be philosophical in nature: developing a
sustainable model of exploration and exploitation of environments. Jacques Arnould and
André Debus have argued that ethics is in some sense the next frontier of space exploration
(Arnould & Debus 2008).
61
A2: PMNS
Starting from the moon makes Mars colonization possible

Our first manned mission to Mars will not be too different from the first moon exploration,
simply short term and exploratory. The long distance and long travel time to Mars of 9
months or more one way (with existing technologies) require special consideration
which is the subject of a separate paper. Plans to originate Mars colonization from moon
colonies established for deep space exploration have been proposed. It is argued that
the moon’s lower mass and therefore much lower gravity, 1/6 of Earth’s, translates to
greatly reduced costs of launching missions into deep space. Many of the raw
materials and resources required to sustain the crew on our early interplanetary
missions might possibly be mined from the moon greatly reducing the costs. Newly
discovered water if available in sufficient quantity might be mined for human use,
and its constituents, oxygen for human consumption along with hydrogen for fuel.
Carbon, iron and several other elements will also likely be mined for a variety of purposes.
Together they will make up a significant portion of the total resources required for
our first interplanetary colonists.
62
A2: Jumping to Mars from the Moon Won’t Work
The moon is still a great learning environment

Establishing a fully self sufficient colony on the moon as a stepping stone to the
planets will not come cheaply and may prove not to be feasible at all. However, the
moon will be a great laboratory and learning environment for the kinds of obstacles,
living conditions, and hazards that will also have to be faced on Mars or more distant
venues. In some cases the hazards on the moon are even more severe than the Martian
environment. For example solar radiation, solar wind, micrometeorites, and 500
degree temperature gradients are far more indicative of what our space explorers will
experience during the trip to Mars than the extremes that will be encountered on the
Martian surface. The knowledge gained and the technologies developed to support
permanent bases on the moon will greatly benefit both for our first voyages to Mars
as well as the first Martian colonies and even worlds beyond.
63
A2: Technology Doesn’t Exist Yet
The rate of technological advancement is outstanding

It is very easy to fall into a trap by speculating why we have not already encountered signs
of extra-terrestrial civilizations using Fermi’s 50 year old paradox “Where is everybody?”.
Anthropic assumptions and arguments must be evaluated with considerable caution and
thought. As I (Edgar Mitchell) have often pointed out in my lectures, 140 years ago, my
great grandparents migrated from Georgia to Texas in a covered wagon. The automobile,
trains, airplanes, indoor plumbing, electric lights, telephone, radio, electronics, etc. had not
yet been invented. And, yet, one hundred and forty years later I went to the moon. The rate
of technological advancement in such a short period of time has been absolutely
astounding.
64
A2: We Can’t Go Faster than the Speed of Light
We don’t know we can’t go faster than the speed of light. New scientific discoveries are
possible

According to them our only hope of interstellar contact would be to stay at home and try to
communicate with an alien civilization via some form of communication mechanism such
as powerful narrow band radio or laser beams. And, even then the round trip delay of such
a message to our closest neighbor would take about 9 years. Certainly this does not seem
like an encouraging prospect for two-way interstellar communications. A monologue
perhaps.
The speed of light limitation is based on current human knowledge and our current
understanding of the laws of nature. But, history has shown over and over how quickly our
understanding can change. One hundred years ago the British scientist Lord Kelvin was
discouraging physics students from entering the field of physics because, according to him,
all the laws of nature had already been discovered and all that remained was to improve the
accuracy of nature’s constants to 6 decimal points. Of course we now know how naive that
opinion was because within just a few years after his pronouncement, relativity, quantum
physics, and many new discoveries in astronomy and cosmology burst upon the scene.
Without many of these discoveries our modern technology based civilization would not be
possible
65
A2: Mars Travel Too Complicated
Using the moon as a base lowers the cost of Mars travel
Harrison H. Schmitt, Ph.D., College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Former United

States Senator, Apollo 17 Astronaut, 12th and last man to set foot on the Moon., Apollo on Mars:
Geologists Must Explore the Red Planet, Journal of Cosmology, October-November 2010, Vol 12, 3506-
3516, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars109.html, DOA: 1-11/11
For the Apollo astronauts, the Moon was only three and a half days away. Mars, using
conventional chemical rockets, is eight to nine months away at best. Even using an
advanced Helium-3 fusion rocket that allows continuous acceleration and deceleration,
Mars will be three or four months away. Fortunately, we have the Moon to provide critical
aid in an inherently difficult task. The Moon represents the most efficient and lowest risk
path to Mars. It provides the opportunity for systems verification, operational planning,
crew training, settlement management, and gathering essential resources, whether
hydrogen, oxygen, water, food, or helium-3. The development of helium-3 fusion power
for consumption on Earth even can support much of the development costs of heavy lift
launch and interplanetary fusion rockets. (Schmitt, 2006).
One way missions to Mars minimize transportation problems
Dirk Schulze-Makuch, Ph.D.1, and Paul Davies, Ph.D.2, 1School of Earth and Environmental Sciences,
Washington State University 2Beyond Center, Arizona State University, October-November, 2010, To
Boldly Go: A One Way Mission to Mars, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html
A human mission to Mars is technologically feasible, but hugely expensive requiring

enormous financial and political commitments. A creative solution to this dilemma would
be a one-way human mission to Mars in place of the manned return mission that remains
stuck on the drawing board. Our proposal would cut the costs several fold but ensure at the
same time a continuous commitment to the exploration of Mars in particular and space in
general. It would also obviate the need for years of rehabilitation for returning astronauts,
which would not be an issue if the astronauts were to remain in the low-gravity
environment of Mars. We envision that Mars exploration would begin and proceed for a
long time on the basis of outbound journeys only. A mission to Mars could use some of the
hardware that has been developed for the Moon program. One approach could be to send
four astronauts initially, two on each of two space craft, each with a lander and sufficient
supplies, to stake a single outpost on Mars. A one-way human mission to Mars would not
be a fixed duration project as in the Apollo program, but the first step in establishing a
permanent human presence on the planet. The astronauts would be re-supplied on a
periodic basis from Earth with basic necessities, but otherwise would be expected to
become increasingly proficient at harvesting and utilizing resources available on Mars.
Eventually the outpost would reach self-sufficiency, and then it could serve as a hub for a
greatly expanded colonization program. There are many reasons why a human colony on
Mars is a desirable goal, scientifically and politically.
66
A2: Can’t Land on Mars
Many ways to land on Mars

Once in orbit around Mars, there will be many challenges in entry, descent and landing of
large crewed spacecraft (See Manning, 2007). It is currently estimated that to land a crew
on Mars will require a mass of forty to sixty metric tonnes at entry into the atmosphere, or
more than ten times the landed mass thought feasible today. Rockets can be used for the
final phases of landing; however, like any crew’s return to Earth from space, one would
like to use friction with the Martian atmosphere to help slow down before gliding (like a
Space Shuttle) or deploying parachutes (like Apollo’s return to Earth) or using rocket
engines (like Apollo lunar landings).
Landings similar to those on Mars have occurred in other places
Don Pettit NASA, Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, Mars Landing on Earth: An
Astronaut's Perspective, Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3529-3536.,
Our Soyuz was TMA-1, the first flight vehicle off the production line in 25 years with a major
upgrade to the cockpit. During entry, shortly after spacecraft separation from its propulsion and
orbital modules, a small malfunction in a signal processing box that converts computer commands
into jet firing signals caused us to loose the reaction control system (it is not known to the author if
this malfunction was the result of the cockpit upgrade). This malfunction occurred when we were
out of radio contact with mission control. We downmoded to an unguided ballistic entry where we
experienced over 8 g loadings and landed about 475 kilometers short of the nominal landing site.
Following the initial landing impact, our capsule rolled a few times and ended up on its side about
30 meters from the point of touchdown. The trajectory brought us out of radio range for the
parachute phase line-of-sight VHF radios, thus, the ground support team had no idea where we had
landed. About two hours postlanding a search airplane flew overhead and we were able to make
radio contact. About 3 hours after radio contact, the ground support personnel arrived via
helicopter.
Due to these series of events, we as a crew performed a number of operational tasks previously not
required by long duration crews. Given our sudden transitions from long term weightlessness, to 8
g’s, to the big thump, to being on our own in Kazakhstan, these tasks were physically taxing and
not easy to accomplish. However, by working as a crew in this degraded state, we were able to take
care of ourselves and complete basic survival tasks without outside help. We were not quivering
sacks of Jell-O. This was due in part to the advancement in physiological countermeasures made on
the International Space Station.
2. Mars Landing on Earth
The parallels of our mission to that of one to Mars are striking. First we lived in a weightless
environment for 5 1/2 months. Six months is a good canonical number for a one way trip to Mars
which could be adjusted either up or down depending on the choice of propulsion technology. Our
level of deconditioning due to a long weightless journey was similar to a crew arriving at Mars. We
piloted our own spacecraft through a high-g maneuver, similar to what a crew will do at Mars.
67
A2: Human Bodies Can’t Take Long Duration Space Flight
Scientific improvements make long-duration space flight possible for the human body
Don Pettit NASA, Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, Mars Landing on Earth: An
Astronaut's Perspective, Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3529-3536.,
The life science researchers at NASA have made significant progress towards long duration
space flight countermeasures. Exercise prescriptions have been developed that crews
follow rigorously. A blend of resistive and cardiovascular exercise along with diet has
made good progress towards reducing the negative effects of long duration space flight.
Heavy loading of large bone-muscle groups in the form of "weightlifting squats" using a
resistive exercise machine with loadings as high as 260 kilograms have significantly
reduced bone and muscle degradation. Typically, crews will perform heavy exercise for 2
hours a day. With every returning crew from Space Station, the total number of human data
points increases, aiding the statistics between cause and affect.
68
A2: We Can’t Land Humans on Mars
We’ll figure it out and going to the moon first will provide critical knowledge

With respect to landing humans on Mars, therefore, the bad news is we do not know how…
yet. Bright young men and women, on the other hand, will meet these challenges once we
decide to go to Mars. Already ideas are developing on how to do accomplish a Mars
landing, how to test those ideas, and how to prepare for the missions. Returning to the
Moon with these engineering, operational, and training challenges in mind would help lay
the foundations for missions to Mars, and, indeed, may be essential for success.
69
A2 Psychological/Too Long to Be Away From Home
Human explorers normally away for longer periods of time

The time required to reach Mars may create some differences in the psychological
environment of Martian exploration versus that of the Moon. A minimum of several
months to return home versus a few days might affect some individuals in adverse ways.
For example, psychologically, I personally felt very at ease while on the Moon. I attribute
this to being both highly motivated and highly trained as well as having very great
confidence in the support team on Earth. Although a Mars crew will have to be much more
self-reliant than a lunar crew due to physical isolation from Earth and communication
limitations, nonetheless, motivation, training, team confidence, and survival instincts will
be much the same as working on the Moon. Historically, human explorers have been
subjected to much longer separations from home than will early Mars crews.
Humans have overcome many technological barriers for grand accomplishments

Access to Mars, therefore, will require addressing a myriad of complex technological and
operational issues. If Americans and their partners are serious about such an effort, as they
should be, the most important step is to establish clear and focused objectives and
milestones to meet those objectives. Throughout history, Americans and their partners have
successfully responded to challenges of this nature and magnitude when given clear goals
and competent, courageous leadership. Obvious examples are the Transcontinental
Railroad (Ambrose, 2000), the Panama Canal (McCullough, 1977), the Manhattan Project
(Kelly, 2007), and Apollo (Cortwright, 1975) as well as victory in two World Wars. In this
challenge of taking freedom into deep space, time and dithering are not our friends.
70
A2: Interstellar Travel Not Possible
Anti-matter makes interstellar space exploration possible
Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D.1, Robert Staretz, M.S. 1Apollo 14 Lunar module pilot. Sixth person to walk on the Moon,
Energy and Interstellar Travel, Journal of Cosmology, October-November 2010,
http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars132.html, DA: 1/11/11
More exotic forms of space propulsion include nuclear pulse and antimatter engines.
Nuclear pulse is a technology where a spacecraft is propelled by a series of small nuclear
explosions. In essence the spacecraft is propelled by the shockwave from these explosions
that occur behind the spacecraft. With antimatter propulsion an equal mixture of matter and
antimatter are mixed together. When this happens the engine annihilates the matter /
antimatter mix creating vast amounts of pure energy in the process. Although energy
generation by matter / antimatter reactions produces very high energies, it has two major
technical problems. The first is that antimatter does not exist naturally in significant
amounts as far as we know. Consequently it would have to be manufactured by high energy
linear accelerators or similar expensive equipment. Once it was produced it would have to
be contained and stored for later use on the spacecraft as the propellant. This in itself is no
small task because antimatter cannot be kept in a normal container made of ordinary matter
since it will annihilate instantly on coming into contact with the storage container's walls.
The only practical solution would be some type of "electromagnetic container" to store and
contain the antimatter. If these problems can be overcome, matter-antimatter annihilation
would release 10-100 billion times more energy than today's chemical rockets making it
ideal for interstellar space travel.
Energy limits block interstellar space travel
Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D.1, Robert Staretz, M.S. 1Apollo 14 Lunar module pilot. Sixth person to walk on the Moon,
Energy and Interstellar Travel, Journal of Cosmology, October-November 2010,
The trouble with all forms of the propulsion systems described above is that the fuel that is
utilized must be carried in the ship. In most cases, this would greatly increase the mass of
the ship either due to the mass of the fuel itself or of its containment system. The bottom
line is much of the momentum of the exhaust would actually be "wasted" on moving the
remaining unspent fuel in the opposite direction. In addition, except for matter-antimatter
propulsion, most propulsion methods do not contain the energy necessary to accelerate a
space craft to more than a small percentage the speed of light. Since they can only achieve
a velocity of 5-10% of the speed of light, a trip would take months or years to reach its
destination in the solar system. Travel to the nearest star would take over forty years one
way. And then there is always the issue of having enough fuel for the deceleration at the
destination as well as for the return trip back to Earth. For interstellar travel most rocket
propulsion systems described above are simply not practical because all forms (except
matter-antimatter) of this technology can only reach very modest velocities, making round
trips to even to the nearest star a trip that would literally last a lifetime.
71
A2: Payload Limits
Payload limits can be overcome
Walter C. Engelund et al, NASA, October-November 2010, Journal of Cosmology, Entry, Descent, and
Landing Architecture and Technology
Challenges for Human Exploration of Mars, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars146.html
Eventual human exploration and presence on the surface of Mars will require long term and
sustained investments in many new technologies and engineering developments. Certainly
among these large development efforts will be those that provide the new EDL systems to
ultimately deliver the large cargo and crew to the surface, which will be unlike anything we
have used to date in our relatively small (<1 t) robotic science payloads. The Mars DRA5
study highlighted the criticality of the EDL systems, not only in terms of system level
performance requirements (approximately 50 t payloads to the surface of Mars), but also in
terms of the elements of overall mission risk and architectural level design drivers. The
follow-on EDL-SA project, continues to make progress in identifying and defining new and
innovative EDL technology options for large mass delivery to the surface of Mars. If our
collective desire is to move beyond small robotic missions and the less than 1 t landed
payload mass capability at Mars, new atmospheric flight system capabilities must be
defined and developed, which will form the basis of any EDL system and overall mission
architecture design. The systems that will be used to land tens of tons of payload on Mars
are not available or even known today, and cannot be defined through paper studies alone.
The development and qualification of these systems will require multiple cycles of design,
test, evaluation and flight test. This will require a long term commitment and sustained
development effort, likely over multiple generations. Nevertheless, these are merely
engineering challenges before us, and nothing to date has indicated that the capabilities to
meet these human exploration EDL challenges are not physically realizable.
72
A2: Too Costly
A one way mission to Mars it not that expensive
In our view, however, many of these human and financial problems would be ameliorated
by a one-way mission. It is important to realize that this is not a "suicide mission." The
astronauts would go to Mars with the intention of staying for the rest of their lives, as
trailblazers of a permanent human Mars colony. They would be resupplied periodically
from Earth, and eventually develop some "home grown" industry such as food production
and mineral/chemical processing (Zubrin and Baker 1992; Zubrin and Wagner 1997). Their
role would be to establish a "base camp" to which more colonists would eventually be sent,
and to carry out important scientific and technological projects meanwhile. Of course, the
life expectancy of the astronauts would be substantially reduced, but that would also be the
case for a return mission. The riskiest part of space exploration is take-off and landing,
followed by the exposure to space conditions. Both risk factors would be halved in a one-
way mission, and traded for the rigors of life in a cramped and hostile environment away
from sophisticated medical equipment. On the financial front, abandoning the need to send
the fuel and supplies for the return journey would cut costs dramatically, arguably by about
80 percent. Furthermore, once a Mars base has been established, it would be politically
much easier to find the funding for sustaining it over the long term than to mount a hugely
expensive return mission.
73
A2: Radiation
Shielding an developments in propulsion systems solve
Tore Straume, Ph.D.1, Steve Blattnig, Ph.D.2, and Cary Zeitlin, Ph.D.3, 1NASA Ames Research
Center, NASA Langley Research Center 3Southwest Research Institute, October-November 2010, Journal
of Cosmology, adiation Hazards and the Colonization of Mars:
Brain, Body, Pregnancy, In-Utero Development, Cardio, Cancer, Degeneration,
Shielding. As colonization of Mars advances the human population on Mars would be

expected to grow, analogous to our colonization of Earth during the past million years.
Pregnancies and childbirth will become commonplace. The ability to keep exposures lower
than that for earlier exploration missions will be required. Shielding comes in two types,
active and passive. Active shielding approaches would generally generate electromagnetic
fields in order to deflect the charged particle radiation. Currently, active approaches are not
technologically feasible but may become so in the future (Adams 2005).
With readily available shielding material on the surface of Mars it is unlikely that active
shielding will be the main source of shielding. However, it may be useful in transit vehicles
on the surface of Mars, particularly if it can be made sufficiently portable. Also, as transit
between Earth and Mars becomes more common, i.e., multiple trips and all ages,
combinations of active and passive shielding may be required. The principal concerns
about active shielding include the need for very high power requirements (perhaps nuclear
fission or fusion), which could influence electronics, produce added health effect risk, as
well as various reliability issues (NRC 2008).
Passive shielding consists of placing mass between the external radiation and the sensitive
targets whether they are humans or electronics. For transit to Mars, mass is very expensive
so shielding needs to be optimized. It has been found that the lower the atomic number of a
material, the better shielding properties it has for GCR and SPE. Mass will be a major
constraint for transit vehicles so it is important to take full advantage of all existing mass
before adding "parasitic" shielding. The development of multifunctional materials with
improved shielding properties is required. Also careful consideration of radiation shielding
needs throughout the design process is essential to achieving an optimal design since how
the mass is distributed throughout the vehicle can be a very important consideration,
particularly for SPE. It is also noted that uncertainties in the radiation-induced health risk
estimates influence the optimization of shielding materials (Cucinotta 2006), which places
substantial premium on reducing those uncertainties. On the surface of Mars, shielding
material will be readily available in the form of regolith. It would be expected that as a base
is developed on Mars, surface assets would become available as needed over time to
process the regolith into shielding material..Indirectly, one of the best ways to mitigate
radiation risk is through improvements in propulsion. Better propulsion could reduce transit
time, which would decrease GCR exposure during transit as well as risk from SPE. Also,
more mass would be possible for transit vehicle shielding. For example, nuclear thermal
propulsion could shorten round trip times from 900 days to less than 500 days (NRC 2008).
Radiation exposure to crew from the reactor can be minimized by design (Nealy 1991).
74
A2: Explorers Can Survive Isolated
Many examples of isolated explorers
Douglas W. Gage, Ph.D., XPM Technologies, Mars Base First:

A Program-level Optimization for Human Mars Exploration, Journal of Cosmology, October-
November, 2010, Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3904-3911. ,
http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars103.html DA: 1/11/11
.1 Can humans survive and succeed on a ten-year mission? Some may object that a
mission profile calling for an eight-year stay on the surface of Mars (and ten years away
from Earth) is unreasonable – that the psychological stresses of living in such a small
isolated group for so long would put the success of the mission, if not the crew’s survival,
at unacceptable risk. However, the history (and especially the prehistory) of humanity is
one of many small groups of people migrating into the unknown with no intention of
returning, and, in fact, informal surveys suggest that many people would be willing to sign
up for a one-way trip to Mars (Krauss, 2009). We find many examples of small groups that
have successfully lived in nearly constant isolation, including bands of hunter-gatherers,
Inuit family groups, pre-20th century ship crews, castaways, and some soldiers and
prisoners.
Explorers can be connected via the web
Douglas W. Gage, Ph.D., XPM Technologies, Mars Base First:

A Program-level Optimization for Human Mars Exploration, Journal of Cosmology, October-
November, 2010, Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3904-3911. ,
However, while humans on Mars will be physically isolated from Earth, they will have
high bandwidth connectivity to the rest of the humanity (albeit with a 6-44 minute round
trip latency). They need not be lonely; the World Wide Web will grow into the Solar
System Wide Web. But we must thoroughly explore the full range of issues associated with
long-term connected-but-physical-isolated living, including understanding how and how
well high-bandwidth network communications can compensate for the lack of physical
contact, and develop an experience base on Earth before we dare send people on such a
mission. Since it is likely that the success of the mission may depend on the "chemistry" of
the specific personalities involved, it may be that a crew should begin living together as a
coherent group (if not in full isolation) well before their launch. The psychological and
psychiatric issues associated with spaceflight have been studied since the beginning of the
space age; see, for example, (Kanas & Manzey, 2003; Kanas & Ritsher, 2005), and (Johns,
2004).
75
### Life on Mars ###
76
Life on Mars
Many indicators of life on Mars
Saara Reiman Department of Political and Economic Studies in the University of Helsinki, On
Sustainable Exploration of Space and Extraterrestrial Life, Journal of Cosmology, October-
November 2010, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars141.html: DA: 1/11/11
The possibility that Mars is a living planet is supported by evidence from the 1976 Viking
Mission Labeled Release (LR) experiment (Levin 2010). As determined by Levin (2010),
the LR obtained positive responses at Viking 1 and 2 sites on Mars which was at first
interpreted as indications of life. Almost immediately, however, a consensus formed which
favored chemical or physical agents in the Martian surface material, not life. Science is not
a democracy and a positive response favors the possibility of life. In fact, the positive
response to the LR experiment can be explained by microbial organisms which employ use
a mixture of water and hydrogen peroxide as an intracellular solvent (Houtkooper and
Schulze-Makuch 2010).
Additional evidence suggestive of life is based on the presence of substantial amounts of
methane in the Martian atmosphere (Yung et al., 2010). Although it is yet to be determined
if the methane is biological or abiogenic, the fact remains that methane continues to be
produced. Even if abiotic in origin, the combination of reduced gases and oxidised minerals
provides opportunities for life to flourish (Sephton 2010).
Based on studies of genetics, biology, and astrobiology, there is a growing consensus that
life on Earth originated from extra-terrestrial sources, and were delivered to this planet by
comets, meteors and planetary debris (Jose et al., 2010; Gibson and Wickramasinghe 2010;
Joseph 2009; Joseph & Schild, 2010; Sharov 2010); and this implies life may be
everywhere throughout the cosmos. If life on Earth arose by mechanisms of panspermia or
through abiogenesis, then certainly the same mechanism can apply to Mars and other
celestial bodies. And even if life first arose on Earth, it is possible life could have been
transferred to Mars from Earth by mechanisms of panspermia (Burchell 2009; Napier and
Wickramasinghe 2010). There is thus every reason to suspect that life may exist on Mars,
and that highly evolved forms of life have evolved on other planets (Joseph and Schild,
2010; Mitchell and Staretz 2010).
77
A2: Mars Isn’t Habitable By Humans
Mars can be terraformed to make it habitable
Dan Răzvan Popoviciu "Ovidius" University of Constanţa, Natural Sciences and Agricultural
Sciences Faculty, Constanţa, Romania, Terraforming Mars via the Bosch Reaction:
Turning Gas Giants Into Stars, October-November 2010, Journal of Cosmology,
Several methods for terraforming Mars, to make it habitable to humans, have been
proposed by various authors (Graham, 2006, Moss, 2006; Zubrin & McKay, 1997). The
proposals include giant orbital mirrors, controlled asteroid impacts, nuclear mining or the
use of halocarbons to warm the planet and create an atmosphere (Birch, 1992; Zubrin &
McKay, 1997; Fogg, 1998; Hiscox, 2000; Graham, 2004, 2006; International Space
University, 2005; Marinova et al., 2005; Moss, 2006; Orme & Ness, 2007, McInnes, 2010).
The general idea behind all these methods is that heating the Martian atmosphere should
release carbon dioxide and other gaseous volatiles from the polar caps, permafrost and
regolith reserves, triggering a runaway greenhouse effect thereby trapping heat and
warming the planet. This would bring medium temperatures closer to those on Earth, and
create a substantial atmosphere and planetary water cycle.
Microorganisms could be transferred to Mars
It is unknown if microbes already populate the red planet. However, it is well established
that archae, bacteria, and simple eukaryotes terraformed Earth, and created its oxygen
atmosphere, and were also largely responsible for the temperature extremes, from global
warming to global cooling, for the first 4 billion years (Joseph 2010). Therefore, a variety
of microorganisms could be also be deployed to Mars.
78
There is Life on Mars
Many indicators of water on Mars, and life begins in water
DA 1/11/11
The probability of life on Mars is one of the most exciting questions to the scientific
community (Houtkooper and Schulze-Makuch, 2010; Levin 2010; Leuko et al. 2010;
Sephton 2010), but no firm answers have been given during the decades of space
exploration. Many believed that life on Earth began in water (Russell and Kanik, 2010),
and it is also currently thought that liquid water is one of the prerequisites of life on any
planet (Brack, 1999). Mars mapping by Mariner 9 and by Viking 1 and 2 revealed channels
resembling riverbeds, and information collected by the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS)
strengthened the case for early surface water on Mars (Malin and Edgett, 2000a). Another
investigation based on photographic images provided by MGS shows relatively young
geological features compatible with the presence of liquid water possible as recent as a few
million years ago (Malin and Edgett, 2000b). Even more striking, data from Mars
Exploration Rovers discovered round pebbles scattered on the surface of Meridiani
Planum, suggesting that this region has once been submerged (Squyres, et al., 2004).
Methane on Mars is likely produced by organic life forms
DA 1/11/11
The detection of methane and formaldehyde in Mars’s atmosphere could be another

indication that microbes exist on Mars (Formisano, et al., 2004; Yung et al., 2010).
Although the presence of methane could be a mere sign of geographical processes (e.g.
serpentinization), it is well known that most of the methane in Earth’s atmosphere is
produced by microbes. Furthermore, methane concentrations have been found to vary in
space and time, suggesting that it is produced or released in a dynamic process and this
could support the idea of present life on Mars (Sephton 2010).
79
There is Life on Mars
Martian microbes have pathogenic potential
DA 1/11/11
However, a pathogenic potential of Martian microbes cannot be excluded either. Even if

they were not capable of directly invading the host and causing infection, Martian microbes
could still have pathogenic potential by secreting toxins that could indirectly harm the
astronauts (e.g. through wounds, contaminated food). Examples of powerful microbial
toxins secreted by terrestrial bacteria indeed abound, e.g. clostridial toxins (Lebrun, et al.,
2009). Still, one has to recognize that the majority of such toxins of terrestrial bacteria are
proteins, which in turn are recognized by specific cellular receptors, again requiring a
history of previous interaction between the pathogenic agent and the host. Would such
putative toxins of Martian microbes also be proteins, would they have similar biochemistry,
would they even be made of the same aminoacids? Although it is possible that through
mechanisms know as panspermia (Joseph and Schild 2010a,b) that microbes from Earth
could be transported to Mars (and vice versa) thereby providing opportunities for
horizontal gene transfer and thus giving Martian microbes human-infective properties
(Joseph and Wickramasinghe 2010), at present there is no hard evidence to substantiate
these theories.
80
### Terraforming Extensions ###
81
A2: A Nuclear Explosion Would Destroy the Planet
A nuclear explosion inside Mars would not destroy it
Another scientific theory regarding the excess heat produced by Jovian planets may support
the idea of an artificial stellification of such bodies. According to this theory, gas giants, as
well as stars and maybe smaller planets (including Earth) have massive natural fission
reactors in their center. In the case of stars, nuclear fission reactions would be necessary for
their ignition (Herndon, 1994, 1998, 2009). Konovalov (2009) warns about the possibility
of spontaneous stellification of giant planets and suggests a preemtive artificial ignition as a
means for protecting Earth from direct exposure to the hydrogen ejecta (the amount of
ejecta received by a planet depends on the distance between the two bodies and on the
relative position of the Sun).Be it preemptive or for the purposes of terraforming Mars and
the outer Moons, how can this be accomplished? One obvious possibility is the detonation
of a a several-megaton thermonuclear warhead inside the giant planet. The depth of the
detonation depends on the thermal and pressure shielding of the vehicle. Carbon nanotubes
can withstand pressures as high as 200 Gpa (NASA Science News, 2002). However,
thermal shielding, like that used for space shuttles cannot resist temperatures higher than
1,573 K (NASA/KSC Information Technology Directorate, 2000). According to the
hydrogen phase diagram (Hydropole, 2009), at this temperature, at a pressure of only a few
GPa, molecular hydrogen becomes liquid. Thus, a spacecraft could reach a depth of at least
2% of Jupiter’s radius and 25% of Saturn’s (Goliathan, 2003, Goliathan, 2005), and could
detonate its nuclear charge in a layer of dense, liquid molecular hydrogen.
What would happen next? There are three scenarios that one can consider. First, there is the
possibility of planetary explosion (Turchin, 2010). Theoretically, the detonation would
cause a rapid and violent chain reaction inside a deuterium-rich layer, and Jupiter (or
Saturn) simply blows up. A 2H / 1H ratio of at least 1 / 300 is required for this (which is not
far away from the 10-3 ratio in the deep rich layer proposed by Ouyed et al., 1998).
However, there are some problems with this idea.
Considering the energy output of the deuterium fusion reaction is 12.5 MeV, the reaction of
all deuterium atoms in either gas giant would produce an energy amount lower than 1038 J.
The gravitational binding energy is around 2 °— 1048 J for Jupiter and 2.26 °— 1047 J for
Saturn (the gravitational binding energy, U = 3GM2 / (5r), where G is the gravitational
constant, M is the mass, and r is the body’s radius). Van Flandern (2002), investigating
planetary explosion mechanisms, also concludes that Jovian planets cannot explode, not
even by thermonuclear means. Also, it should be considered that such deuterium enriched
areas would be located at depths not accessible to any spacecraft. At lower concentrations,
deuterium fusion is a common process in brown dwarfs and protostars, as slow, non-
explosive reaction (Van Flandern 2002).
82
A2: Outer Space Treaty Means No Nukes in Space
OST prohibits WEAPONS in space, not all nuclear explosions
According to the U.N. Outer Space Treaties, the use of nuclear weapons in space is
forbidden. The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration
and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Article IV, states
that "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any
objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install
such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other
manner” and that “the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the
testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies
shall be forbidden".
However, the mission proposed here does not involve any weapon (since does not target
any human objective, but an uninhabited celestial body), but a non-military explosive.
Furthermore, it would not be placed around a terrestrial orbit, stationed in space or installed
on another body, but directed and detonated into Saturn’s atmosphere. As the same article
states, "The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the
Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited". Of course, such a mission
would require international control.
83
### Disadvantage Answers ###
84
Disease/Virus Disadvantage Answers
Low risk of virus, advantages outweigh
DA 1/11/11
Liquid water has almost certainly been a feature on Mars in its earlier history, and the
presence of extinct or present life on Mars cannot be excluded. However, based on our
current understanding of host-pathogen relationships and evolutionary processes, we may
conclude that the chance of a human mission to Mars to encounter pathogenic
microorganisms is small, albeit not zero. A set of safety measures to prevent, diagnose and
eventually treat infections with Martian microorganisms should be considered, and such
measures could even further diminish any potential biohazards. Overall, the scientific,
technological and economical benefits of a mission to Mars will heavily outweigh the low
probability of an encounter with a pathogenic microbe, and therefore this should not be an
impediment for pursuing human exploration of Mars.
Risk of contaminated material from Mars getting to earth is very small
DA 1/11/11
A different aspect of the biohazard potential of Martian microbes is the capacity of such
microorganisms to disrupt Earth ecosystems, should contaminated material from a Mars
mission reach the environment upon return (Rummel et al. 2010). This risk is most likely
also small, as environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity, chemistry,
atmospheric pressure, and nutrients fundamentally differ between Earth and Mars. From an
evolutionary point of view, it is highly unlikely that a Martian microbe that in Earth terms
would be characterized as an extremophile would be able to compete successfully with
terrestrial microorganisms, which are optimally adapted to the environment through
millions years of evolution
85
Disease/Virus Disadvantage Answers
Regulations solve Mars biohazard risks
DA 1/11/11
Despite the low probability of pathogenic microorganisms as indicated above, it cannot be

excluded that Mars harbors microscopic life, and the possibility that astronauts would come
in contact with it necessitate precautionary measures to insure safety of the crew and Earth
habitats upon return of the mission. Based on the chances of an encounter with pathogenic
life forms on Mars, a set of recommendations to insure the biosafety of a Mars mission has
been recently proposed by Warmflash and colleagues (Warmflash, et al., 2007) (Table 1).
Firstly, crew extravehicular activity (EVA) suits should be decontaminated upon habitat
return of the astronauts from field activities. Secondly, laboratory facilities on Mars
working with Martian samples should be equipped with a minimal biosafely level (BSL) 2
equipment. Thirdly, sterilization methods for the spacecraft upon return should be
considered (Trofimov, et al., 1996). Finally, a quarantine program for crews and material
brought from Mars also seems to be prudent. Protocols based on the Apollo Quarantine
Program should be developed and followed strictly. The return from Mars to Earth has a
long duration, which may allow for a disease to manifest itself in the astronauts during th
e flight back, but the certainty of such a scenario cannot be assumed. While the Apollo
astronauts were quarantined for 21 days, breaches in the protocol occurred (National
Research Council Space Studies Board, 1997), which should be strictly avoided upon the
return of a Mars mission.
86
Spending Disadvantage Answers
Going to Mars only costs $15 billion per year
Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D. Emeritus, Brain Research Laboratory, Northern California, October-November
2010, Marketing Mars: Financing the Human Mission to Mars
and the Colonization of the Red Planet, Journal of Cosmology, October-November,
The conquest of Mars and the establishment of a colony on the surface of the Red Planet
could cost up to $150 billion dollars over 10 years. These funds can be easily raised
through a massive advertising campaign, and if the U.S. Congress and the governments of
other participating nations, grant to an independent corporation (The Human Mission to
Mars Corporation, a hypothetical entity), sole legal authority to initiate, administer, and
supervise the marketing, merchandizing, sponsorship, broadcasting, and licensing
initiatives detailed in this article.
Going to Mars costs no more than the space shuttle
According to NASA, a single space shuttle cost around 1.6 billion dollars. Estimates are
that the entire space shuttle program, since the program became operational in 1981, has
cost $145 billion, with much of those costs having accrued in the first 10 years. Therefore,
it could be estimated that a Mission to Mars and the establishment and maintenance of a
permanent colony, with space craft journeying to and from the Red Planet, could cost
around $145 billion over a 10 year period.
The war in Iraq cost $1 trillion
Other than paying for one of the greatest achievements of all time and the technological
revolution that would result, is it worth $145 billion in expenditures, over a 10 year period,
to conquer an entire planet and to lay claim to the vast wealth which may lay beneath the
surface? To put this into perspective, consider the costs and benefits of the U.S. war against
Iraq which commenced in 2003. In 7 years, and as of September 2010, the U.S. has spent
nearly 1 trillion dollars on the war in Iraq.
87
### Counterplan Answers ###
88
A2: Robotics Exploration Counterplan
Many advantages to humans over robots
Why Humans?
Humans have unique capabilities for performing scientific measurements, observations and
sample collecting. Human attributes to exploration include: intelligence, adaptability,
agility, dexterity, cognition, patience, problem solving in real-time, in situ analyses - more
science in less time!
Humans are unique scientific explorers. Humans could obtain previously unobtainable
scientific measurements on the surface of Mars. Humans possess the abilities to adapt to
new and unexpected situations in new and strange environments, they can make real-time
decisions, have strong recognition abilities and are intelligent. Humans could perform
detailed and precise measurements of the surface, subsurface and atmosphere while on the
surface of Mars with state-of–the-art scientific equipment and instrumentation brought
from Earth. The increased laboratory ability on Mars that humans offer, would allow for
dramatically more scientific return within the established sample return limits. The HEM-
SAG envisions that the scientific exploration of Mars by humans would be performed as a
synergistic partnership between humans and robotic probes, controlled by the human
explorers on the surface of Mars. Robotic probes could explore terrains and features not
suitable or too risky for human exploration. Under human control, robotic probes could
traverse great distances from the human habitat covering distances/terrain too risky for
human exploration and return rock and dust samples to the habitat from great distances.
An important element of the HEM-SAG study has been to identity the unique capabilities
that humans would bring to the process of exploring Mars. As a result, a common set of
human traits emerged that would apply to exploration relating to the MEPAG science
disciplines which include Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere/Climate, and Biology/Life,
These characteristics include: speed and efficiency to optimize field work; agility and
dexterity to go places difficult for robotic access and to exceed currently limited degrees-
of-freedom robotic manipulation capabilities; and most importantly the innate intelligence,
ingenuity, and adaptability to evaluate real-time and improvise to overcome surprises while
ensuring that the correct sampling strategy is in place to acquire the appropriate sample set.
89
A2: Robotics Exploration Counterplan
Humans will produce higher quality exploration
Joel S. Levine, Ph.D.1, James B. Garvin, Ph.D.2, James W. Head III, Ph.D.3, NASA, October-
November 2010, Journal of Cosmology, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars116.html, DA: 1/11/11,
Martian Geology Investigations.
Planning for the Scientific Exploration of Mars by Humans.
Part 2.
Human explorers would also have greater access to the near-subsurface of Mars, which would yield
insights into climate and surface evolution, geophysics, and potentially biology. Humans would be able to
navigate more effectively through blocky ejecta deposits that would provide samples that were excavated
from great depth and provide a window into the deeper subsurface. Humans could trench in dozens of
targeted locations and operate sophisticated drilling equipment that could sample the top ~1 km of the
crust. Our current understanding of the crust of Mars is limited to the top meter of the surface, so drilling
experiments would yield unprecedented and immediate data. Drilling in areas of gully formation could
also test the groundwater model by searching for a confined aquifer at depth.
Can’t solve the colonization advantage without humans
Catharine A. Conley, Ph.D3, David R. Liskowsky, Ph.D4 1Institute for Coastal Science and
Policy, SETI Institute, NASA, October-November, 2010, Journal of Cosmology, The Integration
of Planetary Protection Requirements and
Medical Support on a Mission to Mars, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars126.html
The challenges of a human mission to Mars are not insurmountable, but the cost of the
effort and the potential risk to the crew (and perhaps to the Earth’s biosphere) only make
sense if there is an advantage to having humans and human capabilities alive and
functioning on that world. If humans are moving to Mars to establish another planetary
home for our civilization, then only human explorers can meet those objectives
Robots don’t solve any of the transendence arguments
For proponents of human missions to Mars, the key term in the question is the subject
"we." According to this line of thinking, exploration is an activity that requires human
travelers to teach us things about Mars, but also to be our proxy, to teach us things about
ourselves. For these members of the space community, "robotic exploration" is incomplete
at best, oxymoronic at worst.
90
A2: Robots Exploration Counterplan
Humans and robots play complementary roles
Douglas W. Gage, Ph.D., XPM Technologies, October-November, 2010, Journal of Cosmology, Robots
on Mars: From Exploration to Base Operations, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars113.html, DA:
1/11/11
Human and robotic exploration of space are often presented as mutually exclusive
alternatives – why should we spend a huge amount of money to send humans to Mars when
the six-years-plus missions of the Mars Exploration Rovers (MERs) Spirit and Opportunity
have made so many important discoveries at a tiny fraction of the cost? In fact, the time
when we finally send humans to Mars, presumably a few decades from now, will not mark
the end of the involvement of unmanned systems in the exploration of Mars. Instead, robots
and other unmanned systems will continue to play many critical roles on Mars, and the
presence of humans will strongly affect the characteristics of the robotic systems we build.
In advance of the first human landings, the descendants of Spirit and Opportunity will
survey candidate landing sites, locate ice and mineral resources, establish power,
communications, and navigation infrastructure, and construct underground habitats. Once
humans have landed, mobile robots will continue to explore and to preview sites for human
exploration, identifying targets of interest and possible hazards. They will also perform
ongoing construction tasks, and transport equipment, supplies, and people
Robots need to go before, and then with, humans
Douglas W. Gage, Ph.D., XPM Technologies, October-November, 2010, Journal of Cosmology, Robots
on Mars: From Exploration to Base Operations, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars113.html, DA:
1/11/11
Robots and other unmanned systems will play many critical roles in all phases of bringing
humans to Mars, first continuing in their current role as exploration rovers, then performing
base site assessment, selection and preparation, leading in turn to base construction and
operations.
These vehicles will differ from current planetary rovers in significant ways. Some of them
will be work robots, requiring much more strength and power than exploration rovers, and
will be fueled by methane/oxygen engines or fuel cells, requiring autonomous ISRU fuel
production, storage, and distribution. Installed communications and navigation
infrastructure will enable structured and/or repetitive operations (such as excavation,
drilling, or construction) within a "familiar" area with minimum operator intervention. The
critical challenges to effectively using robots will occur before humans arrive on Mars,
maintaining efficient long-term operations despite the round trip communications latency
of 6 to 44 minutes. Later, the presence of humans in the vicinity will permit proactive
maintenance and repair and allow teleoperation and extensive operator interaction.
Even after humans arrive, the single most critical resource on Mars will be human
attention. Each human we decide to send to Mars will require a huge investment in mass,
and therefore in cost. It will be highly cost effective to create systems and procedures to
leverage the attentional energy of each human on Mars – to do the most with the fewest
people – and that can only be done by using "smart systems", including robots. The
question is NOT "robots OR humans on Mars"; instead, the answer is "robots BEFORE
humans and robots WITH humans on Mars."
91
A2: Explore Other Places Counterplans

Mars is the first place that can be colonized
V. Adimurthy, Ph.D., Priyankar Bandyopadhyay, G. Madhavan Nair, Ph.D. Indian Space Research
Organization (ISRO), Expedition to Mars.
The Establishment of a Human Settlement, October-November 2010, Journal of Cosmology,
The long-term future of the human race must be in space. Mars, like Earth, is a rocky planet
with ranges of surface temperature that man has managed to deal with on Earth. Most
likely, Mars will be the first place in the solar system where humans can colonize outside
Earth. During the last forty-five years numerous unmanned spacecrafts have been probing
Mars through fly-by, orbiter and lander missions, and sample return missions are on the
anvil. These robotic explorations will pave the way for manned mission to Mars. The
opportunities for Mars expedition are chosen through assessment of the variability across
Earth-Mars synodic cycles. Mars expedition is undertaken through execution of split
mission architecture. Portions of assets required for Mars expedition are sent to Mars prior
to the crew. For an expedition of a crew of six to Mars, nine launch vehicles each having
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) payload capacity of about 100 tonne are required, in addition to a
flight of man-rated vehicle to transfer the crew to interplanetary module. Nuclear power is
a key element for propulsion as well as for sustaining crew on Mars.
Mars has many unique advantages
Joel S. Levine, Ph.D.1, James B. Garvin, Ph.D.2, David W. Beaty, Ph.D.3, NASA, October-November
2010, Journal of Cosmology, Humans on Mars: Why Mars? Why Humans?
Planning for the Scientific Exploration of Mars by Humans,
Some recent discoveries abut Mars that have impacted plans for the human exploration of Mars (Beaty and
Zurek, 2010)
1. Ancient, Persistent Liquid Water: Conclusive proof that liquid water existed for long periods on the ancient
Martian surface.
2. Complex Surface Geology: The Martian surface is geologically diverse and has evolved from ancient into
recent times.
3. Modern Water: Vast near-surface ice deposits, and water in mid-latitudes glaciers and both polar caps.
Active water cycle includes snow and frost. Sheet ice and gullies in mid-latitudes craters suggest recent
episodes of liquid water formation.
4. Recent Climate Change: Evidence is accumulating that Mars’ climate undergoes dramatic periodic changes
and may now be in a warm trend. The changes appear to be driven by large oscillations in the Mars’ orbit and
axial tilt.
5. Planetary Magnetism: Mars Global Surveyor discovered and mapped intense magnetization in the Martian
crust. The data indicate that Mars once had a global magnetic field, driven by a dynamo that halted early in
Martian history.
6. Martian Climate and Weather: Years of observations are providing a picture of Martian weather and
atmospheric dynamics.
7. Modern Processes: Three Martian years of systematic re-imaging of sites, producing knowledge about rates
of modern surface processes. Mars continues to evolve in ways we are only beginning to understand.
8. Methane on Mars: Discovery: Methane on the Martian atmosphere, produced from specific surface regions
and confirmed by repeated observation
92
A2: Explore Other Places Counterplan
Mars is the most realistic possibility for colonization
Boldly Go: A One Way Mission to Mars, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html DA 1/11/11
There are several reasons that motivate the establishment of a permanent Mars colony. We
are a vulnerable species living in a part of the galaxy where cosmic events such as major
asteroid and comet impacts and supernova explosions pose a significant threat to life on
Earth, especially to human life. There are also more immediate threats to our culture, if not
our survival as a species. These include global pandemics, nuclear or biological warfare,
runaway global warming, sudden ecological collapse and supervolcanoes (Rees 2004).
Thus, the colonization of other worlds is a must if the human species is to survive for the
long term. The first potential colonization targets would be asteroids, the Moon and Mars.
The Moon is the closest object and does provide some shelter (e.g., lava tube caves), but in
all other respects falls short compared to the variety of resources available on Mars. The
latter is true for asteroids as well. Mars is by far the most promising for sustained
colonization and development, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and,
crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant water and carbon
dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals. Mars is our second closest planetary
neighbor (after Venus) and a trip to Mars at the most favorable launch option takes about
six months with current chemical rocket technology.
93
A2: Explore Other Places Counterplan
Mars colonization provides a springboard to greater exploration
In addition to offering humanity a "lifeboat" in the event of a mega-catastrophe, a Mars

colony is attractive for other reasons. Astrobiologists agree that there is a fair probability
that Mars hosts, or once hosted, microbial life, perhaps deep beneath the surface (Lederberg
and Sagan 1962; Levin 2010; Levin and Straat 1977, 1981; McKay and Stoker 1989;
McKay et al. 1996; Baker et al. 2005; Schulze-Makuch et al. 2005, 2008, Darling and
Schulze-Makuch 2010; Wierzchos et al. 2010; Mahaney and Dohm 2010). A scientific
facility on Mars might therefore be a unique opportunity to study an alien life form and a
second evolutionary record, and to develop novel biotechnology therefrom. At the very
least, an intensive study of ancient and modern Mars will cast important light on the origin
of life on Earth. Mars also conceals a wealth of geological and astronomical data that is
almost impossible to access from Earth using robotic probes. A permanent human presence
on Mars would open the way to comparative planetology on a scale unimagined by any
former generation. In the fullness of time, a Mars base would offer a springboard for
human/robotic exploration of the outer solar system and the asteroid belt. Finally,
establishing a permanent multicultural and multinational human presence on another world
would have major beneficial political and social implications for Earth, and serve as a
strong unifying and uplifting theme for all humanity.
94
A2: Private Actors Counterplan
NASA should lead and include private actors
A. Carberry1 Artemis Westenberg, Director, Explore Mars, Inc., October-November 2010, The Mars
Prize and Private Missions to the Red Planet, Journal of Cosmology,
If the United States is going to lead a mission to Mars in the upcoming decades, it will
almost certainly be achieved through the use of at least some elements of the new
commercial model. However, we have now reached an era where the major question is not
whether the private sector has the capacity to get a human mission done, but whether a
traditional government program will be able to build enough political momentum to
maintain a strong and steady program over more than a decade.
This is not to say that an entirely private program is better than the traditional approach or a
public-private hybrid version. On the contrary, the hybrid method is probably the path that
stands the best chance of mission success, but it is also subject to far more political
turbulence concerning funding and the overall balance and focus of the program. In order
to alleviate some of this turbulence, there must be more unity between the traditional and
the "new space" companies. NASA and the established aerospace community should not
fear or dismiss these new approaches to space exploration. The new space companies, and
their advocates, need to recognize that there is strong value in how the traditional space
community approaches mission design. Both need to think about new and efficient methods
of designing missions, whether by reducing launch costs or embracing technologies like in
situ resource utilization.
Even if the United States government does decide to embrace a true hybrid version or aim
for Mars in a more traditional fashion, government should still create an environment that
could stimulate a major private effort. If a Virgle-like consortium or a group of billionaires
start seriously considering the feasibility of a private mission, that would be a good time to
create major tax incentives or a tax-free prize as suggested. While NASA should play a
substantial role in space exploration in the next few decades, finding ways to empower the
private sector to also play a substantial role in exploration should be considered a vital goal
of United States space policy.
95
### Kritik Answers ###
96
Space Exploration Creates Meaning to Life
Space exploration creates value/meaning to life

This is an historic time for humanity and also one of the most challenging times as well.
We stand on the threshold of becoming a space faring civilization shedding the bonds that
have tied us to Earth since the very beginnings of the planet’s history. In the last 40 years,
we have looked back at Earth from space, walked on our moon, sent robotic probes to most
of the planets, moons and even some of the asteroids of our solar system. We have explored
the depths of our galaxy and the visible universe with both Earth and spaced based
telescopes and instrumentation. Later this century we will very likely walk on the surface
of another planet. Why? Humanity has always had an insatiable appetite to know, for
adventure and a remarkable curiosity to explore the unknown. In spite of the
sacrifices and challenges required, history has shown over and over the benefits and
rewards of exploration have always far exceeded expectations and mostly in ways that
were impossible to predict. No doubt such will be the case again in the exploration of
space.
97
A2: One Way Mission Unethical
One way explorers are volunteers
While the pragmatic advantages of this approach are clear, we anticipate that some ethical
considerations may be raised against it. Some in the space agencies or public might feel
that the astronauts are being abandoned on Mars, or sacrificed for the sake of the project.
However, the situation these first Martian settlers are in, who would of course be
volunteers, would really be little different from the first white settlers of the North
American continent, who left Europe with little expectation of return. Explorers such as
Columbus, Frobisher, Scott and Amundsen, while not embarking on their voyages with the
intention of staying at their destination, nevertheless took huge personal risks to explore
new lands, in the knowledge that there was a significant likelihood that they would perish
in the attempt. A volunteer signing up for a one-way mission to Mars would do so in the
full understanding that he or she would not return to Earth. Nevertheless, informal surveys
conducted after lectures and conference presentations on our proposal, have repeatedly
shown that many people are willing to volunteer for a one-way mission, both for reasons of
scientific curiosity and in a spirit of adventure and human destiny. Others may raise
objections based on planetary protection considerations, depending on whether indigenous
life exists on Mars or not. However, any Martian biota is almost certainly restricted to
microbes that would be adapted to the natural environment of that planet, and would
therefore almost certainly not pose a safety concern for the colonists due to their
presumably different biochemical make-up (e.g., Houtkooper and Schulze-Makuch 2007).
Nevertheless, caution has to be urged since we do not know the biochemistry of the
putative Martian biota at this time. Thus, it might be prudent to launch a life detection
mission or even a sample return mission prior to a one-way human mission to Mars. On the
other hand, if Martian organisms really do pose a hazard to human health, it may be
preferable to limit the exposure to the crew of a one-way mission rather than place at risk
the entire human population from a botched sample return mission (Rummel et al. 2002).
98
### Topicality ###
99
“Space Exploration”
A Mars mission is intrinsically tied to space exploration
These different visions of Mars – as science laboratory and human frontier – seem
complementary. On the science side, mission planners have long defended robotic
expeditions for their value in paving the way for human exploration. Mariner, Viking, and
Pathfinder all found justification as the trailblazers of human missions. The Jet Propulsion
Laboratory defends its newest project, the Mars Scientific Laboratory, on similar grounds:
as a mission that will "prove techniques that will contribute to human landing systems."
(NASA 2010).
100

Planet Debate 2011 - Space Mars Colonization Affirmative

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Planet Debate 2011 - Space Mars Colonization Affirmative

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Planet Debate 2011 -- Space 1

Mars Colonization Affirmative

Current funding for a Mars mission is inadequate

Advantage 1: Human Extinction

One: Solar expansion will inevitably cause human extinction

Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D.1, Robert Staretz, M.S., October-November, 2010, Journal of

Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D.1, Robert Staretz, M.S., October-November, 2010, Journal of

And, these wars go nuclear-we control magnitude and probability-every conflict is

Russian foreign policy, too, looks more like something

The jostling for status and influence

the United States could step in to check any dangerous

In the Middle East,

1. The Time Has Come

Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D.1, Robert Staretz, M.S., October-November, 2010, Journal of

Mars exploration solves extinction

Earth is currently challenged environmentally, socio-economically, and by the potential

PR Web, July 21, 2010, US Space Competitiveness Erodes,

Working to establish contact with extratrerrestrial civilizations can create a new

Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D.1, Robert Staretz, M.S., October-November, 2010, Journal of

Get Off the Rock or Die

Have to get off the rock to avoid extinction

This is the biggest possible impact

Tech leadership key to heg

Global S&T leadership eroding now

Federal R&D agencies are facing a severe human capital shortage

Competitiveness key to hegemony

Economic growth is dependent on the development of innovation-driven industries-

Hegemonic decline makes world war more probable

Hegemonic power shifts risk war

US dominates the ability to power project

Combination of military and economic potential means US primacy is historically

No economic power transition to China

Primacy doesn’t trade-off with multilateral problem solving

International cooperation is dependent on unilateralism – it spurs countries into action

Hard power doesn’t trade-off

Libya proves necessity of hard power to make soft power effective

“Actions by the United States and our allies,”

sent an unmistakable message to regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass

Soft power net more likely to provoke anti-Americanism

Radicalism not driven by US primacy

### Solvency Extensions ###

Space exploration enables us to develop a sustainable model of exploration

Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D.1, Robert Staretz, M.S., October-November, 2010, Journal of

The moon is still a great learning environment

Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D.1, Robert Staretz, M.S., October-November, 2010, Journal of

The rate of technological advancement is outstanding

Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D.1, Robert Staretz, M.S., October-November, 2010, Journal of

Edgar D. Mitchell, Sc.D.1, Robert Staretz, M.S., October-November, 2010, Journal of

Using the moon as a base lowers the cost of Mars travel

Harrison H. Schmitt, Ph.D., College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Former United

A human mission to Mars is technologically feasible, but hugely expensive requiring

Harrison H. Schmitt, Ph.D., College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Former United

Landings similar to those on Mars have occurred in other places

Harrison H. Schmitt, Ph.D., College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Former United

Human explorers normally away for longer periods of time

Harrison H. Schmitt, Ph.D., College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Former United

Humans have overcome many technological barriers for grand accomplishments

Harrison H. Schmitt, Ph.D., College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Former United

Anti-matter makes interstellar space exploration possible

Energy limits block interstellar space travel

A one way mission to Mars it not that expensive

Shielding an developments in propulsion systems solve

Shielding. As colonization of Mars advances the human population on Mars would be