Aff- Global commons Neg- T- extra vs global commons Heg da state debris cp
apple valley
2
Opponent: West Des Moines Valley JS | Judge: Ying, Derek
aff- rawlsian fw Neg- util infrastructure da
apple valley
4
Opponent: LexingtonAM | Judge: Palmer, Jacob
Aff- teahers ac warming adv dem adv Neg T A T Unconditional tech da
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
00 - Note -- St Marks
Tournament: UK season opener | Round: 1 | Opponent: Colonial Forge SR | Judge: Rachel Mauchline Hey everyone! I'll be disclosing for St Marks on -- please excuse any previous disclosure errors.
10/16/21
00 -- Contact
Tournament: UK season opener | Round: 1 | Opponent: Colonial Forge SR | Judge: Rachel Mauchline Hey I'm Alex For disclosure -- alexborgas@icloud.com
10/16/21
SO -- CP -- Pandemics
Tournament: UK season opener | Round: 1 | Opponent: Colonial Forge SR | Judge: Rachel Mauchline
CP – Pandemics
States should:
Shore up critical surveillance and reporting for infectious diseases,
Fund, train, and personnel a global response for potential pandemics using the WHO's GOARN,
Create localized programs to reach underprivileged communities for public health info.,
Cross-train public health workers in pandemic practice scenarios with stacked scenarios, and
Enforce "after-action" reviews for post-pandemic strategizing and improvement.
The Executive Branch of the USFG should use the Defense Production Act to mandate federal orders for national stockpiles of medical supplies and vaccinations.
Solves future pandemics
Radcliff and Clendenin 3/8 ~Tiffany A. Radcliff, Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Health Policy and Management, Texas AandM University, Angela Clendenin, Instructional Assistant Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Texas AandM University) "5 strategies to prepare now for the next pandemic," The Conversation: COVID-19 Section, 3/8/21, https://theconversation.com/5-strategies-to-prepare-now-for-the-next-pandemic-154317~~ RM
Shore up the systems already in place The identification in February 2021 AND /22397914/vaccine-mrna-adenovirus-manufacturing-process-investment
9/11/21
SO -- DA -- Bioterror
Tournament: UK season opener | Round: 1 | Opponent: Colonial Forge SR | Judge: Rachel Mauchline
1NC – DA Bioterror
Biotech is the new frontier; America is ahead but China is dangerously close
Gupta 6/11 ~Gaurav Gupta, Biotech Investor, Founder of Ascendant BioCapital, a life science investment firm based in New York. Previously, Gaurav worked at OrbiMed Advisors, and served as a resident in neurological surgery at Columbia University Medical Center. He has co-authored over a dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals, filed a patent on a device for use in spine surgery, and edited a book on the technical and ethical implications of using tissue engineered products in the operating room. Dr. Gupta obtained his M.D. from the Stanford University School of Medicine, where he was a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and B.S. and M.S.E. in biomedical engineering from Johns Hopkins University, where he was a Charles R. Westgate Scholar.) "As Washington Ties Pharma's Hands, China Is Leaping Ahead" Barron's Magazine: Commentary, China., 6/11/2021~ RM There should be no doubt that we are living at the dawn of a golden AND protecting, rather than undermining, the global dominance of our biotechnology industry.
The plan recapitulates IP to China, destroying competitive advantages
WSJ 5/6 ~Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, WSJ Opinion Philosophy: "We speak for free markets and free people, the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of 1776 by Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations." So over the past century and into the next, the Journal stands for free trade and sound money; against confiscatory taxation and the ukases of kings and other collectivists; and for individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities." Edited by Paul A. Gigot and Daniel Henninger, "Biden's Vaccine IP Debacle: His patent heist is a blow to the Covid fight and U.S. biotech." The WSJ Opinion: Review and Outlook, May 6, 2021~ RM We've already criticized President Biden's bewildering decision Wednesday to endorse a patent waiver for Covid AND a signal around the world that nobody's intellectual property is safe in America.
China will leapfrog the US through biotech primacy
Cumbers 20 ~John Cumbers, "I am the founder and CEO of SynBioBeta, the leading community of innovators, investors, engineers, and thinkers who share a passion for using synthetic biology to build a better, more sustainable universe. I publish the weekly SynBioBeta Digest, host the SynBioBeta Podcast, and wrote "What's Your Biostrategy?", the first book to anticipate how synthetic biology is going to disrupt virtually every industry in the world. I also founded BetaSpace, a space settlement innovation network and community of visionaries, technologists, and investors accelerating the industries needed to sustain human life here and off-planet. I've been involved with multiple startups, I am an operating partner and investor at the hard tech investment fund Data Collective, and I'm a former bioengineer at NASA. I earned my PhD in Molecular Biology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry from Brown University and am originally from the UK.") "China's Plan To Beat The U.S. In The Trillion-Dollar Global Bioeconomy" Forbes, 2/3/2020~ RM The report, entitled "Safeguarding the Bioeconomy," looks at how research and innovation AND engineering biology a national priority, anything is possible in the new bioeconomy.
Bioweapons, biomedical strikes, Zika and Malaria outbreaks, Climate Change, and ethnonationalism – heg and cooperation are key
Moore 19 Scott Moore - Director of the Penn Global China Program at the University of Pennsylvania, Young Professional and Water Resources Management Specialist at the World Bank Group, and Environment, Science, Technology, and Health Officer for China at the U.S. Department of State, Giorgio Ruffolo Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, Truman, Fulbright, and Rhodes Scholar., Foreign Policy, "China's Genetic Experiments Are Pushing Ethical Limits", NOVEMBER 8, 2019, 2:53 PM, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/08/cloning-crispr-he-jiankui-china-biotech-boom-could-transform-lives-destroy-them/ - BD When James Clapper, the U.S. director of national intelligence at the AND face the limits of its ability to solve the problem on its own.
Heg solves arms races, land grabs, rogue states, and great power war
Brands 18 ~Hal, Henry Kissinger Distinguished Professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments." American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump." Page 129-133~ Since World War II, the United States has had a military second to none AND Russian and Chinese modernization efforts are now creating a far more competitive environment.
Independently, China uses biotech offensively—uncertainty means you should err negative
Kania and Vonrndick 19 ~Elsa Kania is an Adjunct Senior Fellow with the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. She is also a Ph.D. candidate in Harvard University's Department of Government. Her views are her own. Wilson VornDick consults on national security, emerging technologies, and China for Duco and Rane.) "Weaponizing Biotech: How China's Military Is Preparing for a 'New Domain of Warfare'" Defense One, Commentary, China, Biowarfare, 8/14/2019~ RM We may be on the verge of a brave new world indeed. Today's advances AND of ethical considerations in China's research initiatives raise the risks of technological surprise.
9/11/21
SO -- DA -- Innovation
Tournament: UK season opener | Round: 1 | Opponent: Colonial Forge SR | Judge: Rachel Mauchline
1NC – DA Innovation
Biotech RandD is set for high growth and investment now
NASDAQ 8/9 ~NASDAQ is a stock market index that includes almost all stocks listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange. Along with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and SandP 500, it is one of the three most-followed stock market indices in the United States. This article was written by NASDAQ contributors and published on CNBC. The editorial staff of CNBC did not contribute to the creation of this study.) "Why the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index is poised for a run of sustainable growth" CNBC, NASDAQ, 8/9/2021, https://www.cnbc.com/advertorial/2021/08/09/why-the-nasdaq-biotechnology-index-is-poised-for-a-run-of-sustainable-growth-.html~~ RM Between the recent bio innovation success stories in the battle against Covid-19 and AND researchers, scientists, and business leaders in this space will accomplish next."
IPR protections are key to sustain healthcare investments and manufacturing. Independently, it's key to broader vaccine production.
Roberts 6/25/21 ~James M. Roberts is a Research Fellow for Economic Freedom and Growth at the Heritage Foundation. Roberts' primary responsibility as one of The Heritage Foundation's lead experts in economic freedom and growth is to edit the Rule of Law and Monetary Freedom sections of Index of Economic Freedom. An influential annual analysis of the economic climate of countries throughout the world, the Index is co-published by Heritage and The Wall Street Journal.) "Biden's OK of Global Theft of America's Intellectual Property is Wrong, Dangerous." 6/25/2021, The Heritage Foundation, Commentary—Public Health~ RM Last month, President Biden advocated removing international intellectual property rights (IPR) protections AND agenda driven voices in this debate and reverses course on the TRIPS waiver.
COVID was a precursor to deadlier pandemics—American vaccine production will determine everything.
Lander 8/4/21 ~Eric Lander, President Biden's Science Advisory and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) "Opinion: As bad as Covid-19 has been, a future pandemic could be even worse—unless we act now" 8/4/21, The Washington Post~ RM Coronavirus vaccines can end the current pandemic if enough people choose to protect themselves and AND It's hard to imagine a higher economic or human return on national investment.
Ecosystem sensitivity from climate change means future pandemics will cause extinction—assumes COVID
Supriya 4/19 ~Lakshmi Supriya got her BSc in Industrial Chemistry from IIT Kharagpur (India) and a Ph.D. in Polymer Science and Engineering from Virginia Tech (USA). She has more than a decade of global industry experience working in the USA, Europe, and India. After her Ph.D., she worked as part of the RandD group in diverse industries starting with semiconductor packaging at Intel, Arizona, where she developed a new elastomeric thermal solution, which has now been commercialized and is used in the core i3 and i5 processors. From there she went on to work at two startups, one managing the microfluidics chip manufacturing lab at a biotechnology company and the other developing polymer formulations for oil extraction from oil sands. She also worked at Saint Gobain North America, developing various material solutions for photovoltaics and processing techniques and new applications for fluoropolymers. Most recently, she managed the Indian RandD team of Enthone (now part of MacDermid) developing electroplating technologies for precious metals.) "Humans versus viruses - Can we avoid extinction in near future?" News Medical Life Sciences, 4/19/21, https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210419/Humans-versus-viruses-Can-we-avoid-extinction-in-near-future.aspx~~ RM Expert argues that human-caused changes to the environment can lead to the emergence AND the consequences may be and the next pandemic could lead us to extinction.
9/11/21
Space - DIB da
Tournament: ASU | Round: 2 | Opponent: Hamilton NB | Judge: Fleming, Nick The US commercial space industry is booming – private space companies are driving innovation. Lindzon 2/23 (Jared Lindzon, A FREELANCE JOURNALIST AND PUBLIC SPEAKER BORN, RAISED AND BASED IN TORONTO, CANADA. LINDZON'S WRITING FOCUSES ON THE FUTURE OF WORK AND TALENT AS IT RELATES TO TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION) "How Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are ushering in a new era of space startups," Fast Company, 2/23/21, https://www.fastcompany.com/90606811/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-elon-musk-spaces-space TDI In early February, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and one of the planet’s wealthiest entrepreneurs, dropped the bombshell announcement that he would be stepping down as CEO to free up more time for his other passions. Though Bezos listed a few targets for his creativity and energy—The Washington Post and philanthropy through the Bezos Earth Fund and Bezos Day One Fund—one of the highest-potential areas is his renewed commitment and focus on his suborbital spaceflight project, Blue Origin. Before space became a frontier for innovation and development for privately held companies, opportunities were limited to nation states and the private defense contractors who supported them. In recent years, however, billionaires such as Bezos, Elon Musk, and Richard Branson have lowered the barrier to entry. Since the launch of its first rocket, Falcon 1, in September of 2008, Musk’s commercial space transportation company SpaceX has gradually but significantly reduced the cost and complexity of innovation beyond the Earth’s atmosphere. With Bezos’s announcement, many in the space sector are excited by the prospect of those barriers being lowered even further, creating a new wave of innovation in its wake. “What I want to achieve with Blue Origin is to build the heavy-lifting infrastructure that allows for the kind of dynamic, entrepreneurial explosion of thousands of companies in space that I have witnessed over the last 21 years on the internet,” Bezos said during the Vanity Fair New Establishment Summit in 2016. During the event, Bezos explained how the creation of Amazon was only possible thanks to the billions of dollars spent on critical infrastructure—such as the postal service, electronic payment systems, and the internet itself—in the decades prior. “On the internet today, two kids in their dorm room can reinvent an industry, because the heavy-lifting infrastructure is in place for that,” he continued. “Two kids in their dorm room can’t do anything interesting in space. . . . I’m using my Amazon winnings to do a new piece of heavy-lifting infrastructure, which is low-cost access to space.” In the less than 20 years since the launch of SpaceX’s first rocket, space has gone from a domain reserved for nation states and the world’s wealthiest individuals to everyday innovators and entrepreneurs. Today, building a space startup isn’t rocket science. THE NEXT FRONTIER FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP According to the latest Space Investment Quarterly report published by Space Capital, the fourth quarter of 2020 saw a record $5.7 billion invested into 80 space-related companies, bringing the year’s total capital investments in space innovation to more than $25 billion. Overall, more than $177 billion of equity investments have been made in 1,343 individual companies in the space economy over the past 10 years. “It’s kind of crazy how quickly things have picked up; 10 years ago when SpaceX launched their first customer they removed the barriers to entry, and we’ve seen all this innovation and capital flood in,” says Chad Anderson, the managing partner of Space Capital. “We’re on an exponential curve here. Every week that goes by we’re picking up the pace.” The plan creates a restriction that encourages companies to move their operations to states with lower standards Albert 14 (Caley Albert, J.D. Loyola Marymount University) “Liability in International Law and the Ramifications on Commercial Space Launches and Space Tourism,” Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 11/1/14, https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1708andcontext=ilr TDI A parallel can be drawn here between the commercial space industry and the maritime law concept of the Flag of Convenience. The term has evolved over time, but in this day and age, it is commonly used to mean the owner of a vessel does not want to create an obligation with a country with stricter standards for registry; hence, the owner will register strictly for economic reasons with a country that has a more convenient registry.133 By flying a Flag of Convenience, ship owners are able to avoid taxation on earnings of ships registered under these flags, and in some cases, they can also receive relief from stricter crew standards and corresponding operating costs.134 A Flag of Convenience is flown by a vessel that is registered in one state, which the vessel has little if any connection to, when in reality the vessel is owned and operated from another state.135 This way the vessel avoids any unfavorable economic requirements from its true home state.136 In this sense, “flag shopping” is similar to “launch forum shopping,” similar in that Flags of Convenience are utilized for economic reasons, such as to avoid high taxes and compliance with certain restrictive international conventions, commercial space companies will forum shop when choosing which country to launch from. As of today, there has yet to be a catastrophic commercial launch incident, so for now commercial space companies do not have an incentive to forum shop, but if there is, the indemnification policies described above may lead companies to seek out countries that provide more coverage so they pay less in the event something goes wrong. This comparison to Flags of Convenience brings up two separate yet equally important issues. First, launch companies may try to follow the Flags of Convenience model and soon catch on to the wisdom of their maritime predecessors by “registering” in countries with more favorable conditions. Of course, in this case the concern is not with registration so much as launching. If launch companies follow the Flags of Convenience model, they will seek out the most convenient state for launch, most likely the state that provides the most liability coverage and has the least safety precautions. Launching from states with low safety standards increases the potential for catastrophic launch events. This, in turn, will place states that are potentially incapable of paying for damages from launch disasters in a position they would not normally assume if these commercial companies had not been drawn to their shores with the promise of more favorable regulations. Second, launch customers may also seek out companies located in states with lower cost liability regimes (lower insurance policy limits) since those companies will presumably charge less to launch their payloads. In this scenario, instead of the launch companies seeking out states with lower liability caps and softer regulations, the launch customers themselves will seek companies located in states with lowcost liability regimes. Here, the effect will be the same as above. Under the Liability Convention, the launching state will be liable for any damage caused by a vehicle launched from within its borders; hence, if customers start engaging in “launch forum shopping,” states will be incentivized to put in place low-cost liability regimes, which in turn will increase the states’ potential payout in the event of a catastrophic launch incident. Looking at the indemnification program the United States has in place in comparison to other countries, it is possible to see how either launch companies or launch customers could engage in “launch forum shopping” when a catastrophic launch incident ever occur. It is also important to keep in mind that various factors go into where a company or customer decides to launch from. A state’s indemnification program is just one factor in this decision. With this in mind, it is clear that if a launch incident did occur in the United States, the commercial launch company would be liable for much more than it would in another country. For instance, why would a commercial space company launch in the United States, where it would be liable up to $500 million and the additional costs that the government would not cover? The argument can be made that a catastrophic space incident has yet to occur, and even if it did, it is unlikely to cost above the $2.7 billion covered by the United States government. Other states like Russia or France, which has the two-tier liability system, would simply cover all claims above the initial insurance, which is much lower than the $500 million mark required by the United States. In that case, the commercial company would never have to pay more than the initial liability insurance. If there ever is a catastrophic commercial space incident in the future, it is easy to see why commercial companies or launch customers might be drawn to “launch forum shop” outside the United States. Maintaining US space dominance requires a homegrown commercial space industry – private companies offshoring gives China the advantage they need Cahan and Sadat 1/6 (Bruce Cahan, J.D) (Dr. Mir Sadat, ) "US Space Policies for the New Space Age: Competing on the Final Economic Frontier," based on Proceedings from State of the Space Industrial Base 2020 Sponsored by United States Space Force, Defense Innovation Unit, United States Air Force Research Laboratory, 1/6/21, https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-9349-d713-a777-d7cfce4b0000 TDI Today, China’s commercial space sector is in its infancy but is set to grow with continued national and provincial support, which have been rapidly increasing over the past three years.64 Since 2004, the United States and China accounted for 74 of the $135.2 billion venture capital (VC) invested in commercial space. 65 The early 2020s are pivotal, as it would be far cheaper for China and Chinese commercial space firms to acquire space technologies from the United States or allied nation companies seeking revenues or facing cashflow constraints, than to build the companies and their teams and technologies from scratch in China. The tight coupling of Chinese military goals and an economy organized to achieve those goals magnifies the economic threats and market disruptions that the United States must immediately address, in order for DoD and national security operations to rely on US commercial space capabilities. 3. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Peaceful Uses of Space and Space Exploration Space has been primarily a shared, not a warfighting, domain.67 With each passing second of Planck time,68 space enables a modern way of life, provides instantaneous global imagery, assures telecommunications, and captures humanity’s imagination for civil space exploration. As a result, space is a burgeoning marketplace and territory for commercial ventures and investors. Strengthening the US commercial space industrial base is vital to and beyond US national security. Civil space activities are a source of US “soft power” in global commerce, cooperation, and investment. 69 The civil space sector, led by NASA, is fundamental to America’s national security. 70 NASA is on an ambitious critical path to return to the Moon by 2024,71 along with developing the capabilities and infrastructure for a sustained lunar presence. NASA’s lunar plans provide a lunar staging area for missions to Mars and beyond. They offer a strategic and economic presence for the United States on the Moon. Congress, the White House, DoD, and NASA must recognize that economic and strategic dominance in service of national security requires catalyzing and accelerating growth of a vibrant, private US industrial and cultural expansion into the Solar System. Human visitation and eventual settlement beyond the Earth require sustaining visionary leaders, aided by, and aiding, US national security. A recurring theme in US policy is “maintaining and advancing United States dominance and strategic leadership in space” because US global competitors and adversaries are competent and capable of outpacing American space capabilities. 72 The stakes are high: At this historic moment, there is a real race for dominance over cislunar access and resources. Regulations Should Foster US Commercial Space as a National Asset Leveraging the reimagination and disruption of terrestrial industries, the US commercial space industry is pushing the frontiers of the United States and global space economics and capabilities. A pre-COVID19 assessment by the US Chamber of Commerce projected that the US space market will increase from approximately $385 billion in 2020, to at least $1.5 trillion by 2040. 73 This projection represents a seven percent (7) annual compound average growth rate (CAGR), driven largely by expanded business opportunities in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Total addressable market (TAM) for US commercial space companies could be far larger were they to have federal and financial support for initiating cislunar space operations and opportunities. Recent advancements in commercial space technologies and business models have driven down costs and unlocked new areas of economic growth and space capabilities that outpace and de-risk acquiring capabilities through traditional US government economic development, research and development (RandD), procurement and regulatory policies and processes. US regulations must ensure that US companies lead in commercial space. In specific, technological advances that lower access costs and expand space mission capabilities, content, continuity, and redundancies must be fully supported by or incorporated into US government programs, budgets, requirements, and acquisition processes. Until commercial space offerings are fully incorporated, and federal acquisition policies and personnel commit to innovation, US government fiscal buying power, intelligence and program support will lag and remain inadequate in comparison to US private sector companies and the nation’s global competitors and adversaries in space. Addressing COVID-19’s Impact on US Commercial Space The COVID-19 pandemic damaged and still challenges the US space industrial base. US domestic investors’ funding of space RandD remains inconsistent across the lifecycle of New Space companies and the spectrum of technologies necessary to grow the space economy. To date, public RandD, government procurements and visionary space entrepreneurs have played a major role in establishing and funding the New Space industrial base. In the last five years, $11 billion of private capital has been invested.74 Traditional private investors may become reluctant to fund space technologies due to perceptions of higher risk over longer time horizons before receiving profitable returns on their capital. Institutional and long-horizon investors who manage patient capital have an appetite for illiquid, but higher yielding, terrestrial alternative asset investments such as commodities, private equity limited partnerships and real estate.75 The COVID-19 pandemic has created economic uncertainties making the New Space’s funding model unreliable. COVID-19 significantly impacted venture capital (VC)-backed companies: the pace of VC space investments fell 85 between April - June, as compared to January – March, in 2020. 76 Pre-COVID-19, the New Space industrial base confronted multiple challenges in raising later stages of venture capital such as (1) the lag between having an early-stage startup with an idea and commercializing a viable revenue-generating product, (2) the lack of market liquidity for founder and private equity space investments to attract and retain talented teams, and (3) the lack of a market to re-sell contracts for space goods and services when customers buy more capacity than needed. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, federal financing of US RandD was at a historically minor level, as compared to businesses and universities.77 US government support for basic research has steadily declined as a percent of GDP. The federal government will experience near- to medium-term budget constraints.78 The vibrant venture community in the United States has taken up a portion of this slack by increasing RandD investment in later-stage and applied research. However, founding teams and VC financing rely on government to fund earlier RandD for basic science and engineering. Therefore, government must resume the sustainable and impactful past levels of support for basic research, an essential role in the space economy’s public-private partnership that ensures US leadership in space. Space as Existential Terrain for National Security
In this Digital Era, space integrates and drives all elements of US national security. The Cold War may be over, but since the early 2010s, a renewed era of great power competition has emerged across terrestrial land, air, sea, and cyber domains. This competition extends into space, where a great game ensues.79 Space is no longer an uncontested or sanctuary domain. Competent and capable global competitors and peer adversaries are challenging US military, commercial, and civil space interests. The United States, along with its allies and partners, has had to accept and anticipate that space may be a warfighting domain, as suggested primarily by Russian and Chinese counter-space capabilities, military operations, and declarative statements. On December 20, 2019, the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 202080 authorized the creation of the US Space Force, under the Department of the Air Force, to secure US national interests in an increasingly contested domain.81 Back in October 1775, the Continental Congress established the US Navy to ensure that commercial and government fleets could freely navigate the Atlantic coastline - today, that includes the South China Sea. Likewise, the USSF’s mission is to ensure unfettered access to and the freedom to operate in space. The 2017 National Security Strategy considers space to be a “priority domain.”82 Freedom of navigation is a sovereign right that nations have fought to achieve and defend. 83 The USSF’s main role is to organize, train and equip, as well as to protecting US space interests and supporting terrestrial and joint warfighters (e.g., US Space Command). Thus, USSF must secure US national interests in space, whether military, commercial, scientific, civil, or enhancing US competitiveness for cislunar leadership. US space dominance prevents global war Zubrin 15 (Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Energy, a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy) “US Space Supremacy is Now Critical,” Space News, 1/22/15, https://spacenews.com/op-ed-u-s-space-supremacy-now-critical/ TDI The United States needs a new national security policy. For the first time in more than 60 years, we face the real possibility of a large-scale conventional war, and we are woefully unprepared. Eastern and Central Europe is now so weakly defended as to virtually invite invasion. The United States is not about to go to nuclear war to defend any foreign country. So deterrence is dead, and, with the German army cut from 12 divisions to three, the British gone from the continent, and American forces down to a 30,000-troop tankless remnant, the only serious and committed ground force that stands between Russia and the Rhine is the Polish army. It’s not enough. Meanwhile, in Asia, the powerful growth of the Chinese economy promises that nation eventual overwhelming numerical force superiority in the region. How can we restore the balance, creating a sufficiently powerful conventional force to deter aggression? It won’t be by matching potential adversaries tank for tank, division for division, replacement for replacement. Rather, the United States must seek to totally outgun them by obtaining a radical technological advantage. This can be done by achieving space supremacy. To grasp the importance of space power, some historical perspective is required. Wars are fought for control of territory. Yet for thousands of years, victory on land has frequently been determined by dominance at sea. In the 20th century, victory on both land and sea almost invariably went to the power that controlled the air. In the 21st century, victory on land, sea or in the air will go to the power that controls space. The critical military importance of space has been obscured by the fact that in the period since the United States has had space assets, all of our wars have been fought against minor powers that we could have defeated without them. Desert Storm has been called the first space war, because the allied forces made extensive use of GPS navigation satellites. However, if they had no such technology at their disposal, the end result would have been just the same. This has given some the impression that space forces are just a frill to real military power — a useful and convenient frill perhaps, but a frill nevertheless. But consider how history might have changed had the Axis of World War II possessed reconnaissance satellites — merely one of many of today’s space-based assets — without the Allies having a matching capability. In that case, the Battle of the Atlantic would have gone to the U-boats, as they would have had infallible intelligence on the location of every convoy. Cut off from oil and other supplies, Britain would have fallen. On the Eastern front, every Soviet tank concentration would have been spotted in advance and wiped out by German air power, as would any surviving British ships or tanks in the Mediterranean and North Africa. In the Pacific, the battle of Midway would have gone very much the other way, as the Japanese would not have wasted their first deadly airstrike on the unsinkable island, but sunk the American carriers instead. With these gone, the remaining cruisers and destroyers in Adm. Frank Jack Fletcher’s fleet would have lacked air cover, and every one of them would have been hunted down and sunk by unopposed and omniscient Japanese air power. With the same certain fate awaiting any American ships that dared venture forth from the West Coast, Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand would then have fallen, and eventually China and India as well. With a monopoly of just one element of space power, the Axis would have won the war. But modern space power involves far more than just reconnaissance satellites. The use of space-based GPS can endow munitions with 100 times greater accuracy, while space-based communications provide an unmatched capability of command and control of forces. Knock out the enemy’s reconnaissance satellites and he is effectively blind. Knock out his comsats and he is deaf. Knock out his navsats and he loses his aim. In any serious future conventional conflict, even between opponents as mismatched as Japan was against the United States — or Poland (with 1,000 tanks) is currently against Russia (with 12,000) — it is space power that will prove decisive. Not only Europe, but the defense of the entire free world hangs upon this matter. For the past 70 years, U.S. Navy carrier task forces have controlled the world’s oceans, first making and then keeping the Pax Americana, which has done so much to secure and advance the human condition over the postwar period. But should there ever be another major conflict, an adversary possessing the ability to locate and target those carriers from space would be able to wipe them out with the push of a button. For this reason, it is imperative that the United States possess space capabilities that are so robust as to not only assure our own ability to operate in and through space, but also be able to comprehensively deny it to others. Space superiority means having better space assets than an opponent. Space supremacy means being able to assert a complete monopoly of such capabilities. The latter is what we must have. If the United States can gain space supremacy, then the capability of any American ally can be multiplied by orders of magnitude, and with the support of the similarly multiplied striking power of our own land- and sea-based air and missile forces be made so formidable as to render any conventional attack unthinkable. On the other hand, should we fail to do so, we will remain so vulnerable as to increasingly invite aggression by ever-more-emboldened revanchist powers. This battle for space supremacy is one we can win. Neither Russia nor China, nor any other potential adversary, can match us in this area if we put our minds to it. We can and must develop ever-more-advanced satellite systems, anti-satellite systems and truly robust space launch and logistics capabilities. Then the next time an aggressor commits an act of war against the United States or a country we are pledged to defend, instead of impotently threatening to limit his tourist visas, we can respond by taking out his satellites, effectively informing him in advance the certainty of defeat should he persist. If we desire peace on Earth, we need to prepare for war in space.
1/7/22
Space - Heg da
Tournament: Woodward | Round: 5 | Opponent: Marlborough Karlan | Judge: Yerraguntala, Srinidhi Space tech advancements and control have produced a qualitative military advantage. US space privatization maintains a shaky but tenable US lead. Sergeant Duke 20 served as a US Army intelligence analyst, holds a BA in intelligence studies with a concentration in counterintelligence from American Military University and research national security autonomous weaponry armed conflict, and the space domain, , 9-25-2020, "Conflict and Controversy in the Space Domain: Legalities, Lethalities, and Celestial Secur," Air University (AU), https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Article-Display/Article/2362296/conflict-and-controversy-in-the-space-domain-legalities-lethalities-and-celesti/ Advancements in space technology are quickly leading to an inevitable conflict over control in space, which includes control over the Moon through lunar bases and potentially control over the colonization of Mars. The PRC has added the capability to "physically attack satellites using antisatellite ASAT interceptors, miniature space mines, and ground-based lasers" into its military space program.1 These capabilities fall under the guise of the Outer Space Treaty’s permission to destroy militarized satellites.2 These technologies could easily be used offensively to create a decision advantage in combat. Some analysts believe that the deliberate collision of PRC satellites with older satellites shows that the PRC has experimented with "parasitic satellites" designed to lie dormant in the vicinity of a target until activated, potentially for hacking purposes.3 The PRC even "reportedly launched a hypersonic 'prototype space fighter' " in 2010. It continues to be locked in an intense space race with the rest of the space-savvy international community—particularly Russia, the United States, and India—with a short-term goal of controlling the Moon with a lunar base and a longer-term goal of populating Mars under the rule of the PRC.4 The development of maneuverable space planes and lunar bases is not unique to the PRC. The National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) developed the X-37 and X-37B space planes, and the Russian Federation is developing a maneuverable space plane using nuclear technology for power.5 All of these nations (as well as several others, including India and Japan) intend to establish lunar bases within the next 20 years.6 Despite the array of international treaties and agreements promoting peaceful global development of space resources in the name of science and humanity, it is unlikely that space will remain weapon free and likely that it will become the next frontier of global combat. Space weapons in development may use robotics, nanotechnology, and directed energy such as microwaves and lasers.7 With the establishment of a lunar base, a nation with advanced laser technology, advanced cyber weaponry, maneuverable space planes, satellite targeting capabilities, nano-science stealth technology, artificial intelligence, and self-guiding nanotechnology bullets would undoubtedly have the capacity to rule the Earth as it sees fit. All of these technologies already exist or are in development phases, and they are the future of intelligence and warfare.8 The US government and NASA, unlike the PRC and the RF, have been encouraging the commercialization of space cargo transportation to meet future American needs for access to the International Space Station (ISS) and to improve the research and development of spaceborne technologies and other developments.9 Private sector involvement has also opened the market for alternative rocket propulsion technologies that can achieve government and commercial goals for space at lower costs and faster than possible under the existing bureaucracy of NASA. Enhanced private sector involvement in space travel utilizes the free-market system to foster radical developments and investment for both government and private sector programs, incentivizing broader participation, which benefits both. Commercializing aspects of standard space operations, such as the recent partnership with SpaceX, will also pave the way for space tourism. This will free up resources for NASA and the newly minted US Space Force to pursue broader goals, such as manned deep space travel, a lunar base, and manned missions to Mars. Part 2: Lunar Power Rare earth metals and other minerals are quickly becoming scarce in the United States to the point where the international space race to claim the Moon and Mars has become a top priority, not just for control over them but for the resources available for exploitation. Uranium has even entered the economic radar as a good idea for boosting the American economy instead of remaining too dangerous to mine due to the associated health risks and environmental hazards. This resource is in abundance on the Moon.10 Estimates suggest there may be up to five million tons of Helium-3 (3He) contained within the lunar regolith.11 This has the potential to meet all of humankind's power needs for thousands of years when used with fusion power.12 On top of the resources potentially available, the Moon provides a unique launching position for future missions to Mars with a faster, more direct, and more efficient path to the Red Planet.13 Control over the Moon is an inherent factor in the future of the human race. Uranium has long been a part of the nuclear fission enterprise on Earth but comes with high costs, including radioactive waste and extreme health and environmental hazards due to the radiation produced in the fission process. Terrestrial reserves of other energy-producing resources, like oil and natural gas, have also been projected to be exhausted within 50–100 years under current and projected mining and usage rates.14 Alternatively, the element tritium (T), which has a half-life of 12.32 years, naturally decays into 3He,15 which can be used to create a new kind of power—fusion power. Fusion power can be generated by combining deuterium (D) with either more D, T, or 3He, using the following calculations shown in order of their ignition temperatures: D + T = 4He Helium-4 + n neutrons + 17.6 MeV Million electron Volts D + D = T + H Hydrogen + 4.0 MeV (50) = 3He + n + 3.3 MeV (50) D + 3He = 4He + H + 18.4 MeV16 Fusion power can also be created by combining 3He with more 3He, creating Helium-4 (4He).17 The combination of 3He and 3He is the most energy efficient, producing the greatest net energy,18 but also requires the highest ignition temperature to achieve fusion.19 Unfortunately, 3He exists only in minute amounts on Earth.20 The nation that establishes a mining and transportation industry capable of bringing lunar 3He to Earth, and develops a fusion plant network that transforms 3He into power, could control a substantial portion of the planet’s energy industry for decades. Some scientific estimates discount both the estimates of the potential amount of extractable 3He in the lunar regolith and the potential to achieve industrial fusion reactors on Earth capable of processing it. Exemplifying this scientific stance are the calculations of Ian Crawford, who believes both prospects are greatly exaggerated and that there are only approximately 220,507 tons of 3He available in logical extraction areas, such as the titanium-rich lunar basalt flats.21 Despite his dissent, Crawford admits even lunar resources that seem impractical and economically inefficient to transport resources to Earth may provide substantial economic benefits for space-based uses, such as solar power systems and spacecraft fusion engines, for example,22 which would not require transport back to Earth. Earth's finite resources make lunar and space resource exploitation an inevitability. The most pertinent factor governing future human resource exploitation in space is the question of which nation will achieve a successful and effective industrial supply chain first. The most probable three nations to achieve this are the US, the PRC, and the RF, and the three areas that need to be navigated to succeed are facility establishment, production/refinement, and transportation. Establishing lunar facilities is the easiest of these goals, especially when lunar resources that can be used for building are taken into account, which decreases the amount of materials needed to be brought to the Moon and the time needed for construction. In 2008, a NASA experiment found that lunar regolith has potential construction properties. When scientists heated the regolith and used sulfur as a binding agent, they made "waterless concrete," which can be molded and is nearly as strong as concrete when it hardens.23 This process requires minimal effort and relies primarily on direct heat application and the ability to shape the regolith. Consequently, the entire process can be automated by robots with the appropriate tools on the lunar surface, such as the ones NASA began developing specifically for this purpose in 2009.24 The simplicity of the operational requirements means that these three nations already have the technical capability to begin construction using lunar soil after arriving on the Moon. They will also all be capable of bringing any other materials that would be necessary to construct facilities or bases on the lunar surface. Unlike the US, and contrary to existing international law, the PRC's stance on the Moon is that it is territory,25 despite the prohibition on "national appropriation" of celestial bodies outlined in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty.26 The PRC has also proposed mining 3He for future fusion power opportunities.27 The RF, while not openly pursuing a territorial ambition for the Moon, is certainly exploring and advancing prospects of economic development, including 3He extraction and tourism.28 Facility development and resource exploitation areas on the Moon are limited. This will exacerbate the race for prime locations and desirable resources, particularly at the poles, where water ice is believed to exist in large quantities (which can be used to sustain lunar human habitation), and in the titanium- and 3He-rich basalt flats of Mare Tranquillitatis and Oceanus Procellarum.29 Once established, facility operations can begin to extract and refine resources either for use on the lunar surface or for transportation to Earth. Transportation of materials from the Moon to Earth is a substantial financial and logistical undertaking. It will not be easy to show a profit after the considerable expenses associated with it. Nevertheless, extraction and transportation of 3He and other resources to Earth, specifically for fusion power production, have been expressed as long-term goals of the PRC and the RF within decades. Interestingly, the US has not stated this as a goal but has already shifted its space transportation industry sufficiently toward the private sector. The private sector will have the most viable opportunity to build the first industrial space transportation system, specifically because of advantages in the American free-market system.30 By encouraging private sector participation in the space industry and commercializing space transportation, the US has made production of space technologies competitive with proposals in the National Space Policy.31 A competitive industry makes substantial investments in research, development, and production of space transports; engine components for space travel; and tools for use in zero gravity. America cannot afford to fall behind in the race for lunar facility establishment and resource exploitation. This is for reasons of economic and national security and the future security of human expansion into space as the Moon offers the most efficient launching position for missions to Earth's red neighbor, Mars. Part 3: Mars Domination Mars is widely accepted by the scientific community to be the most plausible planet for the first human habitation on a celestial body and, consequently, the most likely location for the first space colony and eventually a second planet for humankind. Thus, Mars is a desirable goal for nations involved in space exploration for many reasons. The territory on Mars, for example, will most likely become marketable for economic value to civilians in the long term. The Outer Space Treaty prevents ownership of territory on celestial bodies but makes no mention of ownership or sale for profit of structures built on, or items brought to, celestial bodies, just as there is no explicit language in the treaty preventing profit-based resource exploitation on celestial bodies by either governments, organizations, or private nationals.32 Additionally, the inevitability of Mars becoming a second planet inhabited by humanity must be considered, along with all of the implications of living spaces and ownership of property that will eventually follow. Denying this inevitability and claiming it as outlawed by international law due to the prohibition on appropriating territory on a celestial body would essentially equate owning property on Earth as also outlawed by international law. After all, Earth is also a celestial body. Language in the treaty encourages expansion into space and essentially says that if persons, governments, or organizations build something on a celestial body, they own that building33 and can do what they want with it, including selling it. They cannot, however, claim to own the planet's ground outside the building—yet. Resources on Mars, while still not mapped out as substantially as lunar resources have been, will likewise create new markets for economic prosperity and national wealth, including more 3He deposits from solar winds like those found in lunar regolith along with substantially high concentrations of iron.34 In addition to buildings constructed on celestial bodies, spacecraft and facilities constructed in space and on celestial bodies are also considered to be the territory of the owning nation, which means that the UN Charter applies to facilities and spacecraft in space and on celestial bodies. UN Charter Article 2(4), in particular, protects space explorers and potential future residents on Mars by prohibiting the "use of force against the territorial integrity" of another nation party to the treaty,35 which all space-faring nations are. Article 51 further dictates that if attacked, "the inherent right of . . . self-defense" shall not be impaired.36 Article V of the Outer Space Treaty prescribes that, in space, all humans are bound to "render all possible assistance to" each other as "envoys of Mankind."37 Essentially, a peaceful international course is possible—even mandated—for human expansion into space. Unfortunately, the PRC and the RF regard space and celestial bodies as territorial goals,38 leading to the assumption that attempts will be made to control and defend such territories as necessary to achieve space superiority, control over space resources, and managerial power over the future colonization of Mars. Control over Mars, in addition to affecting resource exploitation, transportation, and scientific advancements, also has implications for the direction of humanity in space. Establishment of a human colony, or human colonies, on Mars will eventually lead to territorial spaces, development of the land and air (potentially involving terraforming the planet for atmospheric enhancement), and security issues. While an established colony on the Red Planet is still likely decades away, trends within the PRC and RF governments suggest that any established colony on Mars under their jurisdiction would be authoritarian, weaponized, and secret. Given the nature of weather on Mars, fortified structures are easily justified, and the lack of a conventional weapons ban on celestial bodies makes weaponization of such a colony both legal and desirable, mainly because of the third inherently desired factor—secrecy. The inevitability of PRC and RF presence on Mars also suggests that any US developments will also include fortifications and weaponization. While the Outer Space Treaty mandates cooperation between nations on celestial bodies, the extreme distance between Earth and Mars means that a compliance verification system with effective monitoring and enforcement will be complicated, if not impossible, for the foreseeable future. For these reasons, a nation that effectively controls near-Earth space and establishes a security presence on the Moon will effectively be in a position to control Mars. Part 4: Space Control Celestial bodies are not the only potential fields of conflict in space, and in the short term, space itself has become a much more immediately relevant focus for spacefaring nations and the world. This is particularly the case in the vicinity of Earth, including orbital paths for communication technologies, weapon platforms, and sensors. Technological improvements and the proliferation of nation-state and private sector interest and capacity to enter space are causing the acceleration of an inevitability—usable orbital space around Earth is diminishing.39 Satellites and other spaceborne assets orbiting Earth are quickly filling up all of the most useful places to perform their assigned functions within Earth's various orbits, and space debris is complicating matters even further. Increasing numbers of space objects are causing difficulty in establishing safe orbital paths for newly launched spacecraft while increasing the risk to launches destined for deep space.40 Adding to these complications are international developments of ASAT weapons, many of which add to the more than 500,000 pieces of space debris traveling as fast as 17,500 mph41 already orbiting Earth.42 ASATs in use and under development include essentially two broad areas: kinetic energy (KE), such as missiles and rail guns, which impact targets in space; and directed energy (DE), which includes lasers, particle beams, and cyber weapons.43 The Outer Space Treaty, while prohibiting nuclear weapons from being used in any way in space including being stationed in space, "has no specific provision prohibiting the use of conventional weapons, including lasers, in outer space,"44 which inherently authorizes them. The Outer Space Treaty also contains no prohibition of such weapons being stationed on space-based platforms, including on celestial bodies, or of them being used to target objects on Earth, in space, or on celestial bodies.45 In other words, these weapons are legal in every way, regardless of the potential damage they can cause to international stability and humanity. There are, however, multiple ongoing debates over the nature, definitions, and classifications of several kinds of ASATs currently in operation or in developmental phases. Nearly every KE ASAT results in a large amount of space debris, which causes an abundance of future and immediate problems for space activities, including endangerment of the basic military and commercial functions of satellites for the Global Positioning System (GPS), communications, and recreation. Space debris is therefore a highly undesirable side effect for any nation to risk and potentially dangerous to the integrity of a nation's armed forces. David Koplow addresses this issue in a substantially relevant and logical way in his article “An Inference about Interference: A Surprising Application of Existing International Law to Inhibit Anti-Satellite Weapons.” His stated thesis is as follows: “The National Technical Means NTM-protection provisions of arms control treaties already prohibit the testing and use of destructive, debris-creating ASATs, because it is foreseeable that the resulting cloud of space junk will, sooner or later, impermissibly interfere with the operation of another state's NTM satellite, such as by colliding with it or causing it to maneuver away from its preferred orbital parameters into a safer, but less useful, location.”46 By "interfering" with these NTM verifications mandated by multiple treaties, Koplow suggests that intentional actions creating space debris are already outlawed by international law, and that the development of debris creating KE ASATs should cease and be banned immediately.47 Laser weapons, particle beams, and weapons containing depleted uranium are also under debate due to their radioactivity as well as nuclear processes used for some of their operations. Some posit that nuclear activities or materials within a weapon system should constitute classifying them as nuclear weapons, thereby outlawing them in space per the Outer Space Treaty's nuclear weapons ban.48 Advocates for these weapons declare that the weapons are not nuclear. Of the three primary types debated, laser weapons use a nuclear or chemical reaction process to fire a radioactive beam, particle beams rapidly fire atomic charged particles at a target, and hypervelocity rod bundle weapons and railguns use depleted uranium as ammunition.49 Finally, the potential exists for the use of a nuclear explosion in space designed to generate an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack on an Earth target, which the RF "has worked on developing" in the form of an “EMP ASAT.”50 With the RF’s recent developments in ASATs and its stated intent “to station weapons in space,”51 the complete weaponization of space by the RF and other nations—including the US and the PRC—is inevitable. The RF and PRC are aggressively pursuing ASAT weapon advancements and preparing for space combat operations, including the RF recently fielding a "ground-based laser weapon" even as it publicly advocated for space not to be weaponized.52 Part 5: The Future of Space Space exploration converges on two of Sun Tzu's concepts of the strategic battlespace: “open ground” and the “ground of intersecting highways.” The former consists of areas where all sides have "liberty of movement" and the latter of areas where "contiguous states" converge.53 On open ground, Sun Tzu advises not "to block the enemy’s way," and on intersecting grounds he suggests to "join hands with your allies.54 Space is essentially a combination of these types of ground, where all nations are contiguously connected, and yet it consists of a legally recognized area of free movement for all persons and nations. Interestingly, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, written over 2,000 years ago, advocates indirectly for peaceful human expansion into space, where allied nations proceed forth together while intentionally avoiding negative engagements with potential adversaries. This ancient concept of human cooperation and peaceful coexistence is also consistent with the Department of Defense's (DOD) and intelligence community's (IC) National Security Space Policy55 and the National Space Policy of the United States of America.56 Executive Order (EO) 13914, signed on 6 April 2020, clarifies the position of the US government that while international cooperation in space exploration is essentially mandatory, America "does not view space as a global commons,"57 reiterating that the Outer Space Treaty does in fact protect the individual interests of nations in space, including the right to self-defense. The policy further clarifies the intent of the United States to harvest materials from celestial bodies and strengthens the implied relationships with both the international community and the private sector concerning space exploration and related developments.58 By combining these principles, this renewed position on space developments further complements Sun Tzu’s ideas of the strategic battlespace in relation to the space domain moving into the future, regarding space as an area that can be used and exploited by everyone, but acknowledging that claims, defense, and security are also going to be essential factors in the way mankind moves forward in the space domain. In addressing the impact of space exploration, and the subsequent superiority gained by the PRC, the RF, or the US in the process, it is important to recognize the three principle issues of the strategic space environment outlined in these national policies: congestion, contestation, and competitiveness. The US IC is mandated by section 1.1 of EO 12333 to "provide . . . the necessary information on which to base decisions concerning the development and conduct of foreign, defense, and economic policies, and the protection of United States national interests from foreign security threats,"59 which now include threats from space and threats toward US space assets. Congestion, contestation, and competitiveness in space now directly impact the IC's ability to effectively pursue its mandate under EO 12333 and must be addressed collectively to ensure the future national security of the United States on Earth and in space. Enhancing the space industrial base’s ability to innovate and participate in the expansion of humankind into space fosters a unique opportunity to share with, and benefit from, research and development initiatives related to activities in space. Combining private sector and government resources together has the potential to greatly accelerate advancements across a wide range of space assets—including spacecraft developments, zero gravity research, energy production, and weapon applications—all of which will help minimize the risks of congestion, contestation, and competitiveness. Congestion in space refers to objects, including active devices and dangerous debris, filling up the usable orbital paths used for government and commercial purposes, primarily satellites. It also applies to finite amounts of bandwidth and frequencies used for transmissions that are currently being exhausted by demand threatening to exceed supply.60 Congestion will also inherently refer to space traffic once an industry exists that requires transportation between the Earth and the Moon, as well as to physical locations for lunar and Martian resource exploitation facilities and extraction points and places to build and operate on celestial bodies, including the Moon and Mars. This will eventually include a significant focus on the colonization of Mars since large portions of the planet are unsuitable for human habitation due to terrain, radiation, meteoroids, and weather. Short-term intelligence and counterintelligence impacts from the congestion of near-Earth space consist of primarily radio interference, protecting satellites from becoming compromised, effective deployment and concealment of collection platforms, and ensuring the integrity of protected information in transit. Sharing space in accordance with Sun Tzu’s ancient wisdom does not mean ceding it, and while space debris is the primary factor in congestion, contestation is becoming an issue due to potential adversarial ASATs. Contestation is an anticipated inevitability and one that will grow exponentially as more nations enter space and with further developments and potential use of ASATs, either in war, by accident, or for other reasons. Murphy’s Law applies, even in space. Currently, competitiveness is driving both the potential for contestation as well as the congestion in near-Earth space. Commercial and multi-governmental competition is increasing for space-related research and development, deployment of assets, and physical space for occupation by those assets. Intelligence agencies in many nations, including allies and adversaries of the US, are now advancing the deployment, use, and decision advantages of spaceborne intelligence assets, including space-based surveillance and weapons platforms. Reasserting US superiority over the space environment is vital to the continuation of American leadership on Earth and the effectiveness of IC assurance of national security through space superiority. American leadership in space exploration is the only way to ensure that humanity's expansion into the stars is undertaken with the ideologies of liberty and free-market economics leading the way. America’s leadership in ingenuity and technological developments, combined with free-market capitalism, has transformed the face of the world for more than two centuries. Its leadership has created the environment necessary to explore game-changing space technologies. These technologies will revolutionize the entire space industry. For example, the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) is an experimental electromagnetic thruster for spacecraft propulsion that will dramatically reduce travel time to Mars and other destinations.61 Commercial spacecraft like the Dream Chaser Cargo System will result in a private sector space travel industry, incentivizing space tourism and, potentially, a space cargo transportation industry. 62 In February 2020, the US Department of Energy announced a $50 million investment in fusion research and development projects across the country.63 One of these is the Plasma Science and Fusion Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with the goal of keeping the United States at the forefront of fusion energy development.64 Another is the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin, which is focusing on advancing research in the field of helium-based fusion power production technologies on Earth.65 This technology will address finite terrestrial energy resources and production of 3He-based electricity from lunar regolith. These are just a few examples of the future of space technology research and development, and such technologies were all made possible because of the structure of the American free-market system. The biggest challenge for the IC will be to balance President Dwight Eisenhower’s vision with Sun Tzu’s battlefield strategies. Eisenhower understood in 1958 that “through space exploration, man hopes to broaden his horizons, add to his knowledge, and improve his way of living on earth.”66 Sun Tzu knew that “all warfare is based on deception,” “the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans,” and the greatest fighters “put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat” to achieve victory.67 American leaders participating in seizing and maintaining US space superiority shoulder this responsibility and must forge a new path forward that enhances human life on Earth, denies the possibility of victory to US adversaries, and ensures the integrity and security of American assets in the space domain as the world moves forward together into the future. Maintaining US space dominance requires a homegrown commercial space industry – private companies offshoring gives China the advantage they need Cahan and Sadat 1/6 (Bruce Cahan, J.D) (Dr. Mir Sadat, ) "US Space Policies for the New Space Age: Competing on the Final Economic Frontier," based on Proceedings from State of the Space Industrial Base 2020 Sponsored by United States Space Force, Defense Innovation Unit, United States Air Force Research Laboratory, 1/6/21, https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-9349-d713-a777-d7cfce4b0000 TDI Today, China’s commercial space sector is in its infancy but is set to grow with continued national and provincial support, which have been rapidly increasing over the past three years.64 Since 2004, the United States and China accounted for 74 of the $135.2 billion venture capital (VC) invested in commercial space. 65 The early 2020s are pivotal, as it would be far cheaper for China and Chinese commercial space firms to acquire space technologies from the United States or allied nation companies seeking revenues or facing cashflow constraints, than to build the companies and their teams and technologies from scratch in China. The tight coupling of Chinese military goals and an economy organized to achieve those goals magnifies the economic threats and market disruptions that the United States must immediately address, in order for DoD and national security operations to rely on US commercial space capabilities. 3. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES Peaceful Uses of Space and Space Exploration Space has been primarily a shared, not a warfighting, domain.67 With each passing second of Planck time,68 space enables a modern way of life, provides instantaneous global imagery, assures telecommunications, and captures humanity’s imagination for civil space exploration. As a result, space is a burgeoning marketplace and territory for commercial ventures and investors. Strengthening the US commercial space industrial base is vital to and beyond US national security. Civil space activities are a source of US “soft power” in global commerce, cooperation, and investment. 69 The civil space sector, led by NASA, is fundamental to America’s national security. 70 NASA is on an ambitious critical path to return to the Moon by 2024,71 along with developing the capabilities and infrastructure for a sustained lunar presence. NASA’s lunar plans provide a lunar staging area for missions to Mars and beyond. They offer a strategic and economic presence for the United States on the Moon. Congress, the White House, DoD, and NASA must recognize that economic and strategic dominance in service of national security requires catalyzing and accelerating growth of a vibrant, private US industrial and cultural expansion into the Solar System. Human visitation and eventual settlement beyond the Earth require sustaining visionary leaders, aided by, and aiding, US national security. A recurring theme in US policy is “maintaining and advancing United States dominance and strategic leadership in space” because US global competitors and adversaries are competent and capable of outpacing American space capabilities. 72 The stakes are high: At this historic moment, there is a real race for dominance over cislunar access and resources. Regulations Should Foster US Commercial Space as a National Asset Leveraging the reimagination and disruption of terrestrial industries, the US commercial space industry is pushing the frontiers of the United States and global space economics and capabilities. A pre-COVID19 assessment by the US Chamber of Commerce projected that the US space market will increase from approximately $385 billion in 2020, to at least $1.5 trillion by 2040. 73 This projection represents a seven percent (7) annual compound average growth rate (CAGR), driven largely by expanded business opportunities in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Total addressable market (TAM) for US commercial space companies could be far larger were they to have federal and financial support for initiating cislunar space operations and opportunities. Recent advancements in commercial space technologies and business models have driven down costs and unlocked new areas of economic growth and space capabilities that outpace and de-risk acquiring capabilities through traditional US government economic development, research and development (RandD), procurement and regulatory policies and processes. US regulations must ensure that US companies lead in commercial space. In specific, technological advances that lower access costs and expand space mission capabilities, content, continuity, and redundancies must be fully supported by or incorporated into US government programs, budgets, requirements, and acquisition processes. Until commercial space offerings are fully incorporated, and federal acquisition policies and personnel commit to innovation, US government fiscal buying power, intelligence and program support will lag and remain inadequate in comparison to US private sector companies and the nation’s global competitors and adversaries in space. Addressing COVID-19’s Impact on US Commercial Space The COVID-19 pandemic damaged and still challenges the US space industrial base. US domestic investors’ funding of space RandD remains inconsistent across the lifecycle of New Space companies and the spectrum of technologies necessary to grow the space economy. To date, public RandD, government procurements and visionary space entrepreneurs have played a major role in establishing and funding the New Space industrial base. In the last five years, $11 billion of private capital has been invested.74 Traditional private investors may become reluctant to fund space technologies due to perceptions of higher risk over longer time horizons before receiving profitable returns on their capital. Institutional and long-horizon investors who manage patient capital have an appetite for illiquid, but higher yielding, terrestrial alternative asset investments such as commodities, private equity limited partnerships and real estate.75 The COVID-19 pandemic has created economic uncertainties making the New Space’s funding model unreliable. COVID-19 significantly impacted venture capital (VC)-backed companies: the pace of VC space investments fell 85 between April - June, as compared to January – March, in 2020. 76 Pre-COVID-19, the New Space industrial base confronted multiple challenges in raising later stages of venture capital such as (1) the lag between having an early-stage startup with an idea and commercializing a viable revenue-generating product, (2) the lack of market liquidity for founder and private equity space investments to attract and retain talented teams, and (3) the lack of a market to re-sell contracts for space goods and services when customers buy more capacity than needed. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, federal financing of US RandD was at a historically minor level, as compared to businesses and universities.77 US government support for basic research has steadily declined as a percent of GDP. The federal government will experience near- to medium-term budget constraints.78 The vibrant venture community in the United States has taken up a portion of this slack by increasing RandD investment in later-stage and applied research. However, founding teams and VC financing rely on government to fund earlier RandD for basic science and engineering. Therefore, government must resume the sustainable and impactful past levels of support for basic research, an essential role in the space economy’s public-private partnership that ensures US leadership in space. Space as Existential Terrain for National Security
In this Digital Era, space integrates and drives all elements of US national security. The Cold War may be over, but since the early 2010s, a renewed era of great power competition has emerged across terrestrial land, air, sea, and cyber domains. This competition extends into space, where a great game ensues.79 Space is no longer an uncontested or sanctuary domain. Competent and capable global competitors and peer adversaries are challenging US military, commercial, and civil space interests. The United States, along with its allies and partners, has had to accept and anticipate that space may be a warfighting domain, as suggested primarily by Russian and Chinese counter-space capabilities, military operations, and declarative statements. On December 20, 2019, the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 202080 authorized the creation of the US Space Force, under the Department of the Air Force, to secure US national interests in an increasingly contested domain.81 Back in October 1775, the Continental Congress established the US Navy to ensure that commercial and government fleets could freely navigate the Atlantic coastline - today, that includes the South China Sea. Likewise, the USSF’s mission is to ensure unfettered access to and the freedom to operate in space. The 2017 National Security Strategy considers space to be a “priority domain.”82 Freedom of navigation is a sovereign right that nations have fought to achieve and defend. 83 The USSF’s main role is to organize, train and equip, as well as to protecting US space interests and supporting terrestrial and joint warfighters (e.g., US Space Command). Thus, USSF must secure US national interests in space, whether military, commercial, scientific, civil, or enhancing US competitiveness for cislunar leadership. Space dominance solves nuclear war. Hegemony de-escalates all conflict scenarios – specifically miscalc. Yoo 18 (Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a visiting scholar at AEI since 2003. He served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of the Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003, where he worked on constitutional and national security matters, as General Counsel of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary from 1995-96, and as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court (John, Winning the Space Race, October 15th, http://www.aei.org/publication/winning-the-space-race/) *edited for offensive language President Donald Trump’s National Security Strategy set a new course by focusing on rebuilding the domestic economy as central to national security and aiming at “rival powers, Russia and China, that seek to challenge American influence, values, and wealth.” Critics observed that the White House seemed to reverse past presidents’ emphasis on advancing democracy and liberal values and elevating American sovereignty over international cooperation.1 Less noticed but perhaps equally revisionist, the Trump administration reversed its predecessor’s course on outer space. Even as American military and civilian networks increased their dependence on satellites, the Obama White House had deferred to European efforts to develop a space “Code of Conduct.” The Trump administration instead relies on unilateralism: “any harmful interference with or an attack upon critical components of our space architecture that directly affects this vital US interest will be met with a deliberate response at a time, place, manner, and domain of our choosing.” On June 18, 2018, President Trump announced a new branch of the military: the United States Space Force. Control of space already underlies the United States’ predominance in nuclear and conventional warfare. Intercontinental and submarine launched ballistic missiles, the heart of the US nuclear deterrent, pass through space to reach their targets. Reconnaissance satellites monitor rival nations for missile launches, strategic deployments, and major troop movements. Communications satellites provide the high-speed data transfer that stitches the US Armed Forces together, from generals issuing commands to pilots controlling drones. With economic rivals such as China and India, and rogue states like Iran and North Korea developing space programs that pursue similar missions, the importance of space technology to US interests and international peace will only increase. Space not only enhances military operations, but also exposes new vulnerabilities. Anti-satellite missiles can make an opponent’s space-based communication networks easier to disable than purely ground-based systems. Losing reconnaissance satellites could blind gut the US’s strategic monitoring and disabling the GPS system would degrade its operational and tactical abilities. Space invites asymmetric warfare because anti-satellite attacks could even the technological odds against western powers that have become dependent on information-enhanced operations. As the nation most dependent on space-based networks, the United States may have the most to lose. Strategists divide competition in this emerging arena into four categories. First is space support, which refers to the launching and management of satellites in orbit. The second is force enhancement, which seeks to improve the effectiveness of terrestrial military operations. The importance of these basic missions is well-established. Indeed, the very first satellites performed a critical surveillance role in the strategic competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Spy satellites replaced dangerous aerial reconnaissance flights in providing intelligence on rival nuclear missile arsenals. Later space-based systems provided the superpowers with early warnings of ballistic missile launches. These programs bolstered stability and aided progress in nuclear arms reduction talks. Satellites created “national technical means” of verification: the capability to detect compliance with arms control treaties without the need to intrude on territorial sovereignty. They reduced the chances of human miscalculation by increasing the information available to decision makers about the intentions of other nations. The US has made the most progress in the second mission, force enhancement, by using space to boost conventional military abilities. GPS enables the exact deployment of units, the synchronization of combat maneuvers, clearer identification of friend and foe, and precision targeting. In its recent wars, the US has used satellite information to find the enemy, even to the level of individual leaders, deploy on-station air or ground forces, and fire precision-guided munitions to destroy targets with decreased risk of collateral damage. American military leaders have argued that continued integration of space and conventional strike capabilities will allow the US to handle the twenty-first century threats—terrorism, rogue nations, asymmetric warfare, and regional challengers—more effectively with less resources. The third and fourth space missions focus on space itself. Space control involves freely using space to one’s benefit while denying access to opponents. Conceptually akin to air superiority, space control begins with defense: hardening command, control, communications and reconnaissance facilities to prevent enemy interference. It includes shielding satellite components, giving them the ability to avoid collisions, disguising their location, and arming satellites to destroy attackers.2 Such forms of active defense can blend into the fourth mission: space force. Space force envisions weapons systems based in orbit that can strike targets on the ground, in the air, or in space. In an important respect, space control and force application demand a greater exercise of power than air or naval superiority. While air and naval superiority can be achieved through rapid deployment of assets for the duration of a conflict, dominance in space requires a broader geographic scope and longer-term duration—a constellation of space weapons would circle the globe for years.3It is in this realm that new weapons technologies are emerging, prompting questions of whether space-faring nations like the United States should treat space as another area for great power competition. “The reality of confrontation in space politics pervades the reality of the ideal of true cooperation and political unity in space, which has never been genuine, and in the near term seems unlikely,” argues Everett Dolman.4 The US certainly has taken such concerns to heart. In the decade ending in 2008, for example, the US increased its space budget from $33.7 billion to $43 billion in constant dollars. The entirety of this spending increase went to the Defense Department. These weapons systems take several forms. Already operational, the US national missile defense system relies upon satellites to track ballistic missile launches and help guide ground-launched kill vehicles. Space-based lasers, like those in development by the US today, remain the only viable method to destroy ballistic missiles in their initial boost phase, when they are easiest to destroy. American reliance on space-based intelligence and communication for its startling conventional military advantages has made its satellites a target of potential rivals. In 2007, for example, China tested a ground-launched missile to destroy a weather satellite in low earth orbit—the same region inhabited by commercial satellites. “For countries that can never win a war with the United States by using the methods of tanks and planes, attacking an American space system may be an irresistible and most tempting choice,” Chinese analyst Wang Hucheng has written, in a much-noticed comment.5 Though the 2007 ASAT (Anti-satellite weapon) test sparked international controversy, China had only followed the footsteps of the superpowers. The United States had carried out a primitive anti-satellite weapon test as early as 1959. During the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations, the US continued to test anti-ballistic missile systems in an anti-satellite role. The Soviet Union followed suit. The superpowers temporarily dropped these programs with the signing of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, only to restart them in the 1990s. As rivals and rogue nations begin to mimic American development of force enhancement and space control abilities, the US will naturally develop anti-satellite weapons to restore its advantage and deter attacks. Such anti-satellite weapons may become even more common due to the vulnerability of satellites and the spread of ballistic missile technology. Critics question whether the benefits of space weapons are worth the possibility of strategic instability. They argue that only arms control agreements and international institutions can head off a disastrous military race in space. But space will become an arena for pre-emptive deterrence. Every environment—land, air, water, and now space—has become an arena for combat. The US could deter destabilizing space threats from rivals by advancing its defensive capabilities. Some realist strategists argue not just in favor of protecting US space assets, but seeking US space supremacy. Because great power competition has already spread to space, the United States should capitalize on its early lead to control the ultimate high ground, that of outer space. Criticisms of space weapons overlook the place of force in international politics. Advances in space technology can have greater humanitarian outcomes that outweigh concerns with space weapons themselves. Rather than increase the likelihood of war, space-based systems reduce the probability of destructive conflicts and limit both combatant and civilian casualties. Reconnaissance satellites reduce the chances that war will break out due to misunderstanding of a rival’s deployments or misperception of another nation’s intentions. Space-based communications support the location of targets for smart weapons on the battlefield, which lower harm to combatants and civilians. Space-based weapons may bring unparalleled speed and precision to the strategic use of force that could reduce the need for more harmful, less discriminate conventional weapons that spread greater destruction across a broader area. New weapons might bring war to a timely conclusion or even help nations avoid armed conflict in the first place. We do not argue that one nation’s overwhelming superiority in arms will prevent war from breaking out, though deterrence can have this effect. At the very least, space weapons, like other advanced military technologies, could help nations settle their disputes without resort to wider armed conflict, and hence bolster, rather than undermine, international security.
3/19/22
Space - India sopo da
Tournament: Blake | Round: 4 | Opponent: Eagen DW | Judge: Loeb, Klil Space is an intrinsic part of India’s soft power expansion and they’re set to rapidly scale now Sarthak Kathayat, Sarthak Kathayat is a student at Jamia Millia Islamia, India., NIICE NEPAL, 11-1-2020, "Soft Power and India’s Space Diplomacy," https://niice.org.np/archives/6420 TDI In international relations, soft power is the ability of any country to persuade other countries to do what it wants without the use of force. According to Joseph Nye Jr., soft power is – getting others to want the outcomes that you want – co-opts people rather than coerces them. As compared to hard power, soft power takes relatively longer to built as its intangible resources develop over a long time. Soft power tends to change other party’s attitude to the end where she acts voluntarily in a way which is different to her usual behaviour. Several characteristics of the current world order like globalisation driven economic interdependence, rise of transnational actors, resurgence of nationalism in weak states, the spread of military technology and the changed nature of international political problems have significantly reduced the effectiveness of hard power strategies. The most noteworthy example of a foreign policy misadventure based solely on hard power strategies is the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Soft power also has its own weakness. However, the ineffectiveness of soft power strategies is an exception. In longer-term, soft power strategies appear to be more effective in the contemporary world order than the hard power. One such tool of soft power is the space technology and space diplomacy. Space technology are increasingly viewed as a crucial instrument of soft power as states have now understood the direct relation between the technological feats and global prestige that follows. Expertise in rocket science puts a state on a higher pedestal than the countries who are still struggling in the domain. Moreover, expertise in rocket science ensues significant strategic implications. The output delivered has noteworthy social and economic relevance with a massive growth potential. In a broadening concept of security that encompasses other dimensions such as economic, environmental and political, Indian space programme has been distinctive and lucid in the way it simultaneously addresses the requirements of the Indian citizenry and the state collectively in all the dimensions. Despite being challenged by numerous embargoes and technology denial regimes during Cold War, Indian space programme has emerged as the most cost-effective and successful space programme in the world. India’s space programme has been a tremendous achievement for a developing country which despite being faced with many challenges used space as a crucial mechanism to lift its people out of poverty through education, social and economic programmes. With the course of time, India’s space policy has become an intrinsic part of India’s foreign policy to strengthen India’s position as a dominant power in South Asia. Indian Space Programme India’s space programme has been seen making efforts in projecting soft power which is especially evident through its new commitment to planetary exploration and human spaceflight. The Chandrayaan-1 and Mangalyaan-1 mission cleared the fact that India now looks at space as a standard of global standing. India’s soft power has witnessed a progression with an increasingly successful participation in global space economy through ISRO’s commercial arm, Antrix Corporation. India’s growing influence on the global space economy has been an indication of its changing stature in international arena. India has also been involved in capacity building initiatives. It has successfully established itself as a leader in terms of healthcare provisions through satellite-based telemedicine. India hosts the largest telemedicine network in South Asia which has also expanded to the African continent. A non-profit Indian organisation named Apollo Telemedicine Networking Foundation has been involved in telemedicine services with dedicated centres in Iraq, Yemen, Kazakhstan and Myanmar. India’s Space Diplomacy Further using space for diplomacy in order to project its soft power across the globe, India has assisted countries like Colombia in launching its satellite which boosted India-Colombia relations. Many Latin American countries are often dependent on the US for space and military matters. However, after the launch, many countries like Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua and Venezuela have reached out to ISRO for launching or developing satellites. Similarly, India’s PSLV also launched Israel’s TecSar satellite in 2008 for remote sensing purposes. The launch boosted the political and strategic relations with Israel. Once a recipient of space technology from developed countries, India has demonstrated the robustness of its own space programmes by setting up joint projects and even providing assistance at the time of disaster to a number of countries. ISRO’s Oceansat-2 satellite played a pertinent role in monitoring Hurricane Sandy and helping the authorities to implement timely disaster mitigation and rescue strategies. Adding more feathers to its hat, ISRO has also launched dozens of satellites for US, Europe and Britain based companies. The recent launches of British reconnaissance satellites, NovaSAR and S1-4 are a sign of what could come next. Britain is one of the EU’s biggest spender in space sector. After Brexit, the dispute over Britain’s continued access to the European Union’s Galileo satellite navigation project will inevitably lead Britain look for alternatives and India’s space ambitions could offer a tempting proposition within the ambit of wider bilateral cooperation. As a part of India’s efforts in space diplomacy, ISRO undertook another capacity building initiative ‘Unispace Nanosatellite Assembly and Training (UNNATI)’. Under UNNATI, ISRO planned to train 45 countries in making Nano-satellites. Closer to home, India proposed a SAARC satellite in 2014 for the overall development of the region. The proposal was welcomed by SAARC nations but unfortunately the proposal couldn’t materialise as envisioned initially due to Pakistan’s backing out from the project. However, three years later, in 2017, ISRO launched the South Asia satellite or GSAT-9 to help India’s neighbouring countries in space communication. The idea of South Asia satellite ensured no political impediment as with the case of SAARC satellite. The positive spill over effect of the satellite’s launch on India’s “neighbourhood first” diplomacy was well demonstrated by the warm responses given by the leaders of South Asian countries. India’s space diplomacy with neighbours also extends on a bilateral basis. For instance, in Afghanistan, India included remote sensing satellite transmitters for acquiring space-based data in a USD 1.2 billion aid package. It is evident that soft power strategies are more relevant than the hard power strategies, especially in the contemporary world order. The rise of China as an emerging superpower is backed with its economic and military might leave less avenues for other developing nations such as India to contest China. However, soft power strategies open up another dimension for the interaction of the nations. India has utilised space as a tool of its soft power effectively in order to expand its clout. That space being an intrinsic part of India’s foreign policy has brought numerous achievements to the country, and is expected to remain an essential element for future course of India’s foreign policy. Private sector key to Indian space efforts Raghu Krishnan, Raghu Krishnan is the technology editor for the Economic Times. In the over two decades of reporting and managing teams, he has seen the Indian IT industry grow from $ 1 billion to nearly $ 191 billion. He has a deep understanding of the shifts the Indian IT industry has undergone over the years. He has also covered science and India's aerospace RandD industry., 12-7-2020, "New space policy may take local companies global: Sivan," Economic Times, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/new-space-policy-may-take-local-companies-global-sivan/articleshow/79599874.cms?from=mdr TDI Bengaluru: India will draft a new space policy aimed at increasing private investments in the country’s space sector to build companies that are global in scale, Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) chairman K Sivan told ET. The proposed regulations will be in addition to specific policies planned for launch vehicles, satellite navigation, human space mission and deep space exploration. “We want to create competition and get multiple companies in the space sector that can grow as global leaders,” Sivan said. Over 23 Indian and overseas companies have approached Isro since August seeking to harness assets built over six decades including rockets, satellites, ground stations and satellite imagery. The nodal agency is looking to transfer critical technologies through its commercial arm — New Space India Ltd (NSIL NSE -0.45 ) — to these companies at lower costs. “Space technology is costly. We want to make it viable for Indian industries and help them commercialise these technologies,” said Sivan. “We want to make the technology transfer a very simple and low-cost affair.” Last week, NSIL signed a pact to share technology as well as to allow testing facilities with Chennai-based startup Agnikul Cosmos to build a small rocket that can hurl 100 kg satellites to low-earth orbit. Bengaluru-based Pixxel, which is building India’s first private fleet of earth observation satellites, will launch its first satellite atop the homegrown polar satellite launch vehicle (PSLV) in 2021. So far, the department of space has released drafts of technology transfer policy, remote sensing and satellite communication policy for public comments. These draft policies state that Indian companies can now own and operate satellites, build rockets and launch them from Indian soil and offer satellite-based applications to consumers. The policies also define how sensitive dual-use technologies are to be utilised and stresses on the need for adherence to national and international laws. “The industry players are able to see the sea change (in our policies). They are asking for clarifications on some of them,” said Sivan. He added the policies will be notified after consultations. India is adopting the model of the US space agency National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which allowed private firms such as SpaceX to get access to its technology and facilities to build reusable rockets that have carried humans to space this year. NASA also allows startups to compete and build vehicles and solutions for its programmes, including deep space missions. The policies are also designed to make India a global hub for satellite manufacturing and launches and providing satellite-based services for global customers. Hyderabad-based Aerospace firm Ananth Technologies is setting up a joint venture with US satellite operator Saturn Satellites, through which it will first build two communication satellites and launch them locally on an Indian rocket. Ananth is the first Indian private company to tap the global market after India opened up its space sector, which allows private firms to build satellites and rockets and offer space services from the country. “Earlier, when IITs produced aero-space engineers, there was not a strong domestic industrial ecosystem to employ them. Today, with our historic reforms in the space sector, the last frontier before humanity has opened up to Indian talent,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi told a Pan IIT conference on Friday. India has nearly 50 space startups in the sector and over 1,000 companies — both small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and large enterprises such as Larsen and Toubro, Godrej Aerospace, Tata Advanced Systems and Hindustan Aeronautics, which have been vendors to Isro, building systems and subsystems for the space programme. After opening the space sector to private firms in August, the department of space formed Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre (IN-SPACe), a new body that will act as a regulator whose rulings would apply to the space agency as well as private firms in the country. Sivan said an independent board is being set up and an approval is expected from the government by the end of December. India has led multiple non-proliferation movements and their benign perception is k2 maintaining US-China Relations Pethiyagoda 14 Kadira Pethiyagoda, a former diplomat whose PhD and upcoming book investigated Indian foreign policy. He was a visiting scholar at the University of Oxford, “India’s Soft Power Advantage,” The Diplomat, 9/17/14, https://thediplomat.com/2014/09/indias-soft-power-advantage/ TDI
During Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s recent visit to India, he was asked to justify Australia’s signing of a deal to sell uranium to the country. In response, the prime minister said, “India threatens no one” and “is the friend to many.” This was no mere diplomatic nicety, but a carefully chosen answer based on India’s international image. It is an image that is rare amongst great powers of India’s size and strength, and will give Delhi a unique soft power advantage in the future multipolar world. Much of the globe sees India as a relatively non-violent, tolerant and pluralistic democracy with a benign international influence. Its values are seen as largely positive. The U.S., with its Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, accorded India special treatment in nuclear cooperation. The deal provided benefits usually reserved for Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatories. Washington justified cooperation with India by highlighting Delhi’s impeccable non-proliferation record. This stance was replicated by other states, including the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) member states who allowed India’s participation in international nuclear commerce and supported the Indo-U.S. deal. The NSG decided to re-engage with India following an India-specific safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA’s Board of Governors endorsed a nuclear safeguards agreement with India by consensus that would permit Delhi to add more nuclear facilities to be placed under the IAEA safeguards framework. India did not have to have an Additional Protocol like the non-nuclear weapons states who are NPT signatories. India also received favorable treatment from Canada (which agreed to supply “dual-use items” that can be used for civilian and military applications), Japan and South Korea. This cooperation was not merely driven by these states’ strategic relationships with the U.S. Russia has long cooperated with India on nuclear technology. Even China, as a member of the NSG, did not oppose the group’s decision on India. Today, India is the only known nuclear weapons state that is not part of the NPT but is still permitted to engage in nuclear commerce globally. India’s reputation extends beyond its nuclear posture. Since independence, the country has been viewed as a neutral and harmless power by most foreign audiences, particularly in Africa, the Middle East, South America and Southeast Asia. This is in part due to its prominent role in the Non-Aligned movement. Whilst Delhi’s reputation in its own neighborhood is quite different, South Asian states do not see India as a threat in the way that many of Russia or China’s neighbors view those powers. Even long-time nemesis Pakistan is unlikely to have been as adventurous in its dealings with its much larger and more powerful neighbor had it not had firsthand experience of Delhi’s restraint – even before Islamabad had nuclear capability. So what is behind India’s benign image? In part, it is self-created. For 60-plus years Delhi has favored cultivating the impression of a non-violent India. This is particularly clear in the realm of nuclear posture. Despite having tested weapons in 1974 and 1998 and being a non-signatory to the NPT and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, India has been one of the most vocal advocates for global disarmament. It has arguably been the most passionate anti-nuclear campaigner amongst the world’s nine known or suspected nuclear weapons states, with one of the world’s most notable pleas for global disarmament made by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi at the U.N. in 1988. The pursuit of this image continued a decade later, even after the Pokhran II nuclear tests. BJP Prime Minister Vajpayee stated that the tests were not a repudiation of the disarmament goal. In the Draft Report on Indian Nuclear Doctrine, the very first sentence of the first paragraph describes the use of nuclear weapons as the “gravest threat to humanity and to peace and stability.” The paragraph goes on to criticize the virtual abandonment by states of the goal of disarmament. Delhi sought to avoid labels of hypocrisy by positioning itself as the “reluctant nuclear power.” India argued that the bomb was a last resort in a world of threatening nuclear states who make no pledges to refrain from first strikes and the use of nukes against non-nuclear states. Somewhat legitimately, Indian leaders asserted that the country’s nuclear weapons could act as bargaining chips to support its global disarmament agenda. India was said to have more credibility as a nuclear weapons state with itself having something to sacrifice in order to usher in global disarmament. India declared that its security would be enhanced and not diminished in a nuclear free world. Delhi also sought to project an image of non-violence in other areas of foreign policy. In relation to the norm of “Responsibility to Protect,” India voiced support for those aspects of R2P that encouraged and supported states to protect their own populations, and expressed extreme caution at R2P’s coercive side. When some of the world’s greatest debates over intervention occurred at the U.N., Indian ambassadors drenched their speeches with the language of non-violence. This preciously guarded national image is not merely a strategic ploy to increase India’s soft power. Policymakers wish the country to be seen as non-violent, pluralistic and tolerant, because India genuinely holds these values. Within the nuclear realm the influence of non-violence is seen through the foot-dragging in relation to integrating nuclear weapons into military strategy and in relation to serial production of weapons. A further sign of this influence is the long public debate before going nuclear – a rarity amongst nuclear powers. We have seen repeatedly that India’s leaders find it morally inconceivable that nukes could ever be useable tools of war. Delhi’s disarmament pleas were not merely PR: they consumed valuable diplomatic resources including precious stage-time in international forums. More broadly, non-violence affected for India’s relatively restrained conduct in several conflicts with Pakistan. When it came to humanitarian intervention, over the last 25 years India’s opposition or support was directly related to the level of intrastate violence entailed in intervening. This was true regardless of who was intervening in whom, for what reason, and whether there were strategic gains in it for Delhi. This included interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria. India’s opposition to intervention was compounded by its pluralistic worldview, with acceptance of all regime types. It would seem that India’s values of non-violence, pluralism and tolerance stem from the independence era, when the country’s foreign policy and modern identity was crafted. Mahatma Gandhi made India’s independence movement synonymous with non-violence. First Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru imbued morals into his external relations. But if the values influencing India’s foreign policy took shape only then, they would have fizzled when Congress lost power. Instead the values have remained, as has the resultant global persona. This is because the values that help guide Indian foreign policy and underpin its image are rooted deep in the country’s cultural history. These values attained dominance during the formative stage of Indian civilization – the period between the Vedic era and medieval times when the greatest empires arose. India and China are the only modern great powers that have held a largely continuous culture for several millennia. Ancient India’s cultural connection to its present-day manifestation is far stronger than ancient Greek, Roman or Anglo-Celtic culture is to present-day Western states, or the ancient Middle Eastern civilizations are to today’s Arab world. It remains to be seen how India’s international reputation will fare as its strategic interests expand throughout the Indo-Pacific and beyond. With some diplomatic craftsmanship, Delhi can convert its somewhat ethereal values-based soft power advantage into hard strategic and economic gains. Modi’s government seems to have recognized this and is building on Congress’ initiatives to enhance India’s public diplomacy toolkit. India’s soft power has rare characteristics when compared with the other great powers of the emerging multipolar world: U.S., China, Russia, Japan and Europe (as a unified entity). Its relatively neutral, non-threatening image will make India a uniquely attractive great-power partner for countries looking to hedge against future fallout between the U.S. and China, and not wanting to antagonize either superpower. Australia has chosen a wise time to solidify ties with one of the world’s most dynamic rising powers. Risk of US-China military confrontation in flashpoints inevitably go nuclear due to intermingled forces Talmadge 18 Caitlin Talmadge, Associate Professor of Security Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, “Beijing’s Nuclear Option, Why a U.S.-Chinese War Could Spiral Out of Control,” Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-15/beijings-nuclear-option, 10/15/18 TDI
As China’s power has grown in recent years, so, too, has the risk of war with the United States. Under President Xi Jinping, China has increased its political and economic pressure on Taiwan and built military installations on coral reefs in the South China Sea, fueling Washington’s fears that Chinese expansionism will threaten U.S. allies and influence in the region. U.S. destroyers have transited the Taiwan Strait, to loud protests from Beijing. American policymakers have wondered aloud whether they should send an aircraft carrier through the strait as well. Chinese fighter jets have intercepted U.S. aircraft in the skies above the South China Sea. Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump has brought long-simmering economic disputes to a rolling boil. A war between the two countries remains unlikely, but the prospect of a military confrontation—resulting, for example, from a Chinese campaign against Taiwan—no longer seems as implausible as it once did. And the odds of such a confrontation going nuclear are higher than most policymakers and analysts think. Members of China’s strategic com¬munity tend to dismiss such concerns. Likewise, U.S. studies of a potential war with China often exclude nuclear weapons from the analysis entirely, treating them as basically irrelevant to the course of a conflict. Asked about the issue in 2015, Dennis Blair, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific, estimated the likelihood of a U.S.-Chinese nuclear crisis as “somewhere between nil and zero.” This assurance is misguided. If deployed against China, the Pentagon’s preferred style of conventional warfare would be a potential recipe for nuclear escalation. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States’ signature approach to war has been simple: punch deep into enemy territory in order to rapidly knock out the opponent’s key military assets at minimal cost. But the Pentagon developed this formula in wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Serbia, none of which was a nuclear power. If deployed against China, the Pentagon’s preferred style of conventional warfare would be a potential recipe for nuclear escalation. China, by contrast, not only has nuclear weapons; it has also intermingled them with its conventional military forces, making it difficult to attack one without attacking the other. This means that a major U.S. military campaign targeting China’s conventional forces would likely also threaten its nuclear arsenal. Faced with such a threat, Chinese leaders could decide to use their nuclear weapons while they were still able to. As U.S. and Chinese leaders navigate a relationship fraught with mutual suspicion, they must come to grips with the fact that a conventional war could skid into a nuclear confrontation. Although this risk is not high in absolute terms, its consequences for the region and the world would be devastating. As long as the United States and China continue to pursue their current grand strategies, the risk is likely to endure. This means that leaders on both sides should dispense with the illusion that they can easily fight a limited war. They should focus instead on managing or resolving the political, economic, and military tensions that might lead to a conflict in the first place. There are some reasons for optimism. For one, China has long stood out for its nonaggressive nuclear doctrine. After its first nuclear test, in 1964, China largely avoided the Cold War arms race, building a much smaller and simpler nuclear arsenal than its resources would have allowed. Chinese leaders have consistently characterized nuclear weapons as useful only for deterring nuclear aggression and coercion. Historically, this narrow purpose required only a handful of nuclear weapons that could ensure Chinese retaliation in the event of an attack. To this day, China maintains a “no first use” pledge, promising that it will never be the first to use nuclear weapons. The prospect of a nuclear conflict can also seem like a relic of the Cold War. Back then, the United States and its allies lived in fear of a Warsaw Pact offensive rapidly overrunning Europe. NATO stood ready to use nuclear weapons first to stalemate such an attack. Both Washington and Moscow also consistently worried that their nuclear forces could be taken out in a bolt-from-the-blue nuclear strike by the other side. This mutual fear increased the risk that one superpower might rush to launch in the erroneous belief that it was already under attack. Initially, the danger of unauthorized strikes also loomed large. In the 1950s, lax safety procedures for U.S. nuclear weapons stationed on NATO soil, as well as minimal civilian oversight of U.S. military commanders, raised a serious risk that nuclear escalation could have occurred without explicit orders from the U.S. president. The good news is that these Cold War worries have little bearing on U.S.-Chinese relations today. Neither country could rapidly overrun the other’s territory in a conventional war. Neither seems worried about a nuclear bolt from the blue. And civilian political control of nuclear weapons is relatively strong in both countries. What remains, in theory, is the comforting logic of mutual deterrence: in a war between two nuclear powers, neither side will launch a nuclear strike for fear that its enemy will respond in kind. The bad news is that one other trigger remains: a conventional war that threatens China’s nuclear arsenal. Conventional forces can threaten nuclear forces in ways that generate pressures to escalate—especially when ever more capable U.S. conventional forces face adversaries with relatively small and fragile nuclear arsenals, such as China. If U.S. operations endangered or damaged China’s nuclear forces, Chinese leaders might come to think that Washington had aims beyond winning the conventional war—that it might be seeking to disable or destroy China’s nuclear arsenal outright, perhaps as a prelude to regime change. In the fog of war, Beijing might reluctantly conclude that limited nuclear escalation—an initial strike small enough that it could avoid full-scale U.S. retaliation—was a viable option to defend itself. The most worrisome flash point for a U.S.-Chinese war is Taiwan. Beijing’s long-term objective of reunifying the island with mainland China is clearly in conflict with Washington’s longstanding desire to maintain the status quo in the strait. It is not difficult to imagine how this might lead to war. For example, China could decide that the political or military window for regaining control over the island was closing and launch an attack, using air and naval forces to blockade Taiwanese harbors or bombard the island. Although U.S. law does not require Washington to intervene in such a scenario, the Taiwan Relations Act states that the United States will “consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.” Were Washington to intervene on Taipei’s behalf, the world’s sole superpower and its rising competitor would find themselves in the first great-power war of the twenty-first century. In the course of such a war, U.S. conventional military operations would likely threaten, disable, or outright eliminate some Chinese nuclear capabilities—whether doing so was Washington’s stated objective or not. In fact, if the United States engaged in the style of warfare it has practiced over the last 30 years, this outcome would be all but guaranteed. The most worrisome flash point for a U.S.-Chinese war is Taiwan. Consider submarine warfare. China could use its conventionally armed attack submarines to blockade Taiwanese harbors or bomb the island, or to attack U.S. and allied forces in the region. If that happened, the U.S. Navy would almost certainly undertake an antisubmarine campaign, which would likely threaten China’s “boomers,” the four nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines that form its naval nuclear deterrent. China’s conventionally armed and nuclear-armed submarines share the same shore-based communications system; a U.S. attack on these transmitters would thus not only disrupt the activities of China’s attack submarine force but also cut off its boomers from contact with Beijing, leaving Chinese leaders unsure of the fate of their naval nuclear force. In addition, nuclear ballistic missile submarines depend on attack submarines for protection, just as lumbering bomber aircraft rely on nimble fighter jets. If the United States started sinking Chinese attack submarines, it would be sinking the very force that protects China’s ballistic missile submarines, leaving the latter dramatically more vulnerable. Even more dangerous, U.S. forces hunting Chinese attack submarines could inadvertently sink a Chinese boomer instead. After all, at least some Chinese attack submarines might be escorting ballistic missile submarines, especially in wartime, when China might flush its boomers from their ports and try to send them within range of the continental United States. Since correctly identifying targets remains one of the trickiest challenges of undersea warfare, a U.S. submarine crew might come within shooting range of a Chinese submarine without being sure of its type, especially in a crowded, noisy environment like the Taiwan Strait. Platitudes about caution are easy in peacetime. In wartime, when Chinese attack submarines might already have launched deadly strikes, the U.S. crew might decide to shoot first and ask questions later. Adding to China’s sense of vulnerability, the small size of its nuclear-armed submarine force means that just two such incidents would eliminate half of its sea-based deterrent. Meanwhile, any Chinese boomers that escaped this fate would likely be cut off from communication with onshore commanders, left without an escort force, and unable to return to destroyed ports. If that happened, China would essentially have no naval nuclear deterrent. Platitudes about caution are easy in peacetime. In wartime, U.S. forces might decide to shoot first and ask questions later. The situation is similar onshore, where any U.S. military campaign would have to contend with China’s growing land-based conventional ballistic missile force. Much of this force is within range of Taiwan, ready to launch ballistic missiles against the island or at any allies coming to its aid. Once again, U.S. victory would hinge on the ability to degrade this conventional ballistic missile force. And once again, it would be virtually impossible to do so while leaving China’s nuclear ballistic missile force unscathed. Chinese conventional and nuclear ballistic missiles are often attached to the same base headquarters, meaning that they likely share transportation and supply networks, patrol routes, and other supporting infrastructure. It is also possible that they share some command-and-control networks, or that the United States would be unable to distinguish between the conventional and nuclear networks even if they were physically separate. To add to the challenge, some of China’s ballistic missiles can carry either a conventional or a nuclear warhead, and the two versions are virtually indistinguishable to U.S. aerial surveillance. In a war, targeting the conventional variants would likely mean destroying some nuclear ones in the process. Furthermore, sending manned aircraft to attack Chinese missile launch sites and bases would require at least partial control of the airspace over China, which in turn would require weakening Chinese air defenses. But degrading China’s coastal air defense network in order to fight a conventional war would also leave much of its nuclear force without protection. Once China was under attack, its leaders might come to fear that even intercontinental ballistic missiles located deep in the country’s interior were vulnerable. For years, observers have pointed to the U.S. military’s failed attempts to locate and destroy Iraqi Scud missiles during the 1990–91 Gulf War as evidence that mobile missiles are virtually impervious to attack. Therefore, the thinking goes, China could retain a nuclear deterrent no matter what harm U.S. forces inflicted on its coastal areas. Yet recent research suggests otherwise. Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles are larger and less mobile than the Iraqi Scuds were, and they are harder to move without detection. The United States is also likely to have been tracking them much more closely in peacetime. As a result, China is unlikely to view a failed Scud hunt in Iraq nearly 30 years ago as reassurance that its residual nuclear force is safe today, especially during an ongoing, high-intensity conventional war. China’s vehement criticism of a U.S. regional missile defense system designed to guard against a potential North Korean attack already reflects these latent fears. Beijing’s worry is that this system could help Washington block the handful of missiles China might launch in the aftermath of a U.S. attack on its arsenal. That sort of campaign might seem much more plausible in Beijing’s eyes if a conventional war had already begun to seriously undermine other parts of China’s nuclear deterrent. It does not help that China’s real-time awareness of the state of its forces would probably be limited, since blinding the adversary is a standard part of the U.S. military playbook. Put simply, the favored U.S. strategy to ensure a conventional victory would likely endanger much of China’s nuclear arsenal in the process, at sea and on land. Whether the United States actually intended to target all of China’s nuclear weapons would be incidental. All that would matter is that Chinese leaders would consider them threatened. At that point, the question becomes, How will China react? Will it practice restraint and uphold the “no first use” pledge once its nuclear forces appear to be under attack? Or will it use those weapons while it still can, gambling that limited escalation will either halt the U.S. campaign or intimidate Washington into backing down? Chinese writings and statements remain deliberately ambiguous on this point. It is unclear which exact set of capabilities China considers part of its core nuclear deterrent and which it considers less crucial. For example, if China already recognizes that its sea-based nuclear deterrent is relatively small and weak, then losing some of its ballistic missile submarines in a war might not prompt any radical discontinuity in its calculus. The danger lies in wartime developments that could shift China’s assumptions about U.S. intentions. If Beijing interprets the erosion of its sea- and land-based nuclear forces as a deliberate effort to destroy its nuclear deterrent, or perhaps even as a prelude to a nuclear attack, it might see limited nuclear escalation as a way to force an end to the conflict. For example, China could use nuclear weapons to instantaneously destroy the U.S. air bases that posed the biggest threat to its arsenal. It could also launch a nuclear strike with no direct military purpose—on an unpopulated area or at sea—as a way to signal that the United States had crossed a redline. If such escalation appears far-fetched, China’s history suggests otherwise. In 1969, similar dynamics brought China to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. In early March of that year, Chinese troops ambushed Soviet guards amid rising tensions over a disputed border area. Less than two weeks later, the two countries were fighting an undeclared border war with heavy artillery and aircraft. The conflict quickly escalated beyond what Chinese leaders had expected, and before the end of March, Moscow was making thinly veiled nuclear threats to pressure China to back down. If nuclear escalation appears far-fetched, China’s history suggests otherwise. Chinese leaders initially dismissed these warnings, only to radically upgrade their threat assessment once they learned that the Soviets had privately discussed nuclear attack plans with other countries. Moscow never intended to follow through on its nuclear threat, archives would later reveal, but Chinese leaders believed otherwise. On three separate occasions, they were convinced that a Soviet nuclear attack was imminent. Once, when Moscow sent representatives to talks in Beijing, China suspected that the plane transporting the delegation was in fact carrying nuclear weapons. Increasingly fearful, China test-fired a thermonuclear weapon in the Lop Nur desert and put its rudimentary nuclear forces on alert—a dangerous step in itself, as it increased the risk of an unauthorized or accidental launch. Only after numerous preparations for Soviet nuclear attacks that never came did Beijing finally agree to negotiations. China is a different country today than it was in the time of Mao Zedong, but the 1969 conflict offers important lessons. China started a war in which it believed nuclear weapons would be irrelevant, even though the Soviet arsenal was several orders of magnitude larger than China’s, just as the U.S. arsenal dwarfs China’s today. Once the conventional war did not go as planned, the Chinese reversed their assessment of the possibility of a nuclear attack to a degree bordering on paranoia. Most worrying, China signaled that it was actually considering using its nuclear weapons, even though it had to expect devastating retaliation. Ambiguous wartime information and worst-case thinking led it to take nuclear risks it would have considered unthinkable only months earlier. This pattern could unfold again today. A U.S. B-2 Spirit bomber, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, in Hawaii, September 2018 Danielle Quilla/U.S. Air Force. Both the United States and China can take some basic measures to reduce these dangers. More extensive dialogue and exchange—formal and informal, high level and working level, military and political—could help build relationships that might allow for backchannel de-escalation during a conflict. The two countries already have a formal military hot line in place, although it does not connect political leaders. A dedicated and tested infrastructure for senior military and political leaders to reliably and easily communicate during wartime would provide at least one off-ramp in the event of a crisis. But better communication can only do so much for a problem that ultimately stems from military doctrine and grand strategy. Given that the United States’ standard wartime playbook is likely to back China into a nuclear corner, it would be logical for Washington to consider alternative strategies that would leave China’s nuclear capabilities untouched. For example, some analysts have proposed coercing China through a distant naval blockade, and others have suggested confining any U.S. campaign to air and naval operations off China’s coast. The goal in both cases would be to avoid attacks on the Chinese mainland, where the bulk of Chinese nuclear forces reside. The problem with these alternatives is that the mainland is also where the bulk of Chinese conventional capabilities are located. The United States is unlikely to voluntarily leave these capabilities intact, given its predilection for reducing its own casualties and rapidly destroying enemy forces. If China is using its mainland bases to lob ballistic missiles at U.S. troops and allies, it is hard to imagine a U.S. president ordering the military to hold back in the interest of de-escalation. U.S. allies are particularly unlikely to accept a cautious approach, as they will be more exposed to Chinese military power the longer it is left intact. No one wants a U.S.-Chinese war to go nuclear, but a U.S. campaign that avoids escalation while letting China’s conventional forces turn Taiwan—not to mention Japan or South Korea—into a smoking ruin would not seem like much of a victory either. Of course, Beijing could also take steps to ameliorate the problem, but this is just as unlikely. China has chosen to mount both conventional and nuclear warheads on the same missiles and to attach both conventional and nuclear launch brigades to the same bases. It likely sees some strategic advantage in these linkages. Precisely because these entanglements raise the prospect of nuclear escalation, Beijing may believe that they contribute to deterrence—that they will make the United States less likely to go to war in the first place. But just as China benefits if the United States believes there is no safe way to fight a war, the United States benefits if China believes that war would result not only in China’s conventional defeat but also in its nuclear disarmament. In fact, the United States might believe that this fear could give it greater leverage during a conflict and perhaps deter China from starting one at all. In short, neither side may see much value in peacetime reassurance. Quite the opposite: they may be courting instability. If this is the case, however, then U.S. and Chinese leaders should recognize the tradeoffs inherent in their chosen policies. The threat of escalation may make war less likely, but it also makes war radically more dangerous if it does break out. This sobering reality should encourage leaders on both sides to find ways of resolving political, economic, and military disputes without resorting to a war that could rapidly turn catastrophic for the region and the world.
12/19/21
Space - Innovation da
Tournament: ASU | Round: 2 | Opponent: Hamilton NB | Judge: Fleming, Nick Space Commercialization drives Tech Innovation in the Status Quo – it provides a unique impetus. Hampson 17 Joshua Hampson 1-25-2017 “The Future of Space Commercialization” https://republicans-science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/TheFutureofSpaceCommercializationFinal.pdf (Security Studies Fellow at the Niskanen Center)Elmer The size of the space economy is far larger than many may think. In 2015 alone, the global market amounted to $323 billion. Commercial infrastructure and systems accounted for 76 percent of that 9 total, with satellite television the largest subsection at $95 billion. The global space launch market’s 10 11 share of that total came in at $6 billion dollars. It can be hard to disaggregate how space benefits 12 particular national economies, but in 2009 (the last available report), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimated that commercial space transportation and enabled industries generated $208.3 billion in economic activity in the United States alone. Space is not just about 13 satellite television and global transportation; while not commercial, GPS satellites also underpin personal navigation, such as smartphone GPS use, and timing data used for Internet coordination.14 Without that data, there could be problems for a range of Internet and cloud-based services.15 There is also room for growth. The FAA has noted that while the commercial launch sector has not grown dramatically in the last decade, there are indications that there is latent demand. This 16 demand may catalyze an increase in launches and growth of the wider space economy in the next decade. The Satellite Industry Association’s 2015 report highlighted that their section of the space economy outgrew both the American and global economies. The FAA anticipates that growth to 17 continue, with expectations that small payload launch will be a particular industry driver.18 In the future, emerging space industries may contribute even more the American economy. Space tourism and resource recovery—e.g., mining on planets, moons , and asteroids—in particular may become large parts of that industry. Of course, their viability rests on a range of factors, including costs, future regulation, international problems, and assumptions about technological development. However, there is increasing optimism in these areas of economic production. But the space economy is not just about what happens in orbit, or how that alters life on the ground. The growth of this economy can also contribute to new innovations across all walks of life. Technological Innovation Innovation is generally hard to predict; some new technologies seem to come out of nowhere and others only take off when paired with a new application. It is difficult to predict the future, but it is reasonable to expect that a growing space economy would open opportunities for technological and organizational innovation. In terms of technology, the difficult environment of outer space helps incentivize progress along the margins. Because each object launched into orbit costs a significant amount of money—at the moment between $27,000 and $43,000 per pound, though that will likely drop in the future —each 19 reduction in payload size saves money or means more can be launched. At the same time, the ability to fit more capability into a smaller satellite opens outer space to actors that previously were priced out of the market. This is one of the reasons why small, affordable satellites are increasingly pursued by companies or organizations that cannot afford to launch larger traditional satellites. These small 20 satellites also provide non-traditional launchers, such as engineering students or prototypers, the opportunity to learn about satellite production and test new technologies before working on a full-sized satellite. That expansion of developers, experimenters, and testers cannot but help increase innovation opportunities. Technological developments from outer space have been applied to terrestrial life since the earliest days of space exploration. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) maintains a website that lists technologies that have spun off from such research projects. Lightweight 21 nanotubes, useful in protecting astronauts during space exploration, are now being tested for applications in emergency response gear and electrical insulation. The need for certainty about the resiliency of materials used in space led to the development of an analytics tool useful across a range of industries. Temper foam, the material used in memory-foam pillows, was developed for NASA for seat covers. As more companies pursue their own space goals, more innovations will likely come from the commercial sector. Outer space is not just a catalyst for technological development. Satellite constellations and their unique line-of-sight vantage point can provide new perspectives to old industries. Deploying satellites into low-Earth orbit, as Facebook wants to do, can connect large, previously-unreached swathes of 22 humanity to the Internet. Remote sensing technology could change how whole industries operate, such as crop monitoring, herd management, crisis response, and land evaluation, among others. 23 While satellites cannot provide all essential information for some of these industries, they can fill in some useful gaps and work as part of a wider system of tools. Space infrastructure, in helping to change how people connect and perceive Earth, could help spark innovations on the ground as well. These innovations, changes to global networks, and new opportunities could lead to wider economic growth. Strong Innovation solves Extinction. Matthews 18 Dylan Matthews 10-26-2018 “How to help people millions of years from now” https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/26/18023366/far-future-effective-altruism-existential-risk-doing-good (Co-founder of Vox, citing Nick Beckstead @ Rutgers University)Re-cut by Elmer If you care about improving human lives, you should overwhelmingly care about those quadrillions of lives rather than the comparatively small number of people alive today. The 7.6 billion people now living, after all, amount to less than 0.003 percent of the population that will live in the future. It’s reasonable to suggest that those quadrillions of future people have, accordingly, hundreds of thousands of times more moral weight than those of us living here today do. That’s the basic argument behind Nick Beckstead’s 2013 Rutgers philosophy dissertation, “On the overwhelming importance of shaping the far future.” It’s a glorious mindfuck of a thesis, not least because Beckstead shows very convincingly that this is a conclusion any plausible moral view would reach. It’s not just something that weird utilitarians have to deal with. And Beckstead, to his considerable credit, walks the walk on this. He works at the Open Philanthropy Project on grants relating to the far future and runs a charitable fund for donors who want to prioritize the far future. And arguments from him and others have turned “long-termism” into a very vibrant, important strand of the effective altruism community. But what does prioritizing the far future even mean? The most literal thing it could mean is preventing human extinction, to ensure that the species persists as long as possible. For the long-term-focused effective altruists I know, that typically means identifying concrete threats to humanity’s continued existence — like unfriendly artificial intelligence, or a pandemic, or global warming/out of control geoengineering — and engaging in activities to prevent that specific eventuality. But in a set of slides he made in 2013, Beckstead makes a compelling case that while that’s certainly part of what caring about the far future entails, approaches that address specific threats to humanity (which he calls “targeted” approaches to the far future) have to complement “broad” approaches, where instead of trying to predict what’s going to kill us all, you just generally try to keep civilization running as best it can, so that it is, as a whole, well-equipped to deal with potential extinction events in the future, not just in 2030 or 2040 but in 3500 or 95000 or even 37 million. In other words, caring about the far future doesn’t mean just paying attention to low-probability risks of total annihilation; it also means acting on pressing needs now. For example: We’re going to be better prepared to prevent extinction from AI or a supervirus or global warming if society as a whole makes a lot of scientific progress. And a significant bottleneck there is that the vast majority of humanity doesn’t get high-enough-quality education to engage in scientific research, if they want to, which reduces the odds that we have enough trained scientists to come up with the breakthroughs we need as a civilization to survive and thrive. So maybe one of the best things we can do for the far future is to improve school systems — here and now — to harness the group economist Raj Chetty calls “lost Einsteins” (potential innovators who are thwarted by poverty and inequality in rich countries) and, more importantly, the hundreds of millions of kids in developing countries dealing with even worse education systems than those in depressed communities in the rich world. What if living ethically for the far future means living ethically now? Beckstead mentions some other broad, or very broad, ideas (these are all his descriptions): Help make computers faster so that people everywhere can work more efficiently Change intellectual property law so that technological innovation can happen more quickly Advocate for open borders so that people from poorly governed countries can move to better-governed countries and be more productive Meta-research: improve incentives and norms in academic work to better advance human knowledge Improve education Advocate for political party X to make future people have values more like political party X ”If you look at these areas (economic growth and technological progress, access to information, individual capability, social coordination, motives) a lot of everyday good works contribute,” Beckstead writes. “An implication of this is that a lot of everyday good works are good from a broad perspective, even though hardly anyone thinks explicitly in terms of far future standards.” Look at those examples again: It’s just a list of what normal altruistically motivated people, not effective altruism folks, generally do. Charities in the US love talking about the lost opportunities for innovation that poverty creates. Lots of smart people who want to make a difference become scientists, or try to work as teachers or on improving education policy, and lord knows there are plenty of people who become political party operatives out of a conviction that the moral consequences of the party’s platform are good. All of which is to say: Maybe effective altruists aren’t that special, or at least maybe we don’t have access to that many specific and weird conclusions about how best to help the world. If the far future is what matters, and generally trying to make the world work better is among the best ways to help the far future, then effective altruism just becomes plain ol’ do-goodery.
1/7/22
Space - Iran prolif da
Tournament: Woodward | Round: 1 | Opponent: Durham Aggarwal | Judge: Deng, Blake Deal now – US and French coordination and they prevent Russian interference. RFE 3-8 RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty. RFE/RL journalists report the news in 27 languages in 23 countries where a free press is banned by the government or not fully established. They provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate. March 8, 2022. “U.S., France Agree To Continue 'Close Coordination' On Reviving Iran Nuclear Deal” https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-satellite-launch-military-nuclear-deal/31742560.html Accessed 3-9 gord0 The United States and France have agreed to continue their close coordination as talks on reviving a 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and major powers reached a critical point. The U.S. State Department issued the statement after Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on March 8 to discuss the Iran nuclear deal. Earlier, the European parties negotiating to revive the deal warned Russia not to add conditions that would complicate reaching an accord, they said in a joint statement to the UN nuclear watchdog's 35-country board of governors. "The window of opportunity is closing. We call on all sides to make the decisions necessary to close this deal now, and on Russia not to add extraneous conditions to its conclusion," Britain, France and Germany said after Russia announced extra demands that stalled negotiations. The diplomatic activity comes after Iran announced earlier it had successfully launched its second military satellite.
"Iran's second military satellite -- named Noor-2 -- has been launched into space by the Qassed rocket of the aerospace wing of the Revolutionary Guards and successfully placed in orbit 500 kilometers above the Earth," the official IRNA news agency reported on March 8.
Iran's military has struggled to get effective military reconnaissance craft into orbit, though it took a major step toward strengthening its capabilities when it successfully put a Noor-1 satellite into orbit in 2020. The United States has alleged Iran’s satellite launches defy a UN Security Council resolution and has called on Tehran to abstain from activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
Some Middle Eastern and Western officials have expressed concern that Tehran could share imagery from the satellites with pro-Iran militia groups around the region.
Talks to restore the 2015 deal that the United States withdrew from in 2018 have been ongoing in Vienna since April, mediated by France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China.
Negotiators on all sides have signaled that a potential deal is close as the head of the UN nuclear watchdog agreed to a timetable for Iran to answer the watchdog's long-standing questions about Tehran's program. Space diplomacy trades off – finite manpower, money, and political will. Johnson-Freeze 16 (Joan, Professor and former Chair of National Security Affairs at the US Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island) “Space Warfare in the 21st Century: Arming the Heavens,” Cass Military Studies, 11/8/2016 JL *The plan is legislated in the AVC (same bureau of the State Department that’s concerned with the JCPOA) Proactive policymaking takes commitment, manpower, and money. A quick look at the money and manpower devoted to diplomacy in the US State and Defense departments compared to the resources available for the hardwareproducing military–industrial complex efforts described in Chapter 5 is enlightening. The Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance (AVC) leads space-related diplomacy in the State Department. The AVC Bureau is responsible for “all matters related to the implementation of certain international arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament agreements and commitments; this includes staffing and managing treaty implementation commissions.”34 The AVC arms control portfolio includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and all related issues. The AVC section charged with space issues is the Office of Emerging Security Challenges; this office also handles missile defense issues and the promotion of transparency, cooperation, and building confidence regarding cybersecurity. As of financial year 2013, AVC had a budget of $31.2 million and 141 employees35 to be active participants and leaders in all of these issues. By way of comparison, the Space Security and Defense Program, a joint program of the DoD and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was programmed for a similar budget amount in financial year 2015: $32.3 million. That program is described as a “center of excellence for options and strategies (materiel, non-materiel, cross-Title, cross-domain) leading to a more resilient and enduring National Security Space (NSS) Enterprise.”36 A majority of SSDP funding is allocated to the development of offensive space control strategies. So basically, the same budget is allocated for all US global space diplomacy efforts as for an in-house Pentagon think tank to devise counterspace strategies. Within the Pentagon, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy is charged with all issues related to space policy, including diplomacy. The responsibilities of the Space Policy office are to: • Develop policy and strategy for a domain that is increasingly congested, competitive, and contested • Implement across DoD — plans, programs, doctrine, operations — and with the IC and other agencies • Engage with allies and other space-faring countries in establishing norms and augmenting our capabilities.37 The breadth of those responsibilities, which includes reviewing space acquisitions, means that there may be only a handful of individuals actually engaged in multilateral diplomatic efforts, acting, for example, as advisors to diplomatic discussions such as those through the United Nations. Additionally, the expanse of the Pentagon results in a chain of command that makes organizational competition for attention to subject matter challenging at best. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy reports to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, who then reports to the Principle Deputy Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security, who then reports to the Under Secretary of Defense for Defense Policy. There are also a multitude of space players in other governmental organizations to coordinate and contend with, particularly within the Air Force and intelligence communities. Personnel are spread thin. US government-wide space diplomacy needs a mandate, manpower, and a supporting budget. Diplomacy, especially multilateral diplomacy, can be timeconsuming, manpower-intensive, and frustrating; and patience is not a strong American virtue. The recent experience in the UN LTS Working Group is emblematic of everything that causes the United States to shun multilateralism. Under the auspices of this group, countries had worked in good faith over the past five years to develop technical guidelines as reciprocal constraints, as insisted upon by the developing countries when they rejected the ICOC. Yet group success appeared thwarted at the February 2016 meeting of the LTS Working Group by one country, Russia.
Nuclear deal solves Iran proliferation Kemp 19 Scott, Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. February 11, 2019. “The Iran nuclear deal as a case study in limiting the proliferation potential of nuclear power" The Iran nuclear deal as a case study in limiting the proliferation potential of nuclear power | Nature Energy Accessed 3-8 gord0 Historically, the potential to exploit nuclear power technology to make weapons has increased international interest in nuclear power and limited the willingness of supplier nations to provide it. Recently, concern about non-peaceful intent drove a decades-long standoff between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a six-state collective known as the E3+3 (also P5+1) consisting of China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. That standoff was eventually resolved through the negotiation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a novel non-treaty agreement concluded in 2015 that limits Iran’s use of civil-nuclear technology. The agreement is unprecedented in that it is the first time a small group of states have reached an agreement for governing how a particular state may use its own technology to mitigate proliferation concerns held by external states. Although the United States under President Trump has withdrawn from the agreement, all other parties have remained committed to upholding its terms and there remains every indication that the agreement is functioning as intended. Representatives from the United States, United Kingdom, Iran, European Union, Germany, France and China attend an Iran nuclear talk meeting in Vienna, Austria on 14 July 2015. Despite its early successes, the JCPOA was only intended to be a temporary measure. Key provisions expire in 2025, ten years after implementation, and parties to the agreement made it clear that they do not wish its terms to become a de facto norm3. This is driven by both sides: some view the terms as unfairly restrictive while others view them as too permissive. Nevertheless, the fact that the agreement brought years of escalation to a temporary resolution suggests that the approach might serve as a model for mitigating nuclear weapon concerns associated with the future use of nuclear power in other nuclear-newcomer states. This article reviews the technical nature of the problem the agreement attempts to tackle, and the technical solutions the agreement used to reduce proliferation concern in Iran. Although the politics of any future proliferation case will be sui generis, the underlying technical problem has a good probability of being similar to that of the Iran case, and may, therefore, be soluble through similar means. Iranian proliferation goes nuclear – causes regional war and spurs proliferation cascades across the Middle East Chilton and Hoshovsky 20 – (Kevin, led U.S. Strategic Command and has participated in the Jewish Institute for National Security of America’s Generals and Admirals Program; Harry, policy analyst at JINSA’s Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy) "Avoiding a nuclear arms race in the Middle East," Defense News, 2-13-2020, https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/02/13/avoiding-a-nuclear-arms-race-in-the-middle-east/ TDI This raises two immediate concerns. First, should Iran race for the bomb, it is almost inevitable that the United States and/or Israel will take preventative military action to stop it from crossing that fateful threshold. This could easily spiral into a regional war as Iran activates its various proxy forces against the United States and its allies. Second, an Iranian nuclear breakout attempt could spur a proliferation cascade throughout the Middle East, beginning with Saudi Arabia. Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, openly stated in 2018 that if Iran developed nuclear weapons, Riyadh would quickly “follow suit.” One suggested approach would see Saudi Arabia purchase a nuclear power reactor from a major supplier like South Korea and then build a reprocessing plant that would yield enough weapons-grade plutonium in five years. A half-decade delay isn’t optimal, however, when the goal is achieving nuclear deterrence quickly. Thus, there is the so-called Islamabad option. This refers to Riyadh’s role in financing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program and an alleged commitment from Islamabad that it would repay the favor. While Pakistani and Saudi officials have denied any such understanding, there is the possibility that the two could work out an arrangement where Islamabad could deploy some of its nuclear arsenal on Saudi soil following a successful Iranian breakout. Although this maneuver would draw sharp, international criticism, in theory, it would allow Riyadh to remain in good standing vis-a-vis the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Nevertheless, Pakistan might not be willing to play spoiler against a nuclearized Iran. If it is, Middle Eastern geopolitics would become extremely unstable. If Saudi Arabia acquires nuclear weapons, many believe Turkey would follow suit. Last September, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that he “cannot accept” the argument from Western nations that Turkey should not be allowed to attain nuclear weapons. In 1958, Charles de Gaulle proclaimed that a nation without nuclear weapons “does not command its own destiny”; two years later, France tested its first bomb. Erdogan’s comments echo those earlier remarks and raise the possibility that Ankara could become the second NATO member to leave the alliance’s nuclear umbrella in favor of its own independent arsenal.
3/18/22
Space - Space col da
Tournament: ASU | Round: Octas | Opponent: Bellarmine AK | Judge: OBrien, Aidin McLoughlin, Samantha Gedela, Tej Space col only happens with space tourism – it’s key to setting up a space economy Hopkins 08 Mark Hopkins, Senior Vice President and Senior Operating Officer of the National Space Society. Hopkins built and led the political efforts of L-5 and NSS for 18 years through 1997. He founded Spacecause and Spacepac and served as President of Spacecause for 10 years and Chairman of Spacepac for 16 years. Senior Vice President and Senior Operating Officer of the National Space Society) "The Space Movement: Space Settlement and Space Tourism," National Space Society - Working to Create a Spacefaring Civilization, Winter-2008 SM Space settlement proponents and space tourism proponents make up two substantial groups that have significant overlap. The goals of both are mutually reinforcing. The members of the two groups are forward looking, dynamic, energetic, enthusiastic, motivated, and strongly pro-space. Part of the longterm NSS strategy is to broker an ideological marriage between the two. This is a major reason why Ad Astra places substantial emphasis on the issues of both. Such a marriage would not only be beneficial to space settlement and space tourism, but also to humanity’s future in space. Space settlement requires a viable space economy to generate jobs for space settlers. Earth’s history has demonstrated that an economy based on free enterprise is superior to other types of economies, such as those totally controlled by a government. Thus for space settlement, we want a free enterprise space economy. Such an economy would also provide enormous benefits for those who remain on Earth. The major approaches to creating a free enterprise space economy are top-down, bottom-up, and then some various combinations of the two. In the topdown case, the government develops the technology, and when it becomes profitable, it is turned over to the private sector. The early history of communication satellites is a good example of this. Space tourism is an example of the bottom-up approach. Private enterprise develops the technology with little help from the government beyond friendly regulation and possibly tax policy. Space tourism and, more generally, the entrepreneurial space sector (which includes the new entrepreneurial launch companies) will expand beyond its current near low-Earth orbit focus deeper into space. This expansion will be increasingly conducive to space settlement. A successful space tourism industry will create political pressure for the government to do more to promote a space economy via both the top-down and bottom-up approaches. Indeed, the potential of entrepreneurial space has already inspired NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. This $500-million program will partially pay for the entrepreneurial development of a new launch vehicle to provide transportation to the International Space Station and significantly lower launch costs. However, space tourism has a problem. Due to high ticket prices, space tourism is open to the attack that it is a dangerous, elitist frivolity for the rich. Such attacks have already been made. When the first tourist dies in space, the ethics of space tourism will be attacked hard and consequently will need a great deal of support. Space settlement provides a powerful defense against such attacks. Space tourism is not just about fun for the rich. It is a noble endeavor, a major step toward space settlement broadly defined and its immense benefits for all. This is an important selling point for potential space tourists. Many former tourists to the International Space Station have mentioned that they saw their trip as a way to advance human expansion into space. A good method for convincing people to buy something is to hit them both low and high. The low in the case of space tourism is the personal enjoyment and adventure that the tourist will experience. The high in this case is the fact that by doing something enjoyable, they will also be contributing to the noble cause of space settlement. An ideological marriage between space settlement and space tourism supporters will benefit both partners. The success of space tourism will help develop the free enterprise space economy needed for space settlement. Reciprocally, space settlement provides a noble justification for space tourism. Such a marriage will create a powerful coalition between two of the most enthusiastic groups of space supporters to the great benefit of our cause and the future of humanity.
Only private sector can effectively do space exploration Diakovska and Aliieva 20 Halyna Diakovska and Olga Aliieva, Ph.D.s in Philosophy, Associate Professors, Donbass State Pedagogical University, “Consequentialism and Commercial Space Exploration,” 2020, Philosophy and Cosmology, Vol. 24, pp. 5-24, https://doi.org/10.29202/phil-cosm/24/1, EA The experience of the USA showed that leadership in space exploration, which is maintained solely through public funding, could be erroneous. Since 1984, the share of public funding has gradually decreased in space telecommunications, commercial space transportation, remote sensing, etc., while the share of participation of non-state enterprises has increased rapidly. A legal and regulatory framework has been modified to stimulate space commercialization. The stages of space law development are discussed in the research of Valentyn Halunko (Halunko, 2019), Larysa Soroka (Soroka and Kurkova, 2019), etc. Larysa Soroka and Kseniia Kurkova explored the specifics of the legal regulation of the use and development of artificial intelligence for the space area (Soroka and Kurkova, 2019). As a result of changing the legal framework and attracting private investors to the space market, the US did not lose its leadership in space exploration, but rather secured it. Private investment along with government funding have significantly reduced the risk of business projects in the space industry. The quality and effectiveness of space exploration programs have increased. In 2018, Springer published an eloquent book The Rise of Private Actors in the Space Sector. Alessandra Vernile, the author of the book, explores a broad set of topics that reveal the role of private actors in space exploration (Vernile, 2018). The book covers the following topics: “Innovative Public Procurement and Support Schemes,” “New Target Markets for Private Actors,” etc. In the “Selected Success Stories,” Vernile provides examples of successful private actors in space exploration (Vernile, 2018). The current level of competition, which has developed on the space market, allows us to state the following fact. Private space companies have been able to compete with entire states in launching spacecraft, transporting cargo to orbital stations, and exploring space objects. The issue of mining on space objects, the creation of space settlements and the intensive development of the space tourism market are on the agenda. In the 21st century, the creation of non-governmental commercial organizations specializing in the field of commercial space exploration, is regarded as an ordinary activity. They are established as parts of the universities around projects funded by private investors. For example, Astropreneurship and Space Industry Club based on the MIT community (Astropreneurship, 2019). Large-scale research in the field of commercial space exploration, as well as the practical results achieved, led to the formation of a new paradigm called “New Space” ecosystem. The articles of Deganit Paikowsky’s (Paikowsky, 2017), Clelia Iacomino (Iacomino and Ciccarelli, 2018) et al. reveal its key meanings and the opportunities it offers in the space sector. The “New Space” ecosystem is a new vision for commercial space exploration. It is the formation of a cosmic worldview, in which the near space with all the wealth of its resources and capabilities, becomes a part of the global economy and the sustainable development of the society. The “New Space” ecosystem offers the following ways for commercial space exploration (Iacomino and Ciccarelli, 2018):
Innovative public procurement and support schemes, which significantly expand the role of commercial actors in space exploration. 2. Attracting new entrants in the space sector. First of all, these are companies working in the domain of Information and communications technology, artificial intelligence, etc. that are expanding their research in space markets. They offer innovative business models and new solutions to space commercialization. 3. Innovative industrial approaches based on new processes, methods, and industrial organization for the development and production of space systems or launchers. 4. Disruptive market solutions, which significantly reduce commercial space exploration prices, increase labor productivity, provide new types of services, etc. 5. Substantial private investment from different sources and involving different funding mechanisms. For instance, these are private fortunes, venture capital firms, business angels, private equity companies, or banks, etc. 6. Involvement of an increasing number of space-faring nations investing in the acquisition of turnkey space capabilities or even in the development of a domestic space industrial base. This expands the space markets and makes it more competitive. The analysis of the research and advances in commercial space exploration allows us to draw the following conclusions:
In fact, the space market has already been created. It is currently undergoing continuous development that will integrate the resources and capabilities of the near space into the global economy over the next decade. 2. A new paradigm, denoted by the term “New Space” ecosystem, is at the heart of the created space market. The “New Space” ecosystem is a step towards the formation of cosmic thinking, in which outer space, with its resources and capabilities, is considered as a sphere of human activities. 3. Space market regulates space law, which is constantly evolving. The space law develops within the bounds of international law. In essence, the space market is integrated into the international legal field and is governed by its laws.
Massive spillover effects, solves resources and existential risks Green 21 Brian Patrick Green, director of technology ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University, “Space Ethics,” 2021, Rowman, pp. 4-5, EA In favor of going into space are such basics as gaining scientific knowledge and developing beneficial new technologies, both of which space exploration and use have already begun to accomplish with dramatic and sometimes unexpected effects for humankind. Scientific advancements include astronomical and cosmological knowledge from various orbiting experiments and telescopes that have let us gain unprecedented understanding about our universe. But space activities have also contributed to a great deal of scientific knowledge about our Earth, including measurements of environmental status, habitat conversion and destruction, detailed knowledge of anthropogenic climate change, and much about Earth’s chemistry and geology. We have also learned a great deal about our local planets, for example, that a runaway “greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere of Venus makes the surface scorchingly hot, while too little greenhouse effect on Mars leaves the surface quite cold. There have also been significant contributions made to medical science, especially concerning the behavior of the human body when subjected to radiation, microgravity, nutritional restrictions, and so on. On the technological side, everything with American global positioning system (GPS), Russian Glonass, or other global navigation systems—from smartphones to military vehicles—relies on a network of satellites above us, placed there by rocketry and painstakingly tracked with instruments developed for the task. So many technologies have been pioneered by space exploration and use that it is hard to list them all, but some of the more important ones include weather satellites (which are not only convenient but also allow preparation for and evacuation from severe weather), communication satellites, solar photovoltaic (PV) cells, advances in electronics and computers, advances in materials science, and so on. Space is also an important location for the contention of national interests in a geopolitical and military sense. As the ultimate “high ground” in battle, space allows certain asset classes such as spy satellites to exist in a position unassailable by many or most opponents. While permanent weapons stations and weapons of mass destruction are banned from space by the United Nations Outer Space Treaty (OST), 6 that has not stopped the development of weapons that are impermanent (such as missiles, missile interceptors, and antisatellite weapons) or the research and development of possible space-based weapons platforms, such as were envisioned by U.S. president Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, nicknamed “Star Wars.” While military and political interests may ultimately seem to be a less noble reason to explore and use space, relative power, safety, and security certainly are very human interests and are valuable to those who feel they are being protected by them. Space activities are also a key way of promoting international cooperation and global awareness. While the international competition of the “space race” fueled one nation all the way to the Moon, shortly afterward, the Apollo-Soyuz program announced a thawing of this competition and commenced a period of cooperation between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Currently the International Space Station continues this cross-national cooperation in space, with five space agencies (representing Canada, the European Space Agency nations, Japan, Russia, and the United States) participating. In addition to cooperation in space exploration itself, the perspective given from space has itself helped to produce some feelings of unity on Earth, with the famous “Blue Marble” and “Earthrise” pictures showing Earth’s oneness and scientific discoveries supported by space science, such as those related to climate change, helping to promote international cooperation to address these problems. Gaining access to new critical resources may be another reason to go into space. Earth is a finite planet, and certain elements on Earth are very rare in the planetary crust, particularly platinum group metals that are very dense and siderophilic (iron-loving) and so have tended to sink toward the core over the natural history of the planet. However, asteroids and other objects in space (for example, planets, comets, and moons) can sometimes have these elements in abundance and in more available locations, making them potentially excellent sources for these valuable materials. Now-defunct asteroid-mining startup Planetary Resources once estimated that one “platinum-rich 500 meter wide asteroid contains . . . 1.5 times the known world-reserves of platinum group metals (ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum).” 7 In addition to returning elements to a resource-hungry Earth, further exploration and development of space will require access to resources that are not purely sourced from Earth. In particular, it will be necessary to gain access to water, which is relatively rare in the inner solar system and which would be far too costly to transport in any significant amounts from the Earth’s surface. Another reason that humans may want to explore space would be to create a “backup Earth” to hedge against global catastrophic and existential risks (risks that may cause widespread disaster or human extinction, respectively) on our home planet. 8 Earth has always been a dangerous place for humans, with asteroid impacts, supervolcanic eruptions, pandemic disease, and other natural hazards threatening civilization. Now, in addition to these natural threats, human-made hazards such as nuclear weapons, climate change, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence may threaten not only the viability of technological civilization but perhaps the survival of human life itself. A serious global-scale catastrophe could set back civilization many decades or centuries, and the worst disasters could cause human extinction. In one scenario, in which 100 percent of humanity dies, all of human effort for all of history would be for nothing. However, were the same global catastrophe to happen to Earth, yet humans were a multiplanetary species with just one self-sustaining settlement off-Earth, it would not result in the end of human civilization or human extinction. Instead while the same unimaginable fate would befall the Earth (certainly no mere triviality, with perhaps the deaths of 99.999 percent of all humans and possibly the destruction of the ecosphere and everything in it), at least all of human and planetory history would not be for nothing. Human life and culture would go on elsewhere, as well as other Earth species. This is a dire fate, but less terrible than the first.
1/10/22
Space - T Neg Action
Tournament: Emory | Round: 4 | Opponent: Ardrey Kell RG | Judge: Salazar, David T – Neg Action Interpretation – Unjust refers to a negative action – it means contrary. Black’s Laws No Date "What is Unjust?" https://thelawdictionary.org/unjust/Elmer Contrary to right and justice, or to the enjoyment of his rights by another, or to the standards of conduct furnished by the laws. Violation – The Aff is a positive action – it creates a new concept for Space i.e. the treating of Space under the public trust doctrine Vote neg -- 1 Limits – making the topic bi-directional explodes predictability – it means that Aff’s can both increase non-exist property regimes in space AND decrease appropriation by private actors – makes the topic untenable. 2 Ground – wrecks Neg Generics – we can’t say appropriation good since the 1AC can create new views on Outer Space Property Rights that circumvent our Links since they can say “Public Trust” approach solves. 3 TVA – just defend that space appropriation is bad. Use Competing Interps – 1 Topicality is a yes/no question, you can’t be reasonably topical and 2 Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation. No RVI’s - 1 Forces the 1NC to go all-in on Theory which kills substance education, 2 Encourages Baiting since the 1AC will purposely be abusive, and 3 Illogical – you shouldn’t win for not being abusive.
1/29/22
Space - T- Must Implement
Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 6 | Opponent: HarWes WL | Judge: Kotamraju, Kartikeya 1NC – T Interpretation: Topical affirmatives may only garner offense from the hypothetical implementation by governments that The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust
Resolved requires policy action Louisiana State Legislature (https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Glossary.aspx) Ngong Resolution A legislative instrument that generally is used for making declarations, stating policies, and making decisions where some other form is not required. A bill includes the constitutionally required enacting clause; a resolution uses the term "resolved". Not subject to a time limit for introduction nor to governor's veto. ( Const. Art. III, §17(B) and House Rules 8.11 , 13.1 , 6.8 , and 7.4 and Senate Rules 10.9, 13.5 and 15.1)
Appropriation TIMOTHY JUSTIN TRAPP, JD Candidate @ UIUC Law, ’13, TAKING UP SPACE BY ANY OTHER MEANS: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE NONAPPROPRIATION ARTICLE OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW Vol. 2013 No. 4 The issues presented in relation to the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty should be clear.214 The ITU has, quite blatantly, created something akin to “property interests in outer space.”215 It allows nations to exclude others from their orbital slots, even when the nation is not currently using that slot.216 This is directly in line with at least one definition of outer-space appropriation.217 Start Footnote 217Id. at 236 (“Appropriation of outer space, therefore, is ‘the exercise of exclusive control or exclusive use’ with a sense of permanence, which limits other nations’ access to it.”) (quoting Milton L. Smith, The Role of the ITU in the Development of Space Law, 17 ANNALS AIR and SPACE L. 157, 165 (1992)). End Footnote 217The ITU even allows nations with unused slots to devise them to other entities, creating a market for the property rights set up by this regulation.218 In some aspects, this seems to effect exactly what those signatory nations of the Bogotá Declaration were trying to accomplish, albeit through different means.219
Topicality is key to limits and ground---redefining portions of the resolution permits endless reclarification AND creates incentives for avoidance---only aligning research with agent and mechanism solves.
Two impacts: 1---Fairness---an unlimited, unpredictable topic disparately raises the research burden for the negative -- treat this is a sufficient win condition because fairness is the logical structure that undergirds all impacts AND controls any benefit to debate. 2---Clash---forfeiting government action sanctions retreat from controversy and forces the negative to concede solvency before winning a link -- clash is the necessary condition for distinguishing debate from discussion, but negation exists on a sliding scale -- that jumpstarts the process of critical thinking, reflexivity, and argument refinement. 3---TVA---States ought to ban appropriation of outer space by private actors---Advs about why space col, expansion, and mining is antiblack. 4---DTD---Only solution to future abuse. Drop the argument means that they could still have a chance to win on any offense. If they win, then they know that they can get away with future abuse.
1/16/22
Space - T- Space
Tournament: Berkeley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Sage MP | Judge: Grigsby, Gerard 1NC – T Interpretation: Topical affirmatives must defend an appropriation of outer space
Outer space starts 372 miles above the surface of earth. National Geographic No Date National Geographic Society, "Atmosphere," https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/atmosphere/ Sachin Earth’s atmosphere stretches from the surface of the planet up to as far as 10,000 kilometers (6,214 miles) above. After that, the atmosphere blends into space. Not all scientists agree where the actual upper boundary of the atmosphere is, but they can agree that the bulk of the atmosphere is located close to Earth’s surface—up to a distance of around eight to 15 kilometers (five to nine miles). While oxygen is necessary for most life on Earth, the majority of Earth’s atmosphere is not oxygen. Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, and 0.1 percent other gases. Trace amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and neon are some of the other gases that make up the remaining 0.1 percent. The atmosphere is divided into five different layers, based on temperature. The layer closest to Earth’s surface is the troposphere, reaching from about seven and 15 kilometers (five to 10 miles) from the surface. The troposphere is thickest at the equator, and much thinner at the North and South Poles. The majority of the mass of the entire atmosphere is contained in the troposphere—between approximately 75 and 80 percent. Most of the water vapor in the atmosphere, along with dust and ash particles, are found in the troposphere—explaining why most of Earth’s clouds are located in this layer. Temperatures in the troposphere decrease with altitude. The stratosphere is the next layer up from Earth’s surface. It reaches from the top of the troposphere, which is called the tropopause, to an altitude of approximately 50 kilometers (30 miles). Temperatures in the stratosphere increase with altitude. A high concentration of ozone, a molecule composed of three atoms of oxygen, makes up the ozone layer of the stratosphere. This ozone absorbs some of the incoming solar radiation, shielding life on Earth from potentially harmful ultraviolet (UV) light, and is responsible for the temperature increase in altitude. The top of the stratosphere is called the stratopause. Above that is the mesosphere, which reaches as far as about 85 kilometers (53 miles) above Earth’s surface. Temperatures decrease in the mesosphere with altitude. In fact, the coldest temperatures in the atmosphere are near the top of the mesosphere—about -90°C (-130°F). The atmosphere is thin here, but still thick enough so that meteors will burn up as they pass through the mesosphere—creating what we see as “shooting stars.” The upper boundary of the mesosphere is called the mesopause. The thermosphere is located above the mesopause and reaches out to around 600 kilometers (372 miles). Not much is known about the thermosphere except that temperatures increase with altitude. Solar radiation makes the upper regions of the thermosphere very hot, reaching temperatures as high as 2,000°C (3,600°F). The uppermost layer, that blends with what is considered to be outer space, is the exosphere. The pull of Earth’s gravity is so small here that molecules of gas escape into outer space.
Large constellations occupy the area below space Reno Gazette 6/11/21 Reno Gazette Journal, , "SpaceX satellites soaring across the night sky have many wondering what they are," https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2021/06/11/spacex-starlink-satellites-night-sky-lights/7643864002/, accessed 1-23-2022 azhang NewsSportsBusinessLifeOpinionObituariesE-EditionLegals If you have looked up at the night sky lately, you may have seen a string of lights blazing by. While these may be an unidentified object to a lot of people, they are part of Elon Musk’s goal of universal internet. These SpaceX satellites, known as Starlinks, are often as bright as an airplane and travel in packs of up to 60 satellites. They orbit the earth at one of the lowest elevations allowed for spacecraft, around 186 miles above earth's surface and up to almost 342 miles high. Currently, there are about 1,800 Starlink satellites in orbit. SpaceX has applied to place upwards of 30,000 satellites in orbit to provide high-speed wireless internet. For scale, currently there are about 4,300 active satellites orbiting the planet and historically, only 11,670 ever placed into orbit since the launch of the first satellite, Sputnik, in 1957. According to SpaceNews.com, SpaceX began placing Starlink satellites in orbit in May of 2019. When we reached out to SpaceX for more information they said no one was available for an interview. '100,000 functional satellites in orbit around the earth' “Starlink is just one representative of a whole new class of what are being called satellite mega-constellations,” said Dr. John Barentine, the director of conservation of the International Dark-Sky Association. These mega-constellations are a group of satellites that fly together in some sort of formation.
The Kármán line is arbitrary – no legal international definition Hignett 21 Katherine Hignett 19 July 2021. “Where does space begin as Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson argue over the Kármán line?” Where does space begin? Bezos and Branson argue over the Kármán line | Metro News Accessed 1-23 gord0 Where does space start – what is the Kármán line? Blue Origin claims that the so-called ‘Kármán line’ — 100km above Earth — is the ‘internationally recognized’ start of space. The Virgin Galactic craft reached approximately 86km, some 14km short of this boundary on Sunday. Named after engineer and physicist Theodore von Kármán, the 100km line was established in the 1960s by an organisation called the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale. Kármán wanted to define the point where aeronautics became astronautics. Earth’s atmosphere becomes progressively thinner the higher an altitude you reach. Air helps carry a plane as it flies through the air in a phenomenon known as ‘aerodynamic lift.’ The thinner the air becomes, the faster a craft must travel to generate enough lift to stay in the sky. Kármán thought that at a certain point, the air would become so thin that it would stop contributing to lift. This, he suggested, would occur at the physical boundary of space. He thought defining this point could help governments decide on airspace boundaries. He wrote in his autobiography: ‘Below this line, space belongs to each country. Above this level there would be free space.’ In reality, however, the 100km Kármán line is arbitrary, and no legal international definition of the boundary of space exists. In fact, Kármán himself suggested the line should sit at 84km. In recent years, astronomers such as Harvard University’s Jonathan McDowell have argued in favour of this lower limit, citing the fact that objects can stay in orbit without disintegrating even if they drop to altitudes of around 80km to 90km.
Violation: 342 miles is less than the 372 miles necessary to be considered outer space; they explicitly defend only LEO
Vote neg:
1 Limits and ground: the aff interpretation explodes the topic to allow any aff about space generally which structurally alters the neg research burden because there’s a qualitative difference between outer space and the atmosohere. Kills core neg generics like space col bad and mining that don’t link if you specify a part of space
2 Precision – Justifies the aff arbitrarily doing away with words in the resolution - Even if its not drop the debater, this implicates solvency independently.
Use competing interps - Topicality is a binary question, you can’t be reasonably topical and it invites a race to the bottom of intervention
Drop the debater – dropping the argument doesn’t rectify abuse since winning T proves why we don’t have the burden of rejoinder against their aff.
No RVIS – it’s your burden to be topical
2/19/22
T - Extra T v global commons
Tournament: Woodward | Round: 5 | Opponent: Marlborough Karlan | Judge: Yerraguntala, Srinidhi Interpretation – Affirmatives must only defend the topic. To clarify, they may not fiat an action that does more than the resolution. Violation – space governance, consensus, space traffic management, debris liability regimes and more – pen reads blue Silverstein and Panda ‘3/9 - Benjamin Silverstein research analyst for the Space Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. MA, International Relations, Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs BA, International Affairs, George Washington University and Ankit Panda Stanton Senior Fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. AB, Princeton University, “Space Is a Great Commons. It’s Time to Treat It as Such.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Web). March 9, 2021. Accessed Dec. 13, 2021. https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/03/09/space-is-great-commons.-it-s-time-to-treat-it-as-such-pub-84018 AT The failure to manage Earth orbits as a commons undermines safety and predictability, exposing space operators to growing risks such as collisions with other satellites and debris. The long-standing debris problem has been building for decades and demands an international solution.¶ Competing states need to coalesce behind a commons-based understanding of Earth orbits to set the table for a governance system to organize space traffic and address rampant debris. New leadership in the United States can spur progress on space governance by affirming that Earth orbits are a great commons. So far, President Joe Biden and his administration have focused on major space projects, but a relatively simple policy declaration that frames Earth orbits as a great commons can support efforts to negotiate space governance models for issues like debris mitigation and remediation. The Biden administration can set the stage to pursue broad space policy goals by establishing a consensus among states, particularly those with the most invested in Earth orbits, that space is a great commons.¶ THE PRESSING NEED FOR SPACE GOVERNANCE¶ The Earth orbits that provide the majority of benefits to states and commercial ventures represent only a tiny fraction of outer space as a whole. Competition for the limited volume of these Earth orbits is especially fierce since two satellites cannot be in the same place at the same time and not all orbits are equally useful for all missions. The number of objects residing in Earth orbits is now at an all-time high, with most new objects introduced into orbits at altitudes of between 400 and 700 kilometers above sea level. Millions of pieces of debris in Earth orbits pose a threat to continuing space operations. For instance, the final U.S. space shuttle missions faced 1-in-300 odds of losing a space vehicle or crew member to orbital debris or micrometeoroid impacts.¶ Collisions with fragments of orbital litter as small as a few millimeters across can ruin satellites and end missions. Current technologies cannot track all of these tiny pieces of debris, leaving space assets at the mercy of undetectable, untraceable, and unpredictable pieces of space junk. Some researchers have determined that the debris population in low Earth orbit is already self-sustaining, meaning that collisions between space objects will produce debris more rapidly than natural forces, like atmospheric drag, can remove it from orbit.¶ States—namely the United States, Russia, China, and India—have exacerbated this debris accumulation trend by testing kinetic anti-satellite capabilities or otherwise purposefully fragmenting their satellites in orbit. These states, along with the rest of the multilateral disarmament community, are currently at an impasse on establishing future space governance mechanisms that can address the debris issue. A portion of this impasse may be attributable to disparate views of the nature of outer space in the international context. Establishing a clear view among negotiating parties that Earth orbits should be treated as a great commons would establish a basis for future agreements that reduce debris-related risks.¶ Beyond debris-generating, kinetic anti-satellite weapons tests, revolutionary operating concepts challenge existing space traffic management practices. For instance, commercial ventures are planning networks of thousands of satellites to provide low-latency connectivity on Earth and deploying them by the dozens. States are following this trend. Some are considering transitioning away from using single (or few) exquisite assets in higher orbits and toward using many satellites in low Earth orbits. These new operational concepts could lead to an increase in collision risks.¶ Without new governance agreements, problems related to debris, heavy orbital traffic, and harmful interference will only intensify. Debris in higher orbits can persist for a century or more. The costs of adapting to increasingly polluted orbits would be immense, and the opportunity costs would be even higher. For instance, all else being equal, hardening satellites against collisions increases their mass and volume, in turn raising launch costs per satellite. These costs, rooted in a failure to govern space as a commons, will be borne by all space actors, including emerging states and commercial entities.¶ EXISTING FORMS OF SPACE GOVERNANCE¶ A well-designed governance system, founded on a widespread understanding of Earth orbits as a great commons, could temper these risks. Currently, space is not wholly unregulated, but existing regulations are limited both in scope and implementation. Many operators pledge to follow national regulations and international guidelines, but decentralized accountability mechanisms limit enforcement. These guidelines also do not cover the full range of potentially risky behaviors in space. For example, while some space operators can maneuver satellites to avoid collisions, there are no compulsory rules or standards on who has the right of way.¶ At the interstate level, seminal multilateral agreements provide some more narrow guidance on what is and is not acceptable in space. Most famously, the Outer Space Treaty affirms that outer space “shall be free for exploration and use by all states without discrimination of any kind” and that “there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.” Similar concepts of Earth orbits being a great commons arise in subsequent international texts. Agreements like the Liability Convention impose fault-based liability for debris-related collisions in space, but it is difficult to prove fault in this regime in part because satellite owners and operators have yet to codify a standard of care in space, and thus the regime does not clearly disincentivize debris creation in orbit. Other rules of behavior in Earth orbits have been more successful in reducing harmful interference between satellite operations, but even these efforts are limited in scope.¶ States have acceded to supranational regulations of the most limited (and thus most valuable) Earth orbits. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) coordinates, but does not authorize, satellite deployments and operations in geosynchronous orbits and manages radiofrequency spectrum assignments in other regions of space to reduce interference between satellites. These coordination activities are underpinned by the ITU’s constitution, which reminds states “that radio frequencies and any associate orbits . . . are limited natural resources,” indicating a commons-based approach to governing the radiofrequency spectrum. However, the union’s processes are still adapting to new operational realities in low Earth orbit, and these rules were never designed to address issues like debris.
Violation – Extra-T – They fiat new space governance models, consensus among states under Biden, quotas, distribution, regulation, etc. which obviously isn’t the rez; That’s a voting issue – justifies infinite planks and additional actions eliminating neg Das and CPs and exploding predictable limits.
Use Competing Interps – 1 Topicality is a yes/no question, you can’t be reasonably topical and 2 Reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention and a race to the bottom of questionable argumentation.
No RVI’s - you shouldn’t win for not being abusive.
3/19/22
T- A
Tournament: apple valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: LexingtonAM | Judge: Palmer, Jacob Interpretation – “A” is an indefinite article – you have to prove the res true in vacuum, not one instance CCC ND (Capital Community College Foundation; No Date Given; http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm#articles; “Articles, Determiners, and Quantifiers”; accessed 7/22/20; Capital Community College Foundation, a nonprofit 501 c-3 organization that supports scholarships, faculty development, and curriculum innovation) RC/HB The three articles — a, an, the — are a kind of adjective. The is called the definite article because it usually precedes a specific or previously mentioned noun; a and an are called indefinite articles because they are used to refer to something in a less specific manner (an unspecified count noun). These words are also listed among the noun markers or determiners because they are almost invariably followed by a noun (or something else acting as a noun) The is used with specific nouns. The is required when the noun it refers to represents something that is one of a kind: The moon circles the earth. The is required when the noun it refers to represents something in the abstract: The United States has encouraged the use of the private automobile as opposed to the use of public transit. The is required when the noun it refers to represents something named earlier in the text. (See below..). We use a before singular count-nouns that begin with consonants (a cow, a barn, a sheep); we use an before singular count-nouns that begin with vowels or vowel-like sounds (an apple, an urban blight, an open door). Words that begin with an h sound often require an a (as in a horse, a history book, a hotel), but if an h-word begins with an actual vowel sound, use an an (as in an hour, an honor). We would say a useful device and a union matter because the u of those words actually sounds like yoo (as opposed, say, to the u of an ugly incident). The same is true of a European and a Euro (because of that consonantal "Yoo" sound). We would say a once-in-a-lifetime experience or a one-time hero because the words once and one begin with a w sound (as if they were spelled wuntz and won). Merriam-Webster's Dictionary says that we can use an before an h- word that begins with an unstressed syllable. Thus, we might say an hisTORical moment, but we would say a HIStory book. Many writers would call that an affectation and prefer that we say a historical, but apparently, this choice is a matter of personal taste. For help on using articles with abbreviations and acronyms (a or an FBI agent?), see the section on Abbreviations. First and subsequent reference: When we first refer to something in written text, we often use an indefinite article to modify it. A newspaper has an obligation to seek out and tell the truth. In a subsequent reference to this newspaper, however, we will use the definite article: There are situations, however, when the newspaper must determine whether the public's safety is jeopardized by knowing the truth. Another example: "I'd like a glass of orange juice, please," John said. "I put the glass of juice on the counter already," Sheila replied. Exception: When a modifier appears between the article and the noun, the subsequent article will continue to be indefinite: "I'd like a big glass of orange juice, please," John said. "I put a big glass of juice on the counter already," Sheila replied. Generic reference: We can refer to something in a generic way by using any of the three articles. We can do the same thing by omitting the article altogether. A beagle makes a great hunting dog and family companion. An airedale is sometimes a rather skittish animal. The golden retriever is a marvelous pet for children. Irish setters are not the highly intelligent animals they used to be. The difference between the generic indefinite pronoun and the normal indefinite pronoun is that the latter refers to any of that class ("I want to buy a beagle, and any old beagle will do.") whereas the former (see beagle sentence) refers to all members of that class. Text is key – the topic is the only basis for pre-rd prep – we generate links based on resolutional processes
Violation – they specify US
Prefer
Limits – they justify tiny affs out of the more than 170 countries which explodes neg research burden and skirts neg offense – limits is k2 fairness b/c it ensures we can research quality arguments—that also means it’s k2 substantive engagement b/c we can’t learn about unlimited affs, so I’d never be able to engage your hyperspecific aff—you’d win every round. Causes the neg to be pigeonholed into generics every round.
2. Ground – they can shift out of core generic arguments like Econ and Infrastructure – neg ground is k2 engagement bc otherwise we can’t effectively engage in the topic and moots topic education, engagement is also k2 effectively testing the aff otherwise they always win by pigeonholing the negative
3. TVA – read the aff as an advantage under a Whole Resolution Affirmative – pics aren’t worse bc country specific DA’s are super hard to find on this topic and theory solves because if the PIC can’t be beat, it probably skews aff strategy and limits clash.
Vote Neg: 1 Precision – the counter-interp justifies them arbitrarily doing away with random words in the resolution which decks negative ground and preparation because the aff is no longer bounded by the resolution. Independent voter for jurisdiction – the judge doesn’t have the jurisdiction to vote aff if there wasn’t a legitimate aff. 2 Limits and ground – their model allows affs to defend anything from teachers to doctors to the police— there's no universal DA since each has different functions and political implications — that explodes neg prep and leads to random worker of the week affs which makes cutting stable neg links impossible — limits key to reciprocal engagement since they create a caselist for neg prep and it takes out ground like DAs to certain occupations which are some of the few neg generics when affs spec occupations. 3 TVA solves – you could’ve read your plan as an advantage under a whole res advocacy. Pics aren’t worse bc country specific DA’s are super hard to find on this topic and theory solves because if the PIC can’t be beat, it probably skews aff strategy and limits clash.
No RVI’s – 1 Chilling effect – deters people from going for Topicality since the 1ac will bait out T arguments to collapse to an RVI 2 Logic – shouldn’t win for meeting the burden of being fair, it’s a d rule in debate.
Competing Interps on T since its binary and a question of models—reasonability arbitrary and invites judge intervention
11/6/21
Tech DA
Tournament: apple valley | Round: 4 | Opponent: LexingtonAM | Judge: Palmer, Jacob Climate tech innovation is high now and set to improve. That’s necessary to solve warming. Winkler 11/4 Amanda is the managing editor at Freethink. Prior to joining Freethink, she was a freelance filmmaker focused on issues related to foreign policy and the U.S. military. Her work has been featured on PBS and in film festivals. Before that, she was a video producer for Reason Magazine. November 4, 2021. “Climate tech is booming — and this is better news than COP26” https://www.freethink.com/environment/climate-tech-is-booming-and-this-is-better-news-than-cop26 Accessed 11/6 gord0 Climate technology is in again. As world leaders gather in Glasgow this week for COP26, a common refrain is emerging: policy and pledges alone aren’t going to get us to net zero by 2050. We need more innovation. And fast. Policy shmolicy: This year’s UN climate conference has so far proven to be no different than the other 25 summits that have been held in the past: policymakers make voluntary pledges to cut carbon emissions to prevent rising global temperatures. However, there’s no way to hold the pledge-makers accountable, so these summits tend to be mostly hot (warm?) air. Six years after the major Paris climate agreement, the world isn’t anywhere close to achieving the accord’s goal of limiting global warming to below 2° C this century. (To have a shot of reaching that goal, we’d need to hit net zero by 2050). Climate change is complex so there’s not going to be one technology that solves it — we’ll need to develop and deploy a range of technologies. But a new report shows that even if countries simply fulfilled their current climate pledges, we’ll still see at least a 2.7° C rise this century. This could still cause an increase in extreme and deadly weather events like rising sea levels and heatwaves. Many solutions: Solving climate change is incredibly difficult: to decarbonize the world’s economy, we need to rethink how every industry generates energy. Agriculture, manufacturing, shipping, construction, fashion — all of these industries will need to modernize their equipment to use energy more sustainably. This takes time and billions of dollars. Meanwhile, the industries still need to make a profit. Given the complexity of the problem, there’s likely not going to be one technology that solves climate change; instead, we’ll need to develop and deploy a range of technologies. Bring in the tech: To achieve net zero by 2050, it’s estimated that 65 of emissions reductions can be achieved by existing technologies and policy changes. The other 35 will need to come from new technologies. Varun Sivaram, a senior advisor to John Kerry, told MIT Tech Review that the most important role the U.S. can play in leading global emissions reduction is to develop cheaper, better low-carbon technologies. “The number one tool the U.S. has to speed the energy transition around the world is innovation,” he said. By funding RandD efforts, he notes, the U.S. could make it easier for other countries — especially emerging countries — to decarbonize. Rise of the green economy: The good news is that a green energy economy is emerging — and VCs have noticed. According to the Morning Brew, in 2021 over $30 billion has already been poured into climate technology startups, up 30 from last year. Svenja Telle, Pitchbook analyst, told the Morning Brew that clean-industry technology is the fastest-growing sector of climate tech. This sector includes alternative energy and manufacturing innovation. There’s a big boom in lithium battery recycling. As more things are electrified, especially vehicles, we’ll need a way to recycle those batteries. Redwood Materials is among the startups leading the recycling charge. The company extracts materials that are usually mined — like cobalt, nickel, and lithium — from recycled consumer electronics and then sells those materials to its customers, like Panasonic. Green hydrogen is also on the rise — this is a hydrogen fuel that can be made from renewable energy sources. It’s only byproduct is water. Right now, it’s too expensive to produce, but it may become cost-competitive in the near future. There are already a few massive hydrogen projects underway. Another fast growing area is built-environment companies, said Telle. This includes building construction and operations, which are responsible for about 39 of global emissions. The New York Times reports that more investors are looking at sustainable real estate, now that new technology and stricter standards enable better tracking of a development’s carbon footprint.” “Five to 10 years ago, there was a lot of debate about sustainability, that, ‘It’s nice, but I don’t want to pay for it,’” Stephen Tross, chief investment officer at a Dutch investment firm, told the NYT. “Today, you don’t sacrifice returns for sustainability, you create returns with sustainability.” Turntide Technologies recently raised $225 million to continue developing their “smart motor” which makes motors much more efficient, reducing energy consumption by about 64. “Today, half of the world’s energy is used by electric motors and nearly half of that energy consumption is being wasted due to inefficiency and lack of intelligent controls,” Ryan Morris, CEO, told TechCrunch. Over $30 billion has already been poured into climate technology this year, up 30 from last year. Deja vu: From 2006 to 2011, we also saw a “clean tech” boom that ended up being a disastrous bust — more than 90 of the cleantech startups funded during this time did not return the money invested in them. (Hey, Solyndra!) However, this time appears to be different. One major reason is that renewable energy is now price-competitive with fossil fuels. That wasn’t the case in 2009, when solar power was over four times more expensive than fossil fuels. The price has fallen fast and is expected to get even cheaper. This has made a global transition to clean energy systems possible. Another reason is that most of today’s climate technology startups are powered by software and machine learning. That means today’s startups are more likely to scale, compared to yesterday’s technology which leaned heavily on hard assets. “Investors were scared after what happened with Clean Tech 1.0, but it’s different this time. Back then everything was focused on really RandD-heavy technologies in clean energy. This time it’s about decarbonizing the entire economy,” Telle told Morning Brew. “Something that is relevant for every single sector. And it’s the only way forward.” Violent strike efforts are increasing – they slow innovation, specifically in the tech sector. Hanasoge 16 Chaithra; Senior Research Analyst, Market Researcher, Consumer Insights, Strategy Consulting; “The Union Strikes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” Supply Wisdom; April/June 2016 (Doesn’t specifically say but this is the most recent event is cites); https://www.supplywisdom.com/resources/the-union-strikes-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly///SJWen The result: Verizon conceded to several of the workers’ demands including hiring union workers, protection against outsourcing of call-center jobs, and employee benefits such as salary hikes and higher pension contributions, among others and thus bringing an end to the strike in June. The repercussion: The strike witnessed several instances of social disorder, violence and clashes, ultimately calling for third party intervention (Secretary of Labor – Thomas Perez) to initiate negotiations between the parties. Also, as a result of the strike, Verizon reported lower than expected revenues in the second quarter of 2016. Trade unions/ labor unions aren’t just this millennia’s product and has been in vogue since times immemorial. Unions, to ensure fairness to the working class, have gone on strike for better working conditions and employee benefits since the industrial revolution and are as strong today as they were last century. With the advent of technology and advancement in artificial intelligence, machines are grabbing the jobs which were once the bastion of the humans. So, questions that arise here are, what relevance do unions have in today’s work scenario? And, are the strikes organized by them avoidable? As long as the concept of labor exists and employees feel that they are not receiving their fair share of dues, unions will exist and thrive. Union protests in most cases cause work stoppages, and in certain cases, disruption of law and order. Like in March 2016, public servants at Federal Government departments across Australia went on a series of strikes over failed pay negotiations, disrupting operations of many government departments for a few days. Besides such direct effects, there are many indirect effects as well such as strained employee relations, slower work processes, lesser productivity and unnecessary legal hassles. Also, union strikes can never be taken too lightly as they have prompted major overturn of decisions, on a few occasions. Besides the Verizon incident that was a crucial example of this, nationwide strikes were witnessed in India in March and April this year when the national government introduced reforms related to the withdrawal regulations and interest rate of employee provident fund, terming it as ‘anti-working class’. This compelled the government to withhold the reform for further review. In France, strike against labor law reforms in May turned violent, resulting in riots and significant damage to property. The incident prompted the government to consider modifications to the proposed reforms. However, aside from employee concerns, such incidents are also determined by a number of other factors such as the country’s political scenario, economy, size of the overall workforce and the unions, history of unionization, labor laws, and culture. For example, it is a popular saying that the French are always on strike as per tradition (although recent statistics indicate a decline in frequency). In a communist government like China, strikes have steadily risen in number. In 2015, China Labor Bulletin (CLB), a Hong Kong-based workers’ rights group recorded 2,700 incidents of strikes and protests, compared to 1,300 incidents in 2014. Most of them have stemmed out of failure by the government to respect the basic rights of employees and address labor concerns. Interestingly, unions have not been able to gain a strong foothold in the IT-BPO industry. While many countries do have a separate union to represent workers from the sector, incidents of strikes like Verizon have been relatively low. However, workplace regulations, in addition to other factors mentioned could be a trigger for such incidents, even if on a smaller scale. For example, a recent survey that interviewed several BPO employees in India revealed that while forming a union in the BPO sector was difficult, irksome workplace regulations such as constant surveillance, irregular timings and incentives have prompted employees to express their resentment in smaller ways such as corruption of internal servers and so on. Such risks are further enhanced in a city like Kolkata, which carries a strong trade union culture. Warming causes extinction — leads to severe weather conditions, ecosystem collapse and armed conflict. Sprat and Dunlop 19 — Spratt is Research Director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, Melbourne, and co-author of Climate Code Red: The case for emergency action. Dunlop is a member of the Club of Rome. Formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive, chairman of the Australian Coal Association, chief executive of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, and chair of the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading 1998-2000. (David and Ian; Published: May 2019; “Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach”; Breakthrough Policy Paper; Accessed: April 9, 2021; http://mycoasts.org/commons/library/2019_Spratt_Dunlop.pdf)//CYang 2050: By 2050, there is broad scientific acceptance that system tipping-points for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and a sea-ice-free Arctic summer were passed well before 1.5°C of warming, for the Greenland Ice Sheet well before 2°C, and for widespread permafrost loss and large-scale Amazon drought and dieback by 2.5°C. The “hothouse Earth” scenario has been realised, and Earth is headed for another degree or more of warming, especially since human greenhouse emissions are still significant. 20 While sea levels have risen 0.5 metres by 2050, the increase may be 2-3 metres by 2100, and it is understood from historical analogues that seas may eventually rise by more than 25 metres. Thirty-five percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability. The destabilisation of the Jet Stream has very significantly affected the intensity and geographical distribution of the Asian and West African monsoons and, together with the further slowing of the Gulf Stream, is impinging on life support systems in Europe. North America suffers from devastating weather extremes including wildfires, heatwaves, drought and inundation. The summer monsoons in China have failed, and water flows into the great rivers of Asia are severely reduced by the loss of more than one-third of the Himalayan ice sheet. Glacial loss reaches 70 percent in the Andes, and rainfall in Mexico and central America falls by half. Semi-permanent El Nino conditions prevail. Aridification emerges over more than 30 percent of the world’s land surface. Desertification is severe in southern Africa, the southern Mediterranean, west Asia, the Middle East, inland Australia and across the south-western United States. Impacts: A number of ecosystems collapse, including coral reef systems, the Amazon rainforest and in the Arctic. Some poorer nations and regions, which lack capacity to provide artificially-cooled environments for their populations, become unviable. Deadly heat conditions persist for more than 100 days per year in West Africa, tropical South America, the Middle East and South-East Asia, contributing to more than a billion people being displaced from the tropical zone. Water availability decreases sharply in the most affected regions at lower latitudes (dry tropics and subtropics), affecting about two billion people worldwide. Agriculture becomes nonviable in the dry subtropics. Most regions in the world see a significant drop in food production and increasing numbers of extreme weather events, including heat waves, floods and storms. Food production is inadequate to feed the global population and food prices skyrocket, as a consequence of a one-fifth decline in crop yields, a decline in the nutrition content of food crops, a catastrophic decline in insect populations, desertification, monsoon failure and chronic water shortages, and conditions too hot for human habitation in significant food-growing regions. The lower reaches of the agriculturally-important river deltas such as the Mekong, Ganges and Nile are inundated, and significant sectors of some of the world’s most populous cities — including Chennai, Mumbai, Jakarta, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City, Shanghai, Lagos, Bangkok and Manila — are abandoned. Some small islands become uninhabitable. Ten percent of Bangladesh is inundated, displacing 15 million people. Even for 2°C of warming, more than a billion people may need to be relocated and In high-end scenarios, the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to model, with a high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an end. National security consequences: For pragmatic reasons associated with providing only a sketch of this scenario, we take the conclusion of the Age of Consequences ‘Severe’ 3°C scenario developed by a group of senior US national-security figures in 2007 as appropriate for our scenario too: Massive nonlinear events in the global environment give rise to massive nonlinear societal events. In this scenario, nations around the world will be overwhelmed by the scale of change and pernicious challenges, such as pandemic disease. The internal cohesion of nations will be under great stress, including in the United States, both as a result of a dramatic rise in migration and changes in agricultural patterns and water availability. The flooding of coastal communities around the world, especially in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China, has the potential to challenge regional and even national identities. Armed conflict between nations over resources, such as the Nile and its tributaries, is likely and nuclear war is possible. The social consequences range from increased religious fervor to outright chaos. In this scenario, climate change provokes a permanent shift in the relationship of humankind to nature’. (emphasis added)
11/6/21
infrastructure da
Tournament: apple valley | Round: 2 | Opponent: West Des Moines Valley JS | Judge: Ying, Derek Infrastructure will pass – Biden gets it done and it is enough for climate Clayton 11/4 Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton has been writing and editing for DTN/The Progressive Farmer since 2005 after working more than seven years as a reporter for the Omaha World-Herald. Chris has been recognized as writer of the year by the American Agricultural Editors' Association and won story of the year multiple times from the organization. He also has won the Glenn Cunningham Agricultural Journalist of the Year Award from the North American Agricultural Journalists and served as the group's president in 2012-13. The National Farmers Union and American Coalition for Ethanol also each have named Chris communicator of the year. November 4, 2021. “Democrats move to vote on Policy agenda” https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2021/11/04/biden-reflects-urgency-get-things Accessed 11/4 gord0 OMAHA (DTN) -- After key election losses such as the Virginia governor's race, House Democrats are seeking to move ahead on President Joe Biden's domestic policies with an expected vote on the $1.75 trillion "Build Back Better Act." The newest version of the bill was sent to the House Rules Committee on Wednesday afternoon with the committee holding a marathon late-night hearing to detail rules for debate if the bill gets to a floor vote this week. Speaking at the White House on Wednesday, Biden said he understands people want to see Democrats "get things done." The president said he's pushing members of his party to give final passage to the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, as well as the mix of social programs and tax changes in the Build Back Better Act. "People are upset and uncertain about a lot of things -- from COVID, to school, to jobs, to a whole range of things, and the cost of a gallon of gasoline," Biden said. "And so, if I'm able to pass -- sign into law my Build Back Better initiative, I'm in a position where you're going to see a lot of those things ameliorated quickly and swiftly. And so that has to be done." Still, Biden's agenda remains caught between moderates and liberals in his own party, leaving open questions of whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., can schedule a floor vote on the bill. The House Agriculture Committee released details highlighting $87.4 billion in spending on agriculture, including $28 billion for conservation programs, $27 billion for forestry, $18 billion for rural development, $12 billion for farmer debt relief and $2 billion for agricultural research. On taxes, the bill changes the current 21 rate and provides a tax cut to 18 for corporations with taxable income below $400,000. The tax is increased to 26.5 for corporations with incomes higher than $5 million. The bill also sets a minimum 15 corporate tax for companies that zero out their tax liability. The bill also boosts the valuation benefit of Section 2032 A for farmland, raising the land value deduction from $750,000 to $11.7 million. The bill also increases taxes on higher-income people and limits deductions of qualified business income (Section 199A) for married couples with more than $500,000 in taxable income on a joint return. For families, the bill extends the $3,600 Child Tax Credit and expands the Earned Income Credit for low-wage workers without children. A provision drawing criticism is an agreement to expand the State and Local Taxes (SALT) deduction from $10,000 to $72,500. Republicans pointed out the provision largely helps wealthier people because most people now take advantage of the $24,000 standard deduction. More Recommended for You "The people left in the poor rural areas of my district are going to get left out," said Rep. Tom Rice, R-S.C., pointing to the changes on SALT. The bill also includes a provision allowing Health and Human Services officials to negotiate certain prescription drug prices for Medicare. Despite earlier objections from the Senate parliamentarian, the House bill also includes immigration provisions, including granting permanent residency status for farmworkers and other undocumented immigrations who were considered essential workers early in the pandemic. The bill also includes legal immigration status for children who came into the U.S. with their parents, known as "Dreamers." The White House stated the bill also will reform the immigration system to reduce the visa backlog. The White House released a fact sheet on rural communities, championing the "landmark new program," the Rural Partnership Program, which will provide $970 million for states and tribes to use for competitive rural economic grant programs. Kelliann Blazek, special assistant to the president for agriculture and rural policy, highlighted the Rural Partnership Program in an interview with DTN. Blazek noted that eight out of 10 counties with high levels of poverty are in rural areas of the country and have fewer resources for local development. "So, we're taking a bottom-up approach and putting rural communities in the driver's seat so they have the tools and resources to evaluate their goals and then we'll help them get there," Blazek said. The White House also spotlighted $9.7 billion in loans for rural electric providers and a separate $2.88 billion for electric loans to boost renewable energy. The investment is the largest since the Rural Electrification Act for providing energy to rural America, the White House stated. On the $28 billion in conservation spending, the bill increases funds for USDA's major conservation programs to focus on climate-smart agricultural practices. That includes $9 billion for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), $7.45 billion for the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), $4.1 billion for the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and $1.7 billion for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. The White House stated that "at its peak," the climate-smart programs could reach as many as 130 million crop acres. "The president believes farmers and ranchers are part of the solution when it comes to climate change, and from the very start of this administration, we've been seeking input from and listening to farmers and ranchers and rural communities to inform our climate agenda," Blazek said. Republicans testifying before the Rules Committee challenged the $1.75 trillion costs of the bill, arguing the actual costs were higher. They added that the costs of the bill would add "further fuel for the fire" on inflation. Pointing to the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps that would operate out of USDA, Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., said the recreation of a 1930s New Deal program would compete for workers. "Why create a government jobs program when every employer I run across tells me they can't find people to work," Westerman said. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., chairman of the House Rules Committee, pointed to the benefit of the reconciliation package and the $1.2 trillion Senate-passed infrastructure bill, which is tied up because House Democrats will not pass it until they vote on the Build Back Better Act. McGovern noted Republicans could not get an infrastructure bill passed when President Donald Trump was in charge and Republicans controlled Congress. "Every week was infrastructure week," McGovern said. He added, "The reason I am anxious to get both of these bills done is people want us to deliver. They are tired of talk and no action. And, you know, they are tired of the polarization. And so, you know, people are talking about these bills as a political calculation, but at the end of the day, you know, if we can get this done, it's going to be meaningful in people's lives," McGovern said. Strengthening unions requires Biden’s political capital – PRO act proves Birenbaum 21 Charles S. Birenbaum serves as the firm’s Chair of Northern California and Co-Chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment Practice’s Labor-Management Relations group. Chuck is an experienced labor and employment attorney who focuses his practice on traditional labor and employment law matters, and has wide-ranging experience litigating in state and federal courts as well as various administrative agencies. March 12, 2021. “The New New Deal? U.S. House Of Representatives Passes Sweeping Labor Reform With Significant but Uncertain Future” https://www.natlawreview.com/article/new-new-deal-us-house-representatives-passes-sweeping-labor-reform-significant Accessed 10/27 gord0 Unions are back in the news. On March 9, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives successfully passed the Protect the Right to Organize Act (the PRO Act), legislation designed to overhaul the current labor relations framework—touching on issues including independent contractors, joint employers, employee arbitration agreements, and new union organizing rules. While Senate passage may not happen, President Biden’s insistence on being the “most pro-union president” could make the PRO Act a legislative priority later in his term. I. Expanding the Class of Covered Employees The PRO Act contains a host of laws and definitional revisions that significantly expand the class of employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). a. Independent Contractor Classifications The PRO Act redefines “employees” under the NLRA, by codifying the “ABC Test” for independent contractors used by certain states (such as California and Massachusetts). In practice, this new definition will significantly expand the class of eligible “employees” entitled to unionization and collective bargaining rights by making it more difficult for employers to categorize workers as independent contractors. b. Joint-Employer Classifications The PRO Act redefines “employers” under the NLRA, by codifying the liberal joint-employer standard announced in Browning-Ferris Industries, (2015) 362 NLRB No. 186. The new standard looks to the “right-to-control” any terms and conditions of employment of a workforce, even if indirectly and even if never exercised in fact. This test will create labor liability for businesses that traditionally have not had that liability. c. State Right-To-Work Laws The PRO Act overturns all state “right-to-work” laws. States would no longer be able to prohibit union security and dues check-off clauses if placed in collective bargaining agreements. Mandatory union dues deduction for virtually all employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement could provide unions with financial incentives to bolster their efforts in the 27 states currently with right-to-work laws. d. Employee Arbitration Agreements The PRO Act outlaws class, collective, and joint-action employment arbitration agreements—rending them illegal. The change would circumvent the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (2018) 138 S. Ct. 1612, upholding the use of these types of agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act. II. Employer and Union Economic Pressure Tactics Hard bargaining is often an inescapable reality of unions relations, and one that has been finely tuned through legislation, litigation, and judicial precedent over the last 90 years. The PRO Act disrupts that balance by changing the rules of engagement for unions and employers alike—with preferential treatment of union rights. For unions, the PRO Act lifts the ban on previously prohibited tactics like recurrent and intermittent strikes, as well as secondary boycotts and related pressure tactics against neutral third parties, like the protest or picketing of an employer’s clients, customers, or vendors. For employers, the PRO Act goes the other direction by imposing new bans on previously common and currently lawful tactics, such as pre-strike lockouts and the hiring of permanent replacement workers for striking employees—a significant blow to employers’ bargaining leverage and ability to operate during a strike. III. Employer, Union, and Employee Communication Rights Communication during election campaigns and collective bargaining is integral for all sides—providing a platform to air grievances and novel perspectives on the relative pros and cons of unionization or contracted terms. The PRO Act alters these rights in several ways. For employers, the PRO Act prohibits the holding of mandatory employment meetings where they can educate employees on the employer’s historic experiences and perspectives. In contrast, the bill forces employers to allow employees to use company devices and email systems for any union organizing or concerted, protected activity—even though not work-related. And in advance of the elections themselves, employers are obligated to turn over employees’ personal contact information to unions. IV. Union Election and Collective Bargaining Practices Elections and collective bargaining lie at the heart of modern labor law. The PRO Act disrupts longstanding practices in these critical areas. On the elections side, the Act gives unions substantial control of the appropriate bargaining unit, as well as the method and location of elections, while depriving employers of standing to intervene in the decision-making process regarding those issues. When determining the results of an election, the Act imposes harsh penalties for the commission of unfair labor practices by the employer, including bargaining orders irrespective of employee votes against unionization. And once bargaining begins, in certain cases the parties are required to reach agreement within 90 days or become subject to mandatory mediation and interest arbitration—all of which stands as an overhaul to current practices. V. Increase in Employer Exposure Employer exposure for NLRA violations is also increased under the PRO Act. Liability would include: (a) backpay; (b) front pay; (c) consequential damages; (d) liquidated damages; (e) civil penalties; and (f) punitive damages. Depending on the violation and circumstances, civil penalties can range as high as $100,000 per violation and be imposed against employers, officers, and directors. The Act also gives employees a private right of action to pursue certain remedies in federal court—a break from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) prior jurisdictional exclusivity. VI. Moving Forward The PRO Act’s passage in the Senate appears a challenge. Despite sweeping approval by the House and even modest bipartisan support, Senate passage remains a significant hurdle. Under current Senate rules, to avoid filibuster, the Act would require all 50 Democratic votes and 10 Republican votes—neither of which appears likely based on recent history. And legislative alternatives to gridlock, such as budget reconciliation or abolishing the filibuster, may also encounter significant resistance. Given President Biden’s public and oft-repeated support for labor unions, it remains to be seen whether the PRO Act, and political capital necessary for its passage, ultimately become a larger priority for President Biden further into his term. Bidens PC is what got infrastructure through the senate, and its key now. Smith and Gambino 10/1 David Smith is the Guardian's Washington DC bureau chief. Lauren Gambino is political correspondent for Guardian US, based in Washington DC. October 1, 2021. “Biden upbeat on rare Capitol Hill visit but domestic agenda hangs in jeopardy” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/democrats-congress-biden-infrastructure-talks Accessed 10/25 gord0 Democrats returned to the Capitol on Friday deeply divided but determined to make progress on Joe Biden’s ambitious economic vision, after an embarrassing setback delayed a planned vote on a related $1tn measure to improve the nation’s infrastructure. Biden on Friday made a rare visit to Capitol Hill to meet privately with House Democrats amid a stalemate that has put his sprawling domestic agenda in jeopardy. The visit comes after after the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, delayed a vote on part of his economic agenda, a bipartisan $1tn public works measure, on Thursday night after a frantic day of negotiations failed to produce a deal. “We’re going to get this thing done,” Biden said, as he exited the caucus room. “It doesn’t matter when – it doesn’t matter whether it’s in six minutes, six days, or six weeks – we’re going to get it done.” Earlier in the day, Pelosi promised that there would be a “vote today” on the measure, an ambitious timeline that would require Democrats first reaching a compromise on the broader piece of Biden’s agenda that virtually every member of the party in both the House and Senate could support. But a resolution before the weekend appeared unlikely as Democrats remained deeply at odds over the scale and structure of a more expansive package containing containing a host of progressive priorities, provisions to expand health care access, establish paid leave, combat climate change and reduce poverty – all underwritten by tax increases on wealthy Americans and corporations. Democrats are trying to score a major legislative victory with razor-thin majorities in both chambers. Failure would deny Biden much of his domestic agenda, leaving the party with little to show for their time controlling the White House, the Senate and House – a governing trifecta they last enjoyed in 2010. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia has proposed a spending package of about $1.5tn – less than half the size of the proposal put forward by the president and Democratic leaders. Another Democratic centrist, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, declined to say whether she agreed with Manchin’s proposal. The wrangling resumed in the House on Friday morning, which, due to a quirk of process, remained in the legislative day of 30 September even as the calendar turned to October. Huddled together in an hours-long caucus meeting, Pelosi tried to steer the feuding factions within her party toward common ground after Thursday’s marathon negotiating session generated deepening acrimony and no deal. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, emerged from the morning gathering optimistic that Democrats would eventually pass both bills. But she remained firm in her position – and confident in her members – that there the infrastructure bill would not move forward without assurances that the Senate would pass Biden’s larger bill. “We’ve seen more progress in the last 48 hours than we’ve seen in a long time on reconciliation,” she said, crediting progressives’ infrastructure revolt for forcing Manchin and Sinema to the negotiating table. The decision to postpone the infrastructure vote was seen as a victory for progressives who were unwavering in their resolve to “hold the line” and vote against the bill unless they received “ironclad” commitments that Biden’s proposed $3.5tn social and environmental package would also pass. Many progressives also say they will withhold support for the infrastructure bill until the Senate passes the second piece of Biden’s economic agenda, legislation that has yet to be written. Jayapal made clear this was her preference, but later left the door open to the possibility that the party could reach an agreement without a vote. “If there’s something else that’s short of a vote … that gives me those same assurances, I want to listen to that,” she told reporters. The stalemate also laid bare deep ideological fractures within the party. Unlike the debate over Barack Obama’s healthcare legislation a decade ago, progressives appear to be more closely aligned with the president and able to flex their political muscles. On Thursday they were united in making the case that centrists are now in the minority. Varshini Prakash, executive director of Sunrise Movement, a youth group fighting the climate crisis, said: “Tonight, we are so proud of progressives for holding the line. But let’s be clear, progressives are not the ones delaying the vote – Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are.” Thursday’s delay could anger moderates and cause further infighting that puts Biden’s agenda at risk. Earlier this week Stephanie Murphy, a congresswoman from Florida, warned: “If the vote were to fail or be delayed, there would be a significant breach of trust.” Republicans who had supported the infrastructure bill in the Senate also acknowledged the setback. Senators Rob Portman, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney said in a joint statement: “While we are disappointed the House of Representatives did not meet its deadline to vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, we remain hopeful the House will come together in a spirit of bipartisanship just as the Senate did and pass this important piece of legislation. “This bill is critically important to modernizing and upgrading everything from our roads and bridges to broadband and increasing the resiliency of the nation’s electrical grid.” Both pieces of legislation are critical to Biden’s economic vision. While he has staked his domestic agenda – and his legacy – on a $3.5tn social policy package, he invested precious political capital in courting Republicans to support the infrastructure bill, part of a campaign promise to usher in a new era of bipartisanship in Congress. The bill passed the Senate in August, with 19 Republican votes and great fanfare. Infrastructure reform solves Climate Change, extinction! USA Today 7-20 7-20-2021 "Climate change is at 'code red' status for the planet, and inaction is no longer an option" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/todaysdebate/2021/07/20/climate-change-biden-infrastructure-bill-good-start/7877118002/Elmer Not long ago, climate change for many Americans was like a distant bell. News of starving polar bears or melting glaciers was tragic and disturbing, but other worldly. Not any more. Top climate scientists from around the world warned of a "code red for humanity" in a report issued Monday that says severe, human-caused global warming is become unassailable. Proof of the findings by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a now a factor of daily life. Due to intense heat waves and drought, 107 wildfires – including the largest ever in California – are now raging across the West, consuming 2.3 million acres. Earlier this summer, hundreds of people died in unprecedented triple-digit heat in Oregon, Washington and western Canada, when a "heat dome" of enormous proportions settled over the region for days. Some victims brought by stretcher into crowded hospital wards had body temperatures so high, their nervous systems had shut down. People collapsed trying to make their way to cooling shelters. Heat-trapping greenhouse gases Scientists say the event was almost certainly made worse and more intransigent by human-caused climate change. They attribute it to a combination of warming Arctic temperatures and a growing accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The consequences of what mankind has done to the atmosphere are now inescapable. Periods of extreme heat are projected to double in the lower 48 states by 2100. Heat deaths are far outpacing every other form of weather killer in a 30-year average. A persistent megadrought in America's West continues to create tinder-dry conditions that augur another devastating wildfire season. And scientists say warming oceans are fueling ever more powerful storms, evidenced by Elsa and the early arrival of hurricane season this year. Increasingly severe weather is causing an estimated $100 billion in damage to the United States every year. "It is honestly surreal to see your projections manifesting themselves in real time, with all the suffering that accompanies them. It is heartbreaking," said climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe. Rising seas from global warming Investigators are still trying to determine what led to the collapse of a Miami-area condominium that left more than 100 dead or missing. But one concerning factor is the corrosive effect on reinforced steel structures of encroaching saltwater, made worse in Florida by a foot of rising seas from global warming since the 1900s. The clock is ticking for planet Earth. While the U.N. report concludes some level of severe climate change is now unavoidable, there is still a window of time when far more catastrophic events can be mitigated. But mankind must act soon to curb the release of heat-trapping gases. Global temperature has risen nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the pre-industrial era of the late 19th century. Scientists warn that in a decade, it could surpass a 2.7-degree increase. That's enough warming to cause catastrophic climate changes. After a brief decline in global greenhouse gas emissions during the pandemic, pollution is on the rise. Years that could have been devoted to addressing the crisis were wasted during a feckless period of inaction by the Trump administration. Congress must act Joe Biden won the presidency promising broad new policies to cut America's greenhouse gas emissions. But Congress needs to act on those ideas this year. Democrats cannot risk losing narrow control of one or both chambers of Congress in the 2022 elections to a Republican Party too long resistant to meaningful action on the climate. So what's at issue? A trillion dollar infrastructure bill negotiated between Biden and a group of centrist senators (including 10 Republicans) is a start. In addition to repairing bridges, roads and rails, it would improve access by the nation's power infrastructure to renewable energy sources, cap millions of abandoned oil and gas wells spewing greenhouse gases, and harden structures against climate change. It also offers tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles and funds the construction of charging stations. (The nation's largest source of climate pollution are gas-powered vehicles.) Senate approval could come very soon. Much more is needed if the nation is going to reach Biden's necessary goal of cutting U.S. climate pollution in half from 2005 levels by 2030. His ideas worth considering include a federal clean electricity standard for utilities, federal investments and tax credits to promote renewable energy, and tens of billions of dollars in clean energy research and development, including into ways of extracting greenhouse gases from the skies. Another idea worth considering is a fully refundable carbon tax. The vehicle for these additional proposals would be a second infrastructure bill. And if Republicans balk at the cost of such vital investment, Biden is rightly proposing to pass this package through a process known as budget reconciliation, which allows bills to clear the Senate with a simple majority vote. These are drastic legislative steps. But drastic times call for them. And when Biden attends a U.N. climate conference in November, he can use American progress on climate change as a mean of persuading others to follow our lead. Further delay is not an option.