Whitman College 1Tournament 2008 File Title

Russia Economy DA

1NC Shell................................................................................................................41NC Shell................................................................................................................5Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now.................................................6Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now.................................................7Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now.................................................8Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now.................................................9Uniqueness – Russia Econ Brink..........................................................................10Links – Generic.....................................................................................................11Links – Generic.....................................................................................................12Links – Funding Tradeoff......................................................................................13Links – Launch Capability.....................................................................................14Internal Links – Russian Aerospace Key to Economy...........................................15Internal Links – Russian Aerospace Key to Economy...........................................16Internal Links – Russian Areospace Key to Economy...........................................17Impacts – Economic Collapse War....................................................................18Impacts – Economic Collapse War....................................................................19Impacts – Iran Prolif.............................................................................................20Impacts – Iran Prolif.............................................................................................21Impacts - Warming................................................................................................22Impacts – Terrorism..............................................................................................23Impacts – Terrorism..............................................................................................24Diversification Module..........................................................................................25Brain Drain – Economy Module............................................................................26Brain Drain – Economy Module............................................................................27Brain Drain – ISS Module.....................................................................................28Brain Drain Uniqueness EXT................................................................................29Brain Drain Links EXT..........................................................................................30Brain Drain Impacts EXT......................................................................................312NC Answers To Prolif Good................................................................................32

Whitman College 2Tournament 2008 File Title

1NC Shell

Russian space competitiveness is increasing nowGPS World, Putin replaces head of Russian space agency says space a priority, may.3.2011, http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/glonass/news/putin-replaces-head-russian-space-agency-says-space-a-priority-11579On Saturday, Putin said that development and advancement of the national rocket and space industry is a priority for Russia. According to RIA Novosti, Putin spoke at a meeting with scientists from Penza's Research Institute of Physical Measurements."From the perspective of the country's defensive capacity the rocket and space industry...is an absolute priority along with the nuclear industry and its military branch," Putin said. About 153 billion rubles will be allocated to the national rocket and space industry this year, which is 30 percent more than in 2010, Putin said, adding that the branch has shown a 18 percent growth even despite the consequences of the global financial crisis. "We have the absolute competitive advantage in rocket engineering, many of our partners lag behind us, but in several spheres we have to catch up." The Russian defense industry complex is globally competitive, the premier added.

Russia’s space program would collapse without NASA being strapped for cashJames Oberg, space analyst for NBC News, and Johnson Space Center Mission Control operator and orbital designer, “Now, NASA and Russians need each other”, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26975208/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/now-nasa-russians-ne ed-each-other/The first step in a "get better" strategy is to stop going into the U.S.-Russian deal acting as if the U.S. was over a barrel. Playing the preordained patsy is a sure way to prompt the Russians to escalate their demands, in space and back on Earth. The truth is, while NASA has become dependent on the Russian contribution to the international space station, the Russians' manned space program has become even more dependent on the station (and U.S. support of it). If NASA will have to depend on the Russians to transport astronauts between Earth and space for several years, it won't be any different from the situation that existed from 2003 to mid-2005.The Russians are stuck with a different kind of dependence. The American half of the space station provides their modules with critical power and communications resources, not to mention advanced research devices, that they have never been able to build themselves. While it may become technically feasible at some future point to unhook their section and fly free, this will only become possible after several more expansion modules are added at their end, some of them carried aboard the remaining space shuttle missions. By that time, NASA and its partners in Europe, Japan and Canada will have a facility that contains (or has access to) all the critical functions that in the first decade of operation were provided by Russian hardware. Moreover, even if the Russians did cut loose their section at that point, they would be thrown back to the meager level of operations they suffered through a quarter-century ago — a primitive mode which even their own experts have now come to denounce as useless grandstanding. There would also be a legal dispute over who actually owns the U.S.-financed, Russian-built Zarya cargo module. NASA has no practical need of it now, except that the Russians want it, which makes it far more valuable as a bargaining chip than as a space asset. From the beginning, the Clinton White House and then-NASA Administrator Dan Goldin misrepresented the plans and their implementation. Russia was quickly placed “in the critical path” for orbital hardware and space transportation. (Their self-esteem demanded it, one White House adviser asserted.) Alternate NASA-only approaches were scrapped. But this reliance works both ways: The U.S. space effort is in the Russians' critical path, and they have a lot fewer resources for setting off down a different path. Hard as it may be to visualize at the moment, they’d be a

Whitman College 3Tournament 2008 File Title

lot worse off without NASA than NASA would be without them. Follow the space money. When the cash flow factor is added in, the idea that the U.S. space effort is helplessly dependent on the Russians looks even more preposterous. It has been Western money, mostly from the U.S., that over the past 15 years has kept the Russian space industry alive. Despite a budget surplus, the Kremlin has been and continues to be stingy with federal allocations, requiring space organizations to earn a large fraction of their money overseas — and even pay taxes on their earnings. Recent Moscow promises to double the space budget have wilted in the face of crashing oil and gas prices.

Whitman College 4Tournament 2008 File Title

1NC Shell

Space is key to Russia’s economy – diversificationAlexei Arbatov, NDU Press author, Russian perspectives on space power, toward a theory of spacepower, 2007, http://www.ndu.edu/press/space-Ch23.htmlBy the level of budget allocation, Russia is lagging far behind the leading spacefaring nations. The United States is firmly in first place, followed by the European Union (through the European Space Agency [ESA]), Japan, China, Russia, and then India. At the same time, the space plans and ambitions of Russia, and its remaining scientific-industrial potential and infrastructure, are much greater than its current budgets would imply. Hence, Russia has a major interest in expanding its role in international space cooperation. Furthermore, Russia's role in world trade is much too dependent on its export of raw natural resources, which is characteristic of developing countries. Besides trade in arms and nuclear materials and technologies, cooperation in space activities is one of very few high-technology export items that Russia can pursue in the near- to mid-term future. That is why this trade channel is so important to Russia both from the angle of status and prestige and in view of the revenues it brings to its underfunded space programs and assets.

Economic depression causes Russian disintegrationSteven R David. Foreign Affairs. “Saving America from the coming civil wars” 2/1999

Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely.

That goes nuclearSteven R David. Foreign Affairs. “Saving America from the coming civil wars” 2/1999

Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,ooo nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much materiel. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is

Whitman College 5Tournament 2008 File Title

hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war.

Whitman College 6Tournament 2008 File Title

Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now

The cancelation of US space programs has opened space for Russia to achieve space leadershipSRAS, School of Russian and Asian Studies, Russia may become ‘absolute’ leader in space exploration, 2010, http://www.sras.org/russia_may_become_absolute_leader_in_space_exploration%20DHThe U.S. administration's decision to abandon ambitious space exploration programs, including a manned Lunar mission in 2020, is giving Russia a chance to strengthen its position in manned space flight projects, Yuri Kara, a member of Russia's Tsiolkovsky Cosmonautics Academy, told Interfax-AVN. "In my opinion, Russia has received an amazing carte blanche in order to take over the 'flag' of the leadership in space exploration from the United States," Kara said. On Monday, President Barack Obama announced in his 2011 budget request that he would cancel U.S. plans to send humans back to the moon, saying the project was too expensive. In the next 5-7 years, Russia will be the only country capable of delivering crewmembers to the International Space Station. But Russia should also start working on a manned mission to Mars, the expert said. "Today, Russia needs to focus its efforts on the Mars program. The time has come for it to become the absolute space leader," Kara said. In this case, "other states will join" space exploration projects implemented by Russia, he said. "I am not speaking about Russia's monopoly on this area. But it [Russia] has been playing a leading role and, consequently, it will be able to determine the configuration of the future Mars mission," he added.

Competitiveness now – Paris air show provesLiverpool Daily Post, Russia and China pose new threat to plane makers, june.22.2011, http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/ldpbusiness/business-local/2011/06/22/russia-and-china-pose-new-threat-to-planemakers-92534-28918003/

RYANAIR yesterday signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese planemaker COMAC that covers the development of a medium- sized airliner over the next seven years. The new plane would potentially represent an alternative to Ryanair’s traditionally favoured Boeings. Whether this memorandum amounts to much is a moot point. Many in the aviation industry see it as nothing more than the usual bluster that comes out of Dublin when Ryanair isn’t getting its own way. The deal with COMAC needs to be seen in the context of Ryanair’s failure to screw down the price of Boeings or Airbus planes. On the other hand, it may turn out the memorandum represents the start of a new era in the civil aerospace market. To date, airlines have been restricted to a simple choice between buying from America’s Boeing or Europe’s Airbus. A third manufacturer would significantly change the market place and in particular give airlines greater power when it comes to haggling over price. Nor might it end there. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was at the Paris airshow yesterday, raising the possibility that his country might also enter the fray. State-owned United Aircraft Corp, which owns Sukhoi, believes it can become a serious force in the commercial market by 2025, pinning its hopes on its mid-sized MS-21/MC-21 airliner. That could create a fourth player in the plane manufacturing market, resulting in genuine competition from economies that are able to utilise much cheaper labour than is available in Europe and the US. Europe’s and America’s ascendancy in this market may be coming to an end.

Whitman College 7Tournament 2008 File Title

Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now

Russian space competitiveness now Russia Times, revitalizing russia’s aviation industry, 2010, http://rt.com/news/russia-aviation-industry-sukhoi/Just ten years ago Russia’s aviation industry was all but grounded, but in the past five years the state has increased funding twenty times. Russian aviation industry is being cleared for take-off once again. In the beginning of this decade, Russia’s civil aircraft production had had its wings clipped so much that no more than a dozen or so planes limped off the production lines each year – a far cry from the heady heights of the USSR, when Soviet jets thrust for dominance in the skies against Boeings and Airbuses, making up a quarter of the world’s fleet. In 2006, the Russian government decided to do something about this jet lag and created the United Aircraft Corporation, or UAC, consolidating aircraft construction companies and state assets in the industry. Today, Russian plane-makers even say they are ready to eat into the lucrative market of the world leaders, Airbus and Boeing. “Our main problem is that we have fallen terrifyingly behind in terms of technology,” admits UAC President Aleksey Fedorov, “all our enterprises – especially aircraft manufacturers and designers – need to be massively re-equipped with the very latest equipment. That will take a lot of investment and we hope with the help of the state we’ll make that break-through that will allow us to compete with the world’s leading producers.” And while a brand spanking new range of all-singing, all-dancing Russian-made passenger jets is still far from taking off, there's much hope on the horizon. Despite many problems, those dealing with them on the ground are convinced the lowest point of the crisis has already passed, and they believe there’s a bright future for the Russian aviation industry.

Russia’s space industry is competitive nowRIA Novosti, putin calls development of space industry russia’s top priority, april.30.2011, http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110430/163794807.htmlDevelopment and advancement of the national rocket and space industry is a priority for Russia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Saturday. "From the perspective of the country's defensive capacity the rocket and space industry...is an absolute priority along with the nuclear industry and its military branch," Putin said during a meeting with scientists from Penza's Research Institute of Physical Measurements. About 153 billion rubles will be allocated to the national rocket and space industry this year, which is 30 percent higher than in 2010, Putin said, adding that the branch has shown a 18 percent growth even despite the consequences of the global financial crisis. "We have the absolute competitive advantage in rocket engineering, many of our partners lag behind us, but in several spheres we have to catch up." On the whole, the Russian defense industry complex is globally competitive, the premier added.

Russia is building space leadership nowHuffington Post, Russia plans space program expansion and moon base by 2030, April, 10,2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/10/russia-space-program-expansion-_n_846702.htmlRussia is planning a massive increase in its space launches and may even build a base on the moon as part of a manned mission to Mars in the next two decades, according to reports. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Thursday that his country's plans go well beyond transporting crews to the International Space Station. With a 2010-2011 space budget estimated at 200 billion rubles ($7.09 billion), Russia is the world's fourth-largest spender on space after U.S. space agency NASA, the European Space Agency and France,

Whitman College 8Tournament 2008 File Title

Reuters reports. "Russia should not limit itself to the role of an international space ferryman. We need to increase our presence on the global space market," Putin is quoted as having said at his residence outside Moscow. The meeting was planned specifically to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's pioneering space flight. Other reports cite official documents which claim a manned Russian mission to Mars could be possible in 2030 following the creation of a moon base. "Above all, we are talking about flights to the moon and the creation of a base close to its north pole where there is likely to be a source of water," read one of the documents, according to the Telegraph.

Whitman College 9Tournament 2008 File Title

Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now

Russia’s space industry is booming nowBloomberg, Russia speeds up space mission plans as U.S. may cut spending, april.5.2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/russia-speeds-up-moon-mars-plans-as-u-s-may-cut-space-funds.htmlRussia may accelerate planned missions to the moon and Mars as it seeks to maintain its lead over China in space exploration and close the gap with the U.S. Russia may start manned flights to the moon by the end of the decade, 10 years earlier than previously planned, and establish a base there by 2030, according to Russia’s Roscosmos space agency. Russia may also send a man to Mars by 2040. “It is the first time that the government has allocated decent financing to us,” Anatoly Perminov, head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos, said in a phone interview on April 2. The agency’s $3.5 billion budget for 2011 has almost tripled since 2007, reaching the highest since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 . “We can now advance on all themes a bit,” Perminov said. Unlike 50 years ago, when beating the U.S. into space marked a geopolitical victory in the Cold War, Russia is focusing on the commercial, technological and scientific aspects of space travel. President Dmitry Medvedev has named aerospace one of five industries the government plans to nurture to help diversify the economy of the world’s largest energy supplier away from resource extraction. “We are increasing the space budget as the time has come for a technological breakthrough,” Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, said by phone yesterday. “We need to replace outdated infrastructure and continue to support the flagship status of the space industry.”

Decline of US space programs leads to Russian space leadershipInterfax-AVN, Russia's space exploration plans won't change - agency chie, BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 2010, LexisThe head of Roskosmos [Russian Space Agency], Anatoliy Perminov, has said that the United States' abandonment of its lunar programme will not bring about changes to the Russian space policy. "Our programme for the near future did not include the development of lunar settlements. We need not be swaying from side to side," Perminov said at the Security Technologies exhibition commenting on the latest space policy decisions by the US administration. The head of Roskosmos said that a number of decisions taken by the US president "fully coincide" with the Russian and European vision of the prospects for space activities. [The head of Roskosmos' manned programmes, Aleksey Krasnov, has said, as quoted by Interfax-AVN: "We need some time to understand what is happening in the USA. I think that all the partners will start thinking about it. Because this has once again confirmed that initiatives like the lunar programme initiative of Bush (former US President George Bush Jr - Interfax-AVN), in terms of expenditures their implementation requires, are unmanageable even for an economy as developed as that of the USA. This is a very serious signal to everyone." US decision opportunity for Russia to become world leader in space exploration. In the meantime, Yuriy Kara, corresponding member of Russia's Tsiolkovskiy Academy of Cosmonautics, has told Interfax-AVN that the US decision to scrap its lunar programme has presented Russia with an opportunity to become the world leader in manned space programmes: "I think that Russia is getting a fantastic carte blanche to pick up the banner of space leadership which is falling out of the hands of the United States." "Russia should focus its efforts on Mars and become not a relative but the absolute space leader," he said.]

Whitman College 10Tournament 2008 File Title

Uniqueness – Russia Space Competitiveness Now

US decline in space leadership is driving Russia’s space program.Russia Now, space programme: American astronauts hitching a ride with Russia’s soyuz, july.7.2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/society/7559293/Space-programme-American-astronauts-hitching-a-ride-with-Russias-Soyuz.htmlWhile Moscow expands its space programme and designates 2011 as the year of the Russian cosmonaut, the United States is cutting back on its investment in space exploration and preparing for increased cooperation with the Russians On April 2, new Soyuz crew members, two Russians and one American, launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Circling the planet, the crew will engage in intense cooperation unknown on the ground. Down on earth, Russian-American space cooperation has increased, but there is also unease as the power of the players is shifting. Russia will fuel space exploration once again, while the US vision appears dampened. America is relying more and more on the Russian federal space programme for key assistance. As the United States reprioritises its programmes, the country will rely on Russia to take its astronauts into space. Nasa has long spent more money on more programmes than Russia's space agency. But President Barack Obama has slashed Nasa's dreams of returning to the moon. Building new spacecraft for the exploration of Mars is again a flight of fancy. At the same time, the Russian space industry is once more feeling the warm glow of state backing. There has been concerted investment in recent years, an investment that fits in well with the Putin doctrine of trying to restore Russian pride through capacity.

Russian aerospace sector is rising nowThe Hindu, Russia to accelerate GLONASS navigation satellite launches, june.1.2011, http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/article2068270.eceRussia will accelerate the pace of communications satellite launches to give its GLONASS navigation system full global coverage capacity by the end of the year, a senior government official said Wednesday. Russia’s national space agency is planning to place into orbit six new GLONASS navigation satellites by the end of 2011, said Anatoly Shilov, a spokesman for Russia’s National Space Agency. GLONASS is a Russia-developed satellite-navigation system similar to the U.S.-developed GPS. The Russian network currently operates 23 satellites, giving coverage of Russia and the former Soviet Union. It needs between 25 and 30 aloft to provide global coverage, according to news reports. A top government priority for GLONASS is tracking automobiles and helping motorists find routes, said Vice Premier Sergei Ivanov, who, like Mr. Shilov, spoke at a Moscow satellite communications conference. All lorries operating in Russia will, by the end of 2014, be equipped with a GLONASS-technology transponder which will assist the government in collecting road tax and providing quick assistance in case of accidents, Mr. Ivanov said. Testing of the lorry-tracking system, called ERA, will begin by the end of 2011, he said. Once the GLONASS global satellite constellation is complete at 30 satellites, it will be able to pinpoint users’ locations with less than a three-metre margin of error - which would make the Russian system roughly twice as accurate as the US’ GPS system, Mr. Shilov said, according to Interfax. A U.S. official speaking at the Wednesday conference criticized the planned new Russian laws mandating installation of GLONASS equipment in all new cars and lorries sold in Russia, while at the same time placing import taxes on satellite-navigations receivers using GPS technology. Russia suffered a setback in December 2010 when three GLONASS satellites worth 160 million dollars failed to reach the correct orbit. Investigators later blamed ground crew who had pumped too much fuel into a booster rocket. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is a strong supporter of GLONASS, which originally was developed for Soviet military use. Mr. Putin in 2007 broke with longstanding government bias towards secrecy to order full civilian access to the system. Russia over the last decade has spent some 4.7 billion dollars on putting GLONASS into operation, making the satellite communications network the country’s most expensive space project.

Whitman College 11Tournament 2008 File Title

Whitman College 12Tournament 2008 File Title

Uniqueness – Russia Econ Brink

Russian economy stable now and predicted to growInternational Herald Tribune, Russian stock market is set to rise, may.23.2011, http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2936533Landwehr believes the Russian market is expected to grow because it is now relatively cheap compared to other equity markets around the world. “We do believe that the Russian market has growth in the mid- to long-term. And we generally expect growth to be in line with the [Russian corporate] earnings forecast. And those earnings forecast would be between 25 percent and 35 percent and that is roughly what we expect on an annual basis,” said Landwehr. “We often say that the Russian market is very cheap because of corporate governance issues and so forth .?.?. But the Russian equity market is volatile. And so we do suggest investors to have a mid- to long-term outlook. So this is really one to two year investments. And at the current valuation, it is cheap anyway but we recommend them to buy on dips.” Another reason that the Russian market still has more room to rise is that it is still only 30 to 40 percent of peak prices in 2008. “Obviously if you invested in 2009, you would be very happy. But I don’t think the performance of the last two years should discourage investors because we still think it has room to rise.”

Russia’s economy is on the brink nowThe Moscow News, home truths about growth, june.16.2011, http://themoscownews.com/business/20110616/188762238.htmlThe St. Petersburg International Economic Forum has kicked off with official assurances that Russia’s economy is on the way to recovering the estimated 8 percent of growth it lost in the downturn. Sadly the truth is less comfortable. Wealth destroyed and opportunities lost cannot be regained. It may be good politics to say the loss was only temporary, but good housekeeping demands the honest assessment that the economy must step up several gears if it is to deliver higher living standards in the future. Clifford Gaddy, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, says it is wrong to blame oil for the underdevelopment of Russia’s economy. In a commentary on the Valdai Discussion Club website, he says: “The causes of Russia’s backwardness lie in its inherited production structure. The physical structure of the real economy (that is, the industries, plants, their location, work forces, equipment, products, and the production chains in which they participate) is predominantly the same as in the Soviet era." Much of Russia’s oil wealth is spent on supporting that structure and, Gaddy says, current efforts at modernizing the economy do not change that. Diversifying from oil and gas is “fashionable talk”. Growing new industries would take time and deliver a fraction of the income. On the other hand, freed from the need to support outdated Sovietera industries, Russia’s oil and gas companies could invest in becoming truly competitive. A modern, open, international energy sector is the key, he says, to higher growth.

Whitman College 13Tournament 2008 File Title

Links – Generic

US decline in space leadership is key to Russian ascendencyFutron, U.S. edge erodes non-traditional players ascend and competition intensifies, 2010, http://www.futron.com/1254.xml?id=1022“The 2010 results show that even as countries continue to collaborate in space, competition is growing more intense,” observes Futron Chief Operating Officer Peggy Slye. “Dominant actors are increasingly challenged by a second and third tier of space leaders, and the competitive gaps among all nations are narrowing.” The U.S. remains the clear global leader, but the county’s position has eroded in each of the past three years. The formulation of a new national space policy is a step in the right direction, but as Futron CEO Joe Fuller notes, “To retain its leadership position, the U.S. must leverage its secret space weapon—American industry—and align it with strategy, policy, and budget.” In 2010, Russia was a clear winner, based on the doubling of its space budget and renewed focus on monetizing national space investment. “NASA and the U.S. government could learn a lot from Russia,” says Jonathan Beland, a Futron analyst specializing in the region. “Russia has become partner of choice for space agencies around the work seeking to develop new capacity. From South Korea to China, from private enterprise to governments, Russia is capitalizing on its space investments and developing long-term relationships with emerging powers.”

US decline in space competitiveness leads to growth in Russian aerospace.The Washington Post, U.S. finds it’s getting crowded out there, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070803185.html?sid=ST2008070900751The study by Futron, which consults for public clients such as NASA and the Defense Department, as well as the private space industry, also reported that the United States is losing its dominance in orbital launches and satellites built. In 2007, 53 American-built satellites were launched -- about 50 percent of the total. In 1998, 121 new U.S. satellites went into orbit. In two areas, the space prowess of the United States still dominates. Its private space industry earned 75 percent of the worldwide corporate space revenue, and the U.S. military has as many satellites as all other nations combined. But that, too, is changing. Russia has increased its military space spending considerably since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In May, Japan's parliament authorized the use of outer space for defense purposes, signaling increased spending on rockets and spy satellites. And China's military is building a wide range of capabilities in space, a commander of U.S. space forces said last month. Last year, China tested its ground-based anti-satellite technology by destroying an orbiting weather satellite -- a feat that left behind a cloud of dangerous space debris and considerable ill will. Ironically, efforts to deny space technology to potential enemies have hampered American cooperation with other nations and have limited sales of U.S.-made hardware. Concerned about Chinese use of space technology for military purposes, Congress ramped up restrictions on rocket and satellite sales, and placed them under the cumbersome International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). In addition, sales of potentially "dual use" technology have to be approved the State Department rather than the Commerce Department. The result has been a surge of rocket and satellite production abroad and the creation of foreign-made satellites that use only homegrown components to avoid complex U.S. restrictions under ITAR and the Iran Nonproliferation Act. That law, passed in 2000, tightened a ban on direct or indirect sales of advanced technology to Iran (especially by Russia). As a result, a number of foreign governments are buying European satellites and paying the Chinese, Indian and other space programs to launch them. "Some of these companies moved ahead in some areas where, I'm sorry to say, we are no longer the world leaders," Griffin said. Joan Johnson-Freese, a space and national security expert at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, said the United States has been so determined to maintain military space dominance that it is losing ground in commercial

Whitman College 14Tournament 2008 File Title

space uses and space exploration. "We're giving up our civilian space leadership, which many of us think will have huge strategic implications," she said. "Other nations are falling over each other to work together in space; they want to share the costs and the risks," she added. "Because of the dual-use issue, we really don't want to globalize."

Whitman College 15Tournament 2008 File Title

Links – Generic

Reductions of US space leadership promotes growth in Russian aerospaceThe Washington Post, U.S. finds it’s getting crowded out there, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070803185.html?sid=ST2008070900751Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields -- and owns half the military satellites currently orbiting Earth -- experts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other nations are expanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace. "We spent many tens of billions of dollars during the Apollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth," said NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who said his agency's budget is down by 20 percent in inflation-adjusted terms since 1992. "We've been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40 years and have not . . . chosen to invest at a level that would preserve that commanding lead." In a recent in-depth study of international space competitiveness, the technology consulting firm Futron of Bethesda found that the globalizing of space is unfolding more broadly and quickly than most Americans realize. "Systemic and competitive forces threaten U.S. space leadership," company president Joseph Fuller Jr. concluded. Six separate nations and the European Space Agency are now capable of sending sophisticated satellites and spacecraft into orbit -- and more are on the way. New rockets, satellites and spacecraft are being planned to carry Chinese, Russian, European and Indian astronauts to the moon, to turn Israel into a center for launching minuscule "nanosatellites," and to allow Japan and the Europeans to explore the solar system and beyond with unmanned probes as sophisticated as NASA's. While the United States has been making incremental progress in space, its global rivals have been taking the giant steps that once defined NASA: · Following China's lead, India has announced ambitious plans for a manned space program, and in

November the European Union will probably approve a proposal to collaborate on a manned space effort with Russia. Russia will soon launch rockets from a base in South America under an agreement with the European company Arianespace, whose main launch facility is in Kourou, French Guiana. · Japan and China both have satellites circling the moon, and India and Russia are also working on lunar orbiters. NASA will launch a lunar reconnaissance mission this

year, but many analysts believe the Chinese will be the first to return astronauts to the moon. The United States is largely out of the business of launching satellites for other nations, something the Russians, Indians, Chinese and Arianespace do regularly. Their clients include Nigeria, Singapore, Brazil, Israel and others. The 17-nation European Space Agency (ESA) and China are also cooperating on commercial ventures, including a rival to the U.S. space-based Global Positioning System.

Private investment funding would tradeoff with NASA funding Russian AerospaceMentor, J. VanDomele, Holy outsourcing Batman, 4.26.2011, http://blogs.mentor.com/jvandomelen/blog/tag/soyuz/When the Space Shuttle retires as scheduled in June, NASA will be dependent on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). Based on a recent $753 million contract NASA awarded to the Russian Federal Space Agency , these outsourced services cost U.S. taxpayers roughly $63 million per seat. It’s doubtless a hefty price tag, but NASA lacks U.S.-based alternatives—so far, anyway. American businesses are, nonetheless, vying for agency funds with which to advance U.S.-built spacecraft and related technologies. Such a contract was just announced; yet, the contract amount is but 10 percent of that awarded to Russia’s space agency.

Whitman College 16Tournament 2008 File Title

Links – Funding Tradeoff

Private investment trades of with Russia Space ProgramAtlas Aerospace, Obama administration proposes flat NASA budget, 2.15.2011, http://www.atlasaerospace.net/eng/newsi-r.htm?id=5348Bretton Alexander, president of the Commercial Space Federation, said the agency's commitment to private-sector launch services is crucial to the long-term health of the manned space program. "In this constrained fiscal environment, commercial spaceflight is more important than ever," he said in a statement. "NASA's Commercial Crew program will result in significant savings to the U.S. taxpayer, and will cut the amount of money the nation has been sending to Russia every year. Leveraging private investment is the only way NASA can make its dollars go farther in these times of belt tightening." NASA currently plans to launch just three more shuttle missions: Discovery on Feb. 24, Endeavour on April 19 and Atlantis around June 28. The Atlantis flight has not yet been officially funded, but NASA managers say the mission is vital to the space station's long-term health.

Private sector spending trades off with Russian aerospaceParabolic Arc, new competitive space task force launches, 2.8.11, http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/02/08/competitive-space-task-force-launches/Retired Congressman and former Chairman of the House Science Committee Robert S. Walker remarked, The Space Economy is emerging as the next great frontier for economic expansion and U.S. leadership. If we really want to win the future, we cannot abandon our commitment to space exploration and human spaceflight. The fastest path to space is not through Moscow, but through the American entrepreneur. �In recent years, between the long-planned retirement of the Space Shuttle and the cancellation of Constellation and NASA’s troubled Ares rocket program, the U.S. has grown increasingly reliant on the Russian Soyuz for transportation to and from the International Space Station costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over just the next few years. Rather than funding the Russian space program, the U.S. could be creating jobs at home by relying instead on Americas private space industry. Americas dependence on the Russian program is complicated by our foreign policy as we seek to discourage the Russians from aiding U.S. adversaries in the development of nuclear weaponry and missile technology.

Whitman College 17Tournament 2008 File Title

Links – Launch Capability

US launch inferiority drives Russian space program and competitiveness.Michael Nobel, Vice Commander, Space Based Infrared Systems Wing at Air Force Space Command, Export Controls and United States Space Power, Astropolitics, Volume 6, Issue 3 2008, pages 251 – 312, InformaworldTwelve nations now have the capacity to launch their own satellites.11 To illustrate, China, Europe, India, Japan, Russia, Israel, and Ukraine all have their own launch capability. 12 As of 2000, there were 15 active orbital launch sites outside of the U.S., stretching from Plesetsk in Russia to Woomera in Australia to Alcantara in Brazil.13 Though not a zero-sum game, the growth in foreign commercial launch has come at some expense to U.S. market share. According to data compiled by Futron, from 2001 to 2005, the U.S. was responsible for 30% of the space launches around the world, ranking second behind Russia at 40%, and ahead of Europe and China at 11% and 9% respectively.14 These figures represent a considerable retreat in U.S. global market share when one considers that in 1998 U.S.-based launch providers accounted for 47% of the international commercial market.15 Similarly, the U.S. share of global space launch revenue declined from 66% in 2003, to 37% in 2006. The general consensus among industry analysts is that the U.S. is losing commercial launch market share and Europe and Russia are noteworthy benefactors of these U.S. losses.16 Of course, U.S. global market share is not the principal concern of export controls, though it is an indicator of export control effectiveness. Rather, U.S. export controls are more concerned with the relative performance of foreign systems to those of U.S. origin as it pertains to protecting a U.S. technological lead and preventing the proliferation of technologies and systems to adversaries. For launchers, the two most critical performance metrics are cost and reliability; the U.S. is challenged internationally in both of these metrics. In comparing price per pound to orbit as shown in Table 1, Futron found that western—U.S. and European—launch prices were significantly greater than non-western—Chinese, Russian, and Ukrainian—launch prices. Futron attributed this discrepancy to labor and infrastructure cost differences. The falling dollar and non-western labor cost increases may mitigate these discrepancies, but the mere fact of reliable cost-advantaged foreign launch suggests U.S. export controls have been anything but prohibitive of the development of these foreign industries. A competitive advantage in cost can be overcome by performance. Here too, foreign launch providers have achieved approximate parity with the U.S. Russia has achieved the best performance of any state with a success rate of 93.5% based on launch statistics compiled through the year 2000; Europe was the next most reliable launcher with a success rate of 90.7%; and the U.S. was third with 87.5%. Given the timeframe represented, these statistics suggest a long-standing parity, even a Russian/European advantage, in international launch capability consistent with the aforementioned launch activity statistics and trends.17

The launch market is a key indicator for space competitivenessMichael Nobel, Vice Commander, Space Based Infrared Systems Wing at Air Force Space Command, Export Controls and United States Space Power, Astropolitics, Volume 6, Issue 3 2008, pages 251 – 312, InformaworldThe launch market is of particular concern due to the cascading effect it can have on other elements of commercial space. As international competitors offer launch at lower prices than the U.S., they can then package satellites with launchers for a lower priced “turn-key” solutions than satellites packaged on U.S. launchers. This provides a significant competitive advantage. Any profits can be rolled back into satellite and launch technologies further enhancing competitiveness. Conceptually, this leads to a

Whitman College 18Tournament 2008 File Title

“snowball effect” in market share. From an export control vantage point, this snowball effect translates to growing erosion in U.S. technological superiority, or worse, a growth in foreign technological superiority.

Whitman College 19Tournament 2008 File Title

Internal Links – Russian Aerospace Key to Economy

Space is key to Russian economic competitivenessYuriy Karash, PhD specializes in space politics and international relations and is a member of Russian Cosmonautics Academy, 2009, http://www.scenariothinking.org/wiki/index.php/What_is_the_science_and_technology_focus_for_Russia,_military_weapons%3FAddressing a conference in Novo-Ogarevo 25 August, Premier Vladimir Putin made two very important statements concerning the country's national space rocket sector and, consequently, Russia's scientific and technical potential as a whole, since this sector is a key factor in the development of the country's high technologies. First, the premier emphasized that, despite the economic difficulties, funding for space activities will remain among the budget priorities. In 2009 approximately 82 billion roubles will be allocated to purposes of research and space exploration. Second, the chairman of the government defined three promising areas of this activity -manned cosmonautics, production of spacecraft for booster rockets, and the provision of services in launching space freight. Such a distribution of priorities marks a departure from the tradition whereby the country's leadership put in first place not manned cosmonautics but applied, unmanned cosmonautics (satellites for resolving various kinds of economic and defence tasks and commercial launches). The fact that the main emphasis is now being placed on the creation of inhabited space complexes and craft attests that the country's leadership has become aware of the importance of preserving and developing the kind of space activity which is key to Russia's science and technology and to its image and in which our country is still the world leader. However, the way in which Russia intends to maintain this leadership gives rise to questions.

Aerospace key to Russian EconomyUK Trade & Investment, Aerospace opportunities in Russia, 2010, http://static.globaltrade.net/files/pdf/20110120165146.pdfWhy Russia? Aerospace is one of the Russia's highest value adding manufacturing sectors, with between 275 and 300 aerospace companies, including 108 industrial producers, and 111 R&D and design bureaus. The Russian aerospace industry is one of several key business sectors kept under constant review and scrutiny by the Russian Government. It is estimated by the Federal Target Programme “The Development of Civil Aviation Engineering in Russia for 2002-2010 and to 2015” to spend $6.3 billion for the support and development of the aviation industry as Russia is looking towards the hi-tech sector as a source of its future growth. It has been stated that Russia expects to become the world’s third largest aircraft manufacturer by 2015. Find general information on the Russian market conditions on UKTI’s website. The Doing Business Guide for Russia gives an overview of Russia’s economy, business culture, potential opportunities and an introduction to other relevant issues. “Russia expects to become the world’s third largest aircraft manufacturer by 2015”.

Whitman College 20Tournament 2008 File Title

Internal Links – Russian Aerospace Key to Economy

Aerospace is crucial to the Russian economy and competivenessSergei Ivanov, 12-14-2006, Russian Defense Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Chair of Board of Unified Aircraft Corporation "DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER SERGEI IVANOV: THE PRIORITY IS TO PRODUCE MODERN AIRCRAFT OF VARIOUS TYPES", Izvestia, December 14, 2006, p. 2, http://www.wps.ru/en/pp/story/2006/12/14.htmlSergei Ivanov: I'll put it this way: as deputy prime minister and defense minister, I have been instructed to chair the OAK board of directors. First of all, air power is becoming increasingly important for national security. Secondly, over the past century, the aviation sector's needs have stimulated the development of advanced technologies - serving as a driving force in the development of science and industry. And Russia must not fall behind other countries in this field. Thirdly, aircraft-building is one of the few high-tech sectors in which Russia is still competitive, despite the hardships of the 1990s. Aviation offers the primary opportunity for implementing the innovation-based development model which is the only alternative to the dead-end path of an economy dependent on raw materials exports. Finally, Russia's vast expanses require us to develop civil aviation as the leading form of transport - in some areas, the only form.

Russia considers aerospace to be key economic sectorInternational Trade Administration, Russia: consolidation of the aerospace industry, 2008, http://trade.gov/static/aero_rpt_russian_industry_consolidation.pdfThe Russian aviation industry is one of several key business sectors kept under constant review and scrutiny by the Ministry of Industry and Energy. The reasons for this close review are twofold; Russia considers a strong aviation industry vital not only to economic success but also to national security. The recommendation of the Commission was the creation of an open joint stock company consolidating many of the state-owned aerospace companies under a single entity. While Russia’s military aviation sector marginally successful, at the beginning of the 21st century, Russia’s aviation industry as a whole was essentially a non-player in the global aviation market. Mindful of this reality, President Vladimir Putin directed the formation a Government Commission to study the idea of industry consolidation as a means of revitalizing and developing an industry that had fallen on hard times. This consolidated entity, the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), has moved quickly to transform and revitalize the Russian aviation industry and has positioned itself as both a formidable competitor and potential partner in the global aviation market.

Whitman College 21Tournament 2008 File Title

Internal Links – Russian Areospace Key to Economy

Russian space program is key to the economyMike Ryan, associate professor of Management at the Rubel School of Business at Bellarmine University, the role of national culture in the space-based technology transfer process, 2004, project museRussian space efforts and technology transfer applications reflect a puzzle of activity marked by abject highs and lows. Space technology has always been one of the country's crown jewels. By most measures, the space-based elements of Soviet Russian technology infrastructure did not produce the hoped-for significant economic gains, either directly or indirectly (Pankova, 2002, p. 349). Soviet leaders never gave technology transfer the comparative prominence within the space program goals that such activities received within the United States. They implicitly viewed the old Soviet space industrial base as connected to military objectives and to maintaining the appearance of scientific and technological superiority. Economic development objectives were not a priority (Hartford, 1997). With the recent effort to convert the Russian economic base, the relative importance afforded the transfer of space technologies changed. New Russian leaders view space-based technologies as opportunities to improve the overall industrial environment, as well as sources for new business development.

Aerospace sector is key to Russia’s economyICDP, International Commercial Diplomacy Project, Barriers to Aviation/Aerospace Investment, 1996, http://www.commercialdiplomacy.org/sampledocuments_htm/Labor/White_paper_Russia.htm#INTRODUCTION)The Russian Aerospace/Aviation industry provides enormous possibilities for cooperation with and investment from the West, including partnerships, technology exchanges and supplier relationships as described above. This cooperation and investment will bring great benefits to Russian producers both domestically and in international markets. As domestic and international competitiveness improve, domestic production will increase, jobs will be created and the aviation infrastructure will modernize and grow. Spin-off effects for the economy overall will be tremendous as development of the transportation infrastructure will promote commerce generally and the benefits of research and development spill over into other areas of commercial application. However, at the current time the obstacles to foreign investment in Russia are substantial. The barriers to American investment addressed by this paper, especially certification issues, customs problems and taxation, are not specific to the aerospace industry--therefore the progress made in resolving these issues will bring increased investment and resulting benefits to many industries and to the Russian economy as a whole.

Whitman College 22Tournament 2008 File Title

Impacts – Economic Collapse War

Russian economic decline causes nuclear war and extinction Sheldon Filger, columnist and founder of GlobalEconomicCrisis.com, 5-10-2009, “Russian Economy Faces Disastrous Free Fall Contraction,” online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/russian-economy-faces-dis_b_201147.htmlIn Russia, historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is rarely encountered in other major industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of the former Soviet Union that led to its political downfall. Similarly, Medvedev and Putin, both intimately acquainted with their nation's history, are unquestionably alarmed at the prospect that Russia's economic crisis will endanger the nation's political stability, achieved at great cost after years of chaos following the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests are occurring among rank and file workers facing unemployment or non-payment of their salaries. Recent polling demonstrates that the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding rapidly. Beyond the political elites are the financial oligarchs, who have been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and executive jets in a desperate attempt to raise cash. Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where economic collapse is not out of the question, the impact will go far beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome would be for the Global Economic Crisis. There is a geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context. Despite its economic vulnerabilities and perceived decline from superpower status, Russia remains one of only two nations on earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient scope and capability to destroy the world as we know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin who will be lying awake at nights over the prospect that a national economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and destabilizing social and political upheaval. It just may be possible that U.S. President Barack Obama's national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic meltdown in Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence community have already concluded that the Global Economic Crisis represents the greatest national security threat to the United States, due to its facilitating political instability in the world. During the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for guarding the nation's nuclear arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperate personnel would illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current economic crisis in Russia were to deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal remain? It may be that the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous consequence.

An economy focused on natural resources leads war and prevents Russian democracyAriel Cohen, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and Richard Ericson, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Economics at the East Carolina University, 2-11-2009, “Russia's Economic Crisis and U.S.-Russia Relations: Troubled Times Ahead,” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/11/russias-economic-crisis-and-us-russia-relations-troubled-times-aheadClearly, the type of economy and form of government that Russia assumes are strategic issues for the U.S. The Russian leadership is divided on these issues. The foreign and security policies arising from the current commodity-dependent export model, which is promulgated by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and First Deputy Premier Igor Sechin drastically differ from policies based on a knowledge-based, high-technology economy supported by President Dmitry Medvedev and economic reformers. An economic model based on natural resources would tend to perpetuate authoritarianism, nationalism, and corruption, and it would require Russia to follow a neo-imperial policy throughout the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to support Russian domination of the pipeline system. In a way, the petrostate model and the associated

Whitman College 23Tournament 2008 File Title

militarized foreign policy require Russia to label the U.S. as an enemy. A more open and diversified economy would be more compatible with democratization and the rule of law. Russia's falling economic performance has dampened some aspects of the revisionist rhetoric, but has not drastically changed Russia's foreign policy narrative, which remains decidedly anti-status quo and implicitly anti-American. Recent increases in oil prices ensure the continuation of this policy. Even during the current crisis, Russia has continued to voice strong grievances against the West and made revisionist demands to change key international economic and European security institutions for its benefit. Unless the Kremlin significantly reorients its foreign and security policy priorities, the Obama Administration's attempt to "reset" U.S.-Russian relations may fail.

Whitman College 24Tournament 2008 File Title

Impacts – Economic Collapse War

Russian economic collapse causes nuclear conflictSteven David, Prof. of political science at Johns Hopkins, 1999, Foreign AffairsIf internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war.

Whitman College 25Tournament 2008 File Title

Whitman College 26Tournament 2008 File Title

Impacts – Iran Prolif

Economic downturn in Russia leads to sale of advanced missile systems to IranStephen Sestanovich, George F. Kennan Senior Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies, “Russia and the Global Economic Crisis”, 2008, http://www.cfr.org/economic-development/russia-global-economic-crisis/p17844?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fby_type%2Fregion_issue_brief)

Unlike most other countries, Russia can always use its arms exports as a means of sweetening commercial deals. At a time when Russian economic needs are especially great, however, its customers are likely to press their advantage-seeking more advanced equipment than they have been offered in the recent past. China, whose own military purchases from Russia have slowed recently, is one Russian client likely to push for such upgrades. Iran and Venezuela are two others of special interest to the United States. It is widely thought that Russia, while steadily increasing its arms sales to Iran, has declined to sell Tehran its most advanced air-defense systems. A protracted economic crisis will surely inspire many inside the Russian defense industry--and probably within the government as well--to call for a review of this policy. All of these strategic adjustments--in defense spending, arms control, pipeline construction, weapons exports--represent matters of high policy for Russia's leadership. Yet, all politics being local, some of the most consequential issues created by the economic crisis may prove to be those that would ordinarily be considered matters of low policy. When production falls and unemployment rises in Russia, many of the Gastarbeiter, or guest workers, that have been needed to fuel the boom are usually sent home. For countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia, which have provided most of this enormous transient labor force (some estimate more than one million workers in Moscow alone), this will be a huge jolt. Quickly, Russia will go from being an important safety valve for socioeconomic discontent to a source of it. In the short term, Russia's neighbors will doubtless see this reflux of their own citizens as a reason to maintain good relations with Moscow, in hopes of winning coordinated management of a potentially dangerous problem.

Proliferation leads to nuclear war – deterrence fails Robert Pfaltzgraff, Professor of International Security Studies at The Fletcher School @ Tufts, and James Schoff, the Associate Director of Asia-Pacific Studies at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA), Feburary 2009, “Updating U.S. Deterrence Concepts and Operational Planning,” IFPA White Paper, online

Moreover, as suggested above, as more nations seek or attain nuclear status, we may very well be entering an era in which nuclear “non-use” is ending. This means that the risk of deterrence failures is growing, and with it questions about the ability of the United States to control the escalation chain in a crisis situation. During the Cold War, escalation dominance was presumed to lie with the United States, or at least that it could be managed in the U.S.-Soviet context because the stakes of escalation were such that both states were putatively deterred from nuclear weapons use (against the other). Today, however, the same may not be true with respect to North Korea and Iran, let alone in the context of a Taiwan contingency, or with respect to India and Pakistan in a crisis over Kashmir. Deterrence failures in the regional context may result from an accident, a deliberate calculation, or the intervention of a third party (e.g., Israel or Taiwan) in a crisis contingency. However, regardless of their origins, the consequences might very well be an escalatory exchange that ultimately draws the United States into a regional nuclear conflict.

Whitman College 27Tournament 2008 File Title

Whitman College 28Tournament 2008 File Title

Impacts – Iran Prolif

Proliferation will lead to nuclear use, terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons, miscalculation and accidental launchWall Street Journal, A World Free of Nuclear Weapons, 2007, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116787515251566636.htmlNuclear weapons today present tremendous dangers, but also an historic opportunity. U.S. leadership will be required to take the world to the next stage -- to a solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. Nuclear weapons were essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War because they were a means of deterrence. The end of the Cold War made the doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence obsolete. Deterrence continues to be a relevant consideration for many states with regard to threats from other states. But reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective. North Korea's recent nuclear test and Iran's refusal to stop its program to enrich uranium -- potentially to weapons grade -- highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era. Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today's war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass devastation. And non-state terrorist groups with nuclear weapons are conceptually outside the bounds of a deterrent strategy and present difficult new security challenges. Apart from the terrorist threat, unless urgent new actions are taken, the U.S. soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence. It is far from certain that we can successfully replicate the old Soviet-American "mutually assured destruction" with an increasing number of potential nuclear enemies world-wide without dramatically increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will be used. New nuclear states do not have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments or unauthorized launches. The United States and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes that were less than fatal. Both countries were diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War by design or by accident. Will new nuclear nations and the world be as fortunate in the next 50 years as we were during the Cold War?

Lack of space competitiveness leads to Russia prolifSam Vaknin, editor in chief of global politician, pinks in space the space industry in central and eastern Europe, 2005, http://samvak.tripod.com/pp126.htmlThe dark side of Russia's space industry is its sales of missile technology to failed and rogue states throughout the world. Timothy McCarthy and Victor Mizin of the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies wrote in the "International Herald Tribune in November 2001: "[U.S. policy to date] leaves unsolved the key structural problem that contributes to illegal sales: over-capacity in the Russian missile and space industry and the inability or unwillingness of Moscow to do anything about it ... There is simply too much industry [in Russia] chasing too few legitimate dollars, rubles or euros. [Downsizing] and restructuring must be a major part of any initiative that seeks to stop Russian missile firms from selling 'excess production' to

Whitman College 29Tournament 2008 File Title

those who should not have them." The official space industry has little choice but to resort to missile proliferation for its survival. The Russian domestic market is inefficient, technologically backward, and lacks venture capital. It is thus unable to foster innovation and reward innovators in the space industry. Its biggest clients - government and budget-funded agencies - rarely pay or pay late. Prices for space-related services do not reflect market realities.

Whitman College 30Tournament 2008 File Title

Impacts - Warming

Strong Russia key to solve warmingJeffrey Taylor, Atlantic Correspondent, 10-27-2008 "Medvedev Spoils the Party," The Atlantic staff writer, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811u/medvedev-obama/2Like it or not, the United States cannot solve crucial global problems without Russian participation. Russia commands the largest landmass on earth; possesses vast reserves of oil, natural gas, and other natural resources; owns huge stockpiles of weapons and plutonium; and still wields a potent brain trust. Given its influence in Iran and North Korea, to say nothing of its potential as a spoiler of international equilibrium elsewhere, Russia is one country with which the United States would do well to reestablish a strong working relationship—a strategic partnership, even—regardless of its feelings about the current Kremlin government. The need to do so trumps expanding NATO or pursuing “full-spectrum dominance.” Once the world financial crisis passes, we will find ourselves returning to worries about resource depletion, environmental degradation, and global warming – the greatest challenges facing humanity. No country can confront these problems alone. For the United States, Russia may just prove the “indispensable nation” with which to face a volatile future arm in arm.

Warming leads to extinctionOliver Tickell, Environmental Researcher, 8-11-2008, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechangeWe need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

Whitman College 31Tournament 2008 File Title

Impacts – Terrorism

Russian economic decline ensures the spread of nuclear weapons – allows a terrorist attack and global proliferation – only scenario for nuclear escalation Patrick F. Speice, Jr. Marshall-Wythe School of Law, March 2006, “note: negligence and nuclear nonproliferation: eliminating the current liability barrier to bilateral u.s.-russian nonproliferation assistance programs” William & Mary Law Review, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. n49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. n50 In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. n51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, n52 as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. n53

Terrorism causes extinctionMohamed Sid-Ahmed, internationally renowned reporter and columnist in Al Ahram, "Extinction!" Al-Ahram Weekly, September 1, 2004<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm>What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Whitman College 32Tournament 2008 File Title

Impacts – Terrorism

Even small acts of nuclear terrorism cause extinctionBarack Obama, prez, 4-5-2009, “Obama Prague Speech on Nuclear Weapons,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/05/obama-prague-speech-on-nu_n_183219.htmlThe existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that existed for centuries, that embodied the beauty and the talent of so much of humanity, would have ceased to exist. Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold. Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city -- be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague -- could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be -- for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival.

Unchecked terrorism will result in extinctionYonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies in Israel and the United States. “Terrorism myths and realities,” The Washington Times, August 28, 2003Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For without victory, there is no survival."

Whitman College 33Tournament 2008 File Title

Whitman College 34Tournament 2008 File Title

Diversification Module

Aerospace is Russia’s key economic sector now – Paris air show provesReuters, Russia keen to show it can take on boeing airbus, june.21.2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/21/airshow-russia-idUSLDE75J1X620110621A visit to the Paris Air Show by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, more exhibition space than ever and demonstrations of its Sukhoi airliner -- Russia is getting serious about challenging the dominance of Boeing Co and Airbus . With exhibition space at 1,700 square metres, the Russian Federation is one of the 10 largest national participants at this year's Paris air show, highlighting its desire to make a mark. State-owned United Aircraft Corp (UAC), which owns Sukhoi, believes it can become a serious third player in the commercial market by 2025, pinning its hopes on its mid-sized MS-21/MC-21 airliner. "We are here to convince our customers, our potential customers, that we are capable of all these targets that we put in front of us," UAC Chairman Mikhail Pogosyan said at the Paris Air Show. His colleague Alexey Fedorov, president of Sukhoi unit Irkut, said: "Any new planes from Airbus and Boeing won't come until around 2020, so we feel the MC-21 will enable us to take a good share of the market and compete well with them". Sukhoi also announced the launch of a business jet version of the regional SuperJet 100. Moscow is pushing for Russian companies to raise their spending in research and development as the government seeks to modernise and diversify the economy away from energy and other resources. State-owned Russian Technologies said it would use the Paris Air Show to improve its contacts with foreign partners as it seeks to move from assembly to developing its own platforms. "We are pursuing this in a serious direction. In the next two to three years, our priority in cooperation with foreign partners will be implementing our own technology," Russian Technologies deputy general director Dmitry Shugayev said.

Diversification is key to the Russian economic stabilityZeljko Bogetic et al, lead economist for Russia and PREM Country Sector Coordinator, Russian Economic Report No.17, 2008, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRUSSIANFEDERATION/Resources/305499-1245838520910/6238985-1251964834794/RER_17_eng.pdfThe second challenge is to intensify the efforts to diversify the economy, strengthen institutions as well as the financial sector for sustained, long-term growth. Oil and gas exports continue to account for more than two thirds of Russia’s export revenue and more than 15 percent of GDP. But the crisis shows how dependent the Russian economy is on oil prices and how much it needs to diversify and strengthen its financial sector for sustained, long-term growth. Despite strong macroeconomic fundamentals, structural weaknesses in the banking sector and a limited economic base make Russia vulnerable to highly correlated, multiple shocks of a decline in oil price, a sudden reversal in capital flows, and a drop in the market sentiment and the stock market. Russia’s economic recovery will depend largely on its ability to regain the confidence of domestic consumers and domestic and foreign investors. The crisis can be a catalyst for continuing the structural reforms to improve productivity and the business climate and fiscal reforms to strengthen the economy’s non-oil tax base. The way forward is diversification through greater openness, greater macroeconomic stability, more use of cutting-

Whitman College 35Tournament 2008 File Title

edge technology and knowhow, more foreign direct investments, and a stronger and healthier banking system.

Whitman College 36Tournament 2008 File Title

Brain Drain – Economy Module Uniqueness

Russian brain drain now – population demographics prove Barents Observer, Russia still suffering from brain drain, june.14.2011, http://www.barentsobserver.com/russia-still-suffering-from-brain-drain.4932283-116320.htmlOne fifth of the Russian population are potential emigrants, a new sociological survey shows. Most willing to leave are the young and the educated. A recent survey shows that the number of potential Russian emigrants increased from 5 percent in 1991 to 21 percent in 2011. The Russian Public Opinion Research Center on Friday published a survey showing that 21 percent of the respondents were willing to move abroad and seek permanent residence and another 20 percent would like to receive employment abroad. The largest emigration potential is among Russia's younger age group between 18 and 24 years (30 percent for permanent residence and 28 percent for employment). 29 percent of the respondents with higher education are ready to pack up and move abroad. According to official numbers, more than 1.2 million Russians left the country in course of the three last years, Vedomosti reports. 40 percent of these had higher education.

Link

Plan leads to increases in US space programs causing Russian brain drain Geoffrey Pigman, professor at school of international studies and law at coventry university, the new aerospace diplomacy: reinventing post-cold war US-Russian economic relations, 2002, http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/pigman.htmlIn order for Russia to transform itself successfully into a market economy, it was critical that the industrial sectors in which Russian enterprises could be globally competitive, such as energy, biotechnology, telecommunications and aerospace, be integrated into the global production chain and attract private capital. The Clinton administration made efforts to assist several competitive Russian industrial sectors, and by the end of the 1990s numerous results were visible. For example, Gazprom had become one of the largest energy firms in the world and had expanded into the global telecommunications market, and Lukoil was poised to expand its retail fuel operations into the United States itself. A significant motivation for the Clinton Administration’s undertakings to stabilize the Russian aerospace industry and integrate it into the global production chain was fear of the consequences of not doing so. One of the greatest U.S. fears resulting from the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union was that highly skilled former Soviet scientists and engineers in the aerospace sector would either lose their jobs altogether or else would go unpaid and undirected amidst the ruins of halted military-driven research programs. In that case, Russian scientists and technicians could be tempted to take their expertise, their designs and plans and even equipment that they themselves had designed and built to sell abroad to the highest bidder. Another plausible concern was that scientists and technicians could be rallied to the cause of Russian political movements seeking a return to Soviet-style military expansionism. Russia’s aerospace industry and scientific research laboratories once fully or partially privatized would be expected to make their own way in a domestic and global market in which the demand for their output would be uncertain at best. The Soviet space program, like that of NASA in the United States, even before the end of the Cold War had been forced to confront cost constraints and budget cutbacks, and following the dissolution of

Whitman College 37Tournament 2008 File Title

the Soviet Union was in serious jeopardy as the Russian public demanded that scarce revenues be spent on projects bringing more tangible benefits to consumers. The Soviet Buran space shuttle program had failed to become fully operational. The space station Mir, launched in 1986, became a symbol both of the pride of the former Soviet space program and of all its post-Soviet woes: high costs, aging and deteriorating physical plant and increasing risk of accidents. Closely linked by timing and technology to the Clinton Russia policy objective of preserving Russia’s scientific and aerospace sector was the administration’s domestic science and technology policy objective of continuing human exploration of and research in space.

Whitman College 38Tournament 2008 File Title

Brain Drain – Economy Module Internal link

Decline of Russian aerospace industry leads to brain drainRay Williamson, U.S.-Russian cooperation in space, 1995, http://www.fas.org/ota/reports/9546.pdfA combination of economic incentives and economic sanctions might be effective in curtailing the sale of hardware useful in the development and deployment of ballistic missiles, and it might help to keep the rocket scientists, whose expertise is an essential part of a working ballistic-missile program, from leaving Russia to work for a developing nation that would pay well for their services. A collapsing aerospace industry, with massive layoffs, dwindling salaries, and no jobs for young scientists and engineers who are just starting out, puts great pressure on employees to seek greener pastures outside Russia. Of particular concern are those scientists who would aid states, such as Iran, that are actively hostile to the United States. Although emigration restrictions seem to have been effective in preventing some at-tempts at expatriation by aerospace engineers, 1 one long-term solution to the “brain drain” problem is a stable, viable Russian aerospace industry. This chapter summarizes some of the issues that come into play in a consideration of future U.S.-Russian cooperation.

Impact

Brain drain collapses Russia’s economy BCM News, why do young scientists leave Russia, 10.03.2011, http://www.newsbcm.com/doc/670Let’s take the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. They invested 42 million dollars and received 24 hours of glory, not more. Yes, they did surprise everyone, I admit. But was not that surprise too expensive? Perhaps it would have been better to spend the money on some more important issues? On Russia’s brain drain, for example. More precisely, on what would help keep young scientists within the country. Only over the last three decades, our country has lost a third of its scientific potential. And from 1999 to 2004, around 25 thousand scientists left Russia, not counting the 30,000 that had gone abroad to work under contracts. According to official statistics, already about 700-800 thousand scientists from Russia are employed overseas. And if earlier they used to leave by themselves or with their families at best, now they are leaving their country in teams, laboratories and groups. According to the UN scientists’ estimates, as reported by rys-arhipelag.ucoz.ru, the departure of just one of such genii overseas from Russia inflicts a loss to the state in the amount of 300-800 thousand dollars. And the rector of Moscow State University, academician V. Sadovnichy, says that the training of only one such world-class specialist means that Moscow State University has to shell out $400 thousand. So, is not it time to have the problem solved, or at least to look into the causes?

Whitman College 39Tournament 2008 File Title

Brain Drain – ISS Module

Russian space scientists are key to the ISSMark Rosenow and Richard Whiting, candidates for masters in public policy, Harvard university, reevaluating the process and assessment of the iran nonproliferation act and its impact on the international space station program, 2005, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA461656&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdfThe next sacrifice was the fiscally sensible use of comparative advantage. Russian contractors, in particular Energia and Krunichev, are comprised of a highly skilled and educated workforce. The efforts of this staff have produced many of the scientific discoveries and technologies that have made construction and maintenance of the ISS possible. And by design, use of these materials in balance with those developed in the U.S. was the guiding philosophy behind the ISS -the joint and complimentary implementation of American and Russian technology and scientific ambition. By severely limiting the allowable contribution from its partner, the U.S. made it necessary that any future repairs or additions to the ISS would have to either fit within the limits of the INA or be built domestically. Coupling the realization that Boeing often charges two and three times as much as its Russian counterpart with the shrinking balance of the original contract provides a global business perspective increasingly critical toward the INA.

ISS is key to US Russian relationsMark Rosenow and Richard Whiting, candidates for masters in public policy, Harvard university, reevaluating the process and assessment of the iran nonproliferation act and its impact on the international space station program, 2005, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA461656&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdfIt should be first noted that the space station aids the U.S. in achieving many of its national interests. Chiefly, it is an important experiment in U.S./Russian relations. Additionally, the U.S. investment of more than $40B in the ISS helps assure that it continues to be a leader in science and technology development. Secondary general foreign policy interests are also supported by the sixteen country collaborative project. Involvement in such a multinational venture provides the U.S. with another tool that can be exercised as a part of its foreign policy decision making and is looked upon favorably in world opinion.

US-Russia nuclear war causes extinctionThe American Prospect, 2/26/01 The bitter disputes over national missile defense (NMD) have obscured a related but dramatically more urgent issue of national security: the 4,800 nuclear warheads -- weapons with a combined destructive power nearly 100,000 times greater than the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima -- currently on "hair-trigger" alert. Hair-trigger alert means this: The missiles carrying those warheads are armed and fueled at all times. Two thousand or so of these warheads are on the intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) targeted by Russia at the United States; 1,800 are on the ICBMs targeted by the United States at Russia; and approximately 1,000 are on the submarine-based missiles targeted by the two nations at each other. These missiles would launch on receipt of three computer-delivered messages. Launch crews -- on duty every second of every day -- are under orders to send the messages on receipt of a single computer-delivered command. In no more than two minutes, if all went

Whitman College 40Tournament 2008 File Title

according to plan, Russia or the United States could launch missiles at predetermined targets: Washington or New York; Moscow or St. Petersburg. The early-warning systems on which the launch crews rely would detect the other side's missiles within tens of seconds, causing the intended -- or accidental -- enemy to mount retaliatory strikes. "Within a half-hour, there could be a nuclear war that would extinguish all of us," explains Bruce Blair. "It would be, basically, a nuclear war by checklist, by rote."

Whitman College 41Tournament 2008 File Title

Brain Drain Uniqueness EXT

Brain drain decliningTsvetelina Miteva, political analyst, Russia’s IT Brain Drain Over, 9-2-2010, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100902/160441955.htmlRussian IT specialists no longer want to work in Europe and the United States, as they now have good prospects at home, a leading recruitment figure told RIA Novosti. Since Soviet times, Russian top professionals and scientists have been emigrating abroad or abandoned scientific work in favor of higher incomes in commerce or other spheres. Independent reports estimate at least 80,000 emigrated in the early 1990s. The situation in the IT sphere is now likely to change dramatically. "Russia now has a variety of good jobs for IT specialists. Many leading IT companies, including Oracle and Microsoft, have opened branches in Russia over the last 10 years," Tatyana Dolyakova, head of the Penny Lane Personnel recruiting company said. The standard of living for IT specialists in Russia is comparable to that they could enjoy in Europe and the United States. In 2010, salaries in the IT sphere were among the highest in Russia, along with the banking sector, she added.

Russia is actively trying to stem the brain drain --- top experts agree efforts will succeed if nothing changesCarl Schreck, Foreign Correspondent, 2009, Russia seeks a cure for its brain drain, http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091030/FOREIGN/710299890)The Russian scientist Andrei Sarychev spent almost a decade working at various US universities before family reasons prompted him to return to his homeland two years ago. The adjustment has not been seamless, and not only because of the smaller salary and funding for research: there is also resentment from those in the Russian scientific community who never settled in greener pastures abroad, said Mr Sarychev, 58, chief scientist at the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Electrodynamics at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. "It's just simple human jealousy," he said. "The hardest has been establishing relationships with colleagues, with people who stayed here during the thin years. Some think: 'What does that rich guy know?'" Improving collegiality among its best brains, however, is the least of the Russian government's problems in reviving the country's once-formidable sciences. Its most pressing task right now is trying to get specialists like Mr Sarychev to return in the first place. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the ensuing social and economic turbulence in the 1990s spawned an enormous brain drain in which Russian scientists fled the country en masse to seek work abroad. Russia's education and science ministry estimates that more than 20,000 scientists moved abroad for good between 1989 and 2002, with another 30,000 working on temporary contracts in foreign countries. Other estimates suggest more than 100,000 scientists may have left Russia in the wake of the Soviet Union's demise. With Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, touting the importance of modernising the country and developing an "innovation" economy to wean the country from its reliance on energy exports, the Kremlin has been pressing for a revival of Russian sciences, promising increased salaries and funding for research in order to encourage Russian scientists abroad to return home. The Russian education and science minister, Andrei Fursenko, painted what many saw as an overly optimistic portrait of the situation this month, telling Ekho Moskvy radio that Russian scientists living abroad are ready to return "in avalanche fashion". Mr Sarychev and other Russian scientists, however, are sceptical of such claims and said Russia faces numerous obstacles in returning to the forefront of scientific discovery, such as its Soviet forbearer. "The conditions have not been created for such a revival," said Alexander Karasik, a professor at the General Physics Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences. "There is not enough financing, and there aren't enough resources for conducting experiments. There are a lot more resources abroad, and we're not going to reach that level anytime soon. There have been some small advances, but not nearly enough." Even a senior scientist can expect to make just around 30,000 roubles (Dh3,800) per month, while junior researchers make considerably less, Prof Karasik said. The meagre salaries have also created obstacles in recruiting young people into the sciences, because they see opportunities to make more money in other professions. Russian education officials said just nine per cent of young people are interested in the profession, while just three per cent of high school graduates go into the sciences, a sphere that promised great prestige in the Soviet era. "There's a clear lack of interest among young people," Mr Karasik said. "The money they can make in the sciences just doesn't compare to what they can make working in computers or banking." Mr Medvedev, the Russian president, has made "modernisation" a national buzzword recently thanks to a manifesto he published last month on a Russian news portal. In the article, titled "Forward Russia!", he said

Whitman College 42Tournament 2008 File Title

Russia would "invite the best scientists and engineers from various countries of the world" as well as foster homegrown talent. "[W]e will explain to our young people that knowledge that others don't have is the most important competitive advantage, as is intellectual superiority and the ability to create things that people need," Mr Medvedev wrote. While the Russian government has made steps in the right direction by increasing salaries and offering grants for Russian scientists abroad to return, this is hardly enough to bring compatriots flocking home, said Alexander Nevsky, a senior researcher at the Institute for Experimental Physics at the University of Düsseldorf. "That is just utter nonsense," Mr Nevsky said in a telephone interview from Germany.

Whitman College 43Tournament 2008 File Title

Brain Drain Links EXT

Russian intellectual capital is extremely delicate – even small amounts of emigration could throw off the process of modernizationIrina Ivakhnyuk, Senior Researcher at Lomonosov Moscow State University, Brain Drain from Russia: in Search for a Solution, 2006, http://csm.org.pl/fileadmin/files/Biblioteka_CSM/Raporty_i_analizy/2006/Irina%20Ivakhnyuk_Brain%20Drain%20from%20Russia_in%20Search%20for%20a%20.pdfRussia is a good example of how delicate the intellectual resource of a nation is, how easy it is to ruin it, to loose it, and how cautiously it is to be treated. Political and economic crisis in the 1990s provoked the outflow of high skilled workers to other countries, on the one hand, and ‘internal brain drain’, i.e. outflow of specialists from R&D sector to business, selfemployment, etc. in order to survive, on the other hand. About 2.2 mln. persons with academic degrees dropped out from science in the 1990s. These losses can be irretrievable, and in many fields of science Russia will never restore its leading positions, as it has happened to Germany from where during the fascist regime all the leading scientists have emigrated to the U.S. All the ‘drained’ countries are worried about the effects of out-flow of highly educated citizens. In some cases, emigration of only one leading scientist can frustrate development of the whole scientific school. However, the globalizing world gives new chances to researchers, and it is unconstructive to impede them and calculate the brain drain losses. Alternative comes from development of national R&D sector and active participation in international research projects. Sober Russian academics argue for search of new forms of organization and management of Science at the global level (In our universities… 2006). Mobilization of intellectual and financial resources for fundamental investigations in high-energy physics, molecular biology, genetic engineering, medicine, etc. could result in improvements of human life quality and environment the whole mankind would benefit from. The Russian Government is coming to this understanding putting special emphasis on development the capacities of Russian science in close collaboration with most advanced international institutions and restructuring national economy towards knowledge-based model. It is uneasy process opposed by die-hard bureaucrats but it is the only possible way to give new impulse to the Russian R&D sector and modernization of its economy.

Human resources are key to Russian aerospace – Success now is crucialOleg Panteleev, Chief Editor of Aviaport, graduated from Moscow Aviation Institute (aircraft engine department) modified, 9-23-2010, http://www.russianavia.net/index.php#state=InterviewDetail&id=61What will be essential for the development of Russian aviation in a short-term prospect? Are there any prospects for development of civil aviation? One of the key conditions of winning the competition is to consolidate the available construction and technological resources. But it’s not the only condition. It is possible to retain the position of one of the world aviation leaders given there is a solution of some structural questions. The first is the question of human resources. The state should have a leading role in training future specialists and providing conditions for their stable work at aviation enterprises. It is necessary to rebuild the training program for both workers and scientists. The time gap between the older and the younger generation is close to a critical point when the know-how and priceless experience of Soviet designers and engineers can be lost irrecoverably. The costs of rebuilding HR potential in aviation are enormous but they are much lower than the potential damage of completely losing the old designer schools. It is more reasonable to think about the future than try to support inefficient structures and projects. What is your assessment of the prospects of Sukhoi SuperJet 100 and MS-21 projects? SSJ100 is the first project in Russian aviation that is implemented taking into account the world experience and traditions in civil aircraft construction. It is for the first time in the Russian aviation industry that after-sale service is unfolded in parallel with the construction of the aircraft. But the initial priority was the timeframe of launching this product on the market and provision of a 10% technical advantage over the competitors. If it takes too long to enter the market, the aircraft will lose its competitive advantage. The regional jet market, divided between Embraer and Bombardier, is difficult to enter but a kick-off contractor such as Aeroflot is a chance for the aircraft

Whitman College 44Tournament 2008 File Title

to demonstrate its operation and make it a landmark for other airlines. Again, time is a big factor here. Europe is a huge potential market with three leaders – Air France, Lufthansa and British Airways, and all of them have filled their fleet for development of regional flights, unfortunately not with SSJ100. Another competitor is China’s ARJ-21 program; Japan continues to develop the MRJ aircraft. Every day the market gets tighter.

Whitman College 45Tournament 2008 File Title

Brain Drain Impacts EXT

Russian space program is teetering due to shortage of skilled workers—continued erosion will destroy the space programJames Oberg, how risky is it to rely on Russian spaceflight?, 2010, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37713521/ns/technology_and_science-space/%296. Demographics: The saddest secret of Russia’s space program is the aging workforce, retiring or dying off at their posts. These critical experts are only partially being replaced by new employees willing to work for laughably low wages because they are devoted to the ideal of spaceflight. Even recent cosmonaut recruitment efforts actually had to actively seek candidates for the job — there simply weren’t enough qualified applicants mailing in their forms. Combined with a cultural trait of not documenting procedures and past events (the fewer people who know something, the more essential become those who can remember it), these staffing trends are alarming in terms of the diminution of skills and corporate memory through continued hemorrhage of irreplaceable skilled workers.

US Russia Conflict would cause space wars.William C. Martel, professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, AND Toshi Yoshihara, doctoral candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and a research fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Massachusetts. The Washington Quarterly 26.4 (2003) 19-35. “Averting a Sino-U.S. Space Race.”What exactly does such an action-reaction cycle mean? What would a bilateral space race look like? Hypothetically, in the next 10 years, some critical sectors of China's economy and military could become increasingly vulnerable to disruptions in space. During this same period, Sino-U.S. relations may not improve appreciably, and the Taiwan question could remain unresolved. If Washington and Beijing could increasingly hold each other's space infrastructure hostage by threatening to use military options in times of crisis, then potentially risky paths to preemption could emerge in the policy planning processes in both capitals. In preparing for a major contingency in the Taiwan Strait, both the United States and China might be compelled to plan for a disabling, blinding attack on the other's space systems before the onset of hostilities. The most troubling dimension to this scenario is that some elements of preemption (already evident in U.S. global doctrine) could become a permanent feature of U.S. and Chinese strategies in space. Indeed, Chinese strategic writings today suggest that the leadership in Beijing believes that preemption is the rational way to prevent future U.S. military intervention. If leaders in Beijing and Washington were to position themselves to preempt each other, then the two sides would enter an era of mutual hostility, one that might include destabilizing, hair-trigger defense postures in space where both sides stand ready to launch a first strike on a moment's notice. One scenario involves the use of weapons, such as lasers or jammers, which seek to blind sensors on imaging satellites or disable satellites that provide warning of missile launches. Imagine, for example, Washington's reaction if China disabled U.S. missile warning satellites or vice versa.In that case, Sino-U.S. relations would be highly vulnerable to the misinterpretations and miscalculations that could lead to a conflict in space. Although attacks against space assets would likely be a precursor or a complement to a broader crisis or conflict, and although conflicts in the space theater may not generate many casualties or massive physical destruction, the economic costs of conflict in space alone for both sides, and for the international community, would be extraordinary given that many states depend on satellites for their economic well-being.

Whitman College 46Tournament 2008 File Title

2NC Answers To Prolif Good

Nuclear weapons encourage conventional war Robert Rauchhaus, Assistant Professor of Political Science @ University of California Santa Barbra, 2009, “Evaluating the Nuclear Peace Hypothesis: A Quantitative Approach,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, SageThe results of the general estimating equation are presented in Table 1. Let us first turn our attention to the effects of nuclear weapons. As the results clearly indicate, nuclear weapons have statistically significant effects on the chance of conflict. This is true for both symmetric nuclear dyads in which both states possess nuclear weapons as well as for asymmetric dyads in which only one of the states possesses nuclear weapons. The results are also substantively significant. For a more detailed substantive interpretation of the data, all of the coefficients can be converted into odds ratios. For our purposes here, it is worth noting the sign of coefficients and the relative impact of the variables. Substantively, all of the coefficients for asymmetric nukes and symmetric nukes are positive except for one. When two states have nuclear weapons, the negative coefficient indicates that they are less likely to go to war with one another. This coefficient has the strongest substantive effect of all the measures of nuclear deterrence, and the statistical significance is at the p < .001 level. In all other instances but this one, the coefficients are positive, which indicates that states with nuclear weapons are more likely to engage in militarized disputes (crises), to use force, and to be involved in uses of force that result in fatalities. This is true for situations of nuclear symmetry as well as asymmetry, although the effect is more pronounced when both states possess nuclear weapons.

Accidental war risk outweighs deterrence Marianne Hanson, Stipendiary Lecturer in Politics at Magdalen College, Oxford University, 2002, “Nuclear Weapons as Obstacles to International Security,” International Relations, 16;361Yet adoptions of nuclear capability and the maintenance of nuclear deterrence have proceeded without a realistic acknowledgment of the limited utility of nuclear weapons in warfare. This article will argue that not only do nuclear weapons have minimal utility as instruments of war, but that the continued possession of nuclear weapons also has a deleterious effect on the maintenance of the broader security order. They are thus perceived here as obstacles to, rather than as facilitators of, international security. This argument is by no means novel; nor is it an isolated one.1 A notable development in international relations in recent years is the extent to which a broad range of states and non-state actors has examined the utility of nuclear weapons and subsequently called for their elimination. Particularly in the last decade, the usefulness of nuclear weapon-based security policies has come under challenge from a variety of voices heard in a number of different arenas, ranging from individual foreign ministries to independent security research centres. What this article will reiterate – within the broad theme of war canvassed in this issue – is the lack of suitability of nuclear weapons in military conflict situations. It will proceed, moreover, to suggest a number of ways in which maintaining nuclear weapons represents a substantial threat to regional and global security. Its primary claim is that a continuation of the status quo not only confers no real benefits to states possessing nuclear weapons, but that it also represents a threat to a global order which seeks to provide an equitable set of security relations and to minimize the chance of an accidental or inadvertent nuclear strike. A first point to note, then, is that this article broadly endorses the main arguments of the push for the elimination of nuclear weapons, namely that retention of these weapons by a select group of states cannot be sustained in perpetuity without both the risk of proliferation and the danger of accidental use growing.

Whitman College 47Tournament 2008 File Title