8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 1/21

 

Plan Text:The USFG should substantially increase space exploration through NASA to retain its globalhegemony

CONTENTION ONE: INHERENCY

US GLOBAL HEG IS DETERIORATING, THE REST OF THE WORLD HAS CAUGHT UPHoffman 09 (Andy, “American Hegemony: The Beginning and the End.” Midas Letter. 4/18/09.

<http://www.midasletter.com/commentary/090418-2_US-hegemony-the-beginning-and-the-end.php>)

The financial market madness we are currently witnessing is difficult to put into words. So much so,that for the first time in years, I find myself at times speechless. Irrespective, I have untied my tonguelong enough to put together some thoughts describing my view of what is going on from the highest-level, macroeconomic sense.

In essence,what we are seeing today is the death throes of U.S. global hegemony, as described below.In my opinion,September 11th marked the beginning of the end of U.S. global hegemony, or in simpleterms its role as a global superpower. Not because of the damage done by Islamic terrorists, which wastrivial, but to itself by the powers that be in Washington and Wall Street. Since that day, the forces

 pushing the U.S. down the slope of the global power chain accelerated, with the 9/11 attacks essentiallylighting the fuse.

The U.S. has been the lone global superpower for roughly 20 years, probably the shortest period of such hegemony by a major economic power in the world's history. If you combine that period with the previous 45 years when the U.S. shared that status with the Soviet Union, we are talking about a totalof 65 years, still a tiny drop in the bucket of time. If you want to think in terms of significantsuperpowers, counted in centuries rather than decades, think of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans,Ottomans, Shangs and Zhous (of China), or even the British and Spanish of the 13th to 19th centuries.

The U.S. and Russia were fortunate enough to find themselves in that position because the major European powers nearly destroyed themselves during World War II. At that time, Japan's economic

advancement had not yet commenced, while China remained mired in the throes of unproductivecommunism.

In the post World War II era, the United States, through a combination of ingenuity, financial strength,and a (now long-gone) work ethic, managed to secure a major share of global manufacturing marketshare, reaching a golden age in the 1950s and 60s which marked the peak of its standing in the world.Russia similarly was in a strong financial position following the war, but its leadership instead promoted the closed-minded communist policies which yielded growth (and ultimately collapse) in butone area, its nuclear arsenal.

But even as America was flourishing, the inevitable competition from the "Rest of World" wassmoldering behind the scenes. Once the aftermath of World War II passed, which in Europe took many

years, these forces started to gain momentum. Remember, the U.S. possesses less than 3% of theworld's population but consumes roughly 30% of its energy, and is not particularly blessed with naturalresources. Thus, it was only a matter of time before the "Rest of World" caught up. By the 1960s, littleJapan, with barely one-third of the U.S. population, one-twentieth the land, and even less naturalresources, had already snagged a major share of global manufacturing market share, particularly in theautomotive industry, one of America's truly "own" creations and sources of pride. And all the while,

completely under the radar, the seeds of domination were growing in China, India, and Southeast

Asia. These indomitable forces have gained strength over the past five decades, but in my view twokey events served to accelerate them exponentially, yielding the situation where, here in 2009, the U.S.

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 2/21

has lost essentially ALL of its superpower status.

The first of the two events was the Vietnam War in 1965 (and the consequential end of the goldstandard in 1971), and the second was September 11th, 2001. All empires peak when arrogance rears itsugly head, and in the U.S.'s case it was Vietnam that triggered it. As someone too young to have beenaround during the era of the "Red Peril", it is hard to envision the fear of the spread of Communismthat existed in America. But it most certainly did, yielding numerous standoffs, skirmishes, and wars

(such as the Korean conflict and the Cuban missile conflict) before the real damage occurred inVietnam.

Part of the rationale for Vietnam was the fear of communism, particularly the Russians, but an equal part was the growing U.S. belief that, thanks to just 20 years of global hegemony, its beliefs and ideals, politically, economically, and socially, should be foisted onto the rest of the world, at any cost.

That line of thinking is what made the Egyptians and Romans into global empires, and even the Britishfor that matter. But those were different times, when worldwide communications and technologies weremore limited and protected, unlike today where ideas and processes are instantaneously transferredaround the world with the click of a mouse. Thus, Vietnam was a critical point in U.S. history,representing the point that it started to squander its financial advantage, spread its military too thin, and

sow the seeds of global resentment. Not to mention, just like Iraq it was a completely unprovoked war,started by propaganda in Washington targeted at stirring up "patriotism."

FOREIGN POWERS THREATEN US HEG

Caraley 04 (Demetrios, Professor of Political Science and H. Robb Professor of the Social Sciences, Barnard College, “American

Hegemony: Preventive War, Iraq, and Imposing Democracy”,

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=h2L_znvDMPcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=American+Hegemony:+Preventive+War,+Iraq,+and+Imposing+Democracy%E2%80%9D&ots=ccxm__Fk22&sig=AUgurV8RuWO8hEtpf5D827YAtJ0#v=snippet&q=Combine%20the%20rise%20of%20Europe%20and%20Asia%20with%20the%20decline%20of%20liberal%20internationalism%20in%20the%20United

%20States%20and%20&f=false, June 28, 2010 )

Combine the rise of Europe and Asia with the decline of liberal internationalism in the United Statesand it becomes clear that America's unipolar moment is not long for this world. At the same time thatalternative centers of power are taking shape, the United States is drawing away from multilateralinstitutions in favor of a unilateralism that risks estranging those power centers, raising the chances thattheir ascent will lead to a new era of geopolitical rivalry. As unipolarity gives way to multipolarity, thestrategic competition now held in abeyance by U.S. primacy will return--and with a vengeance if America's unilateralist impulse prevails. No longer steadied by U.S. hegemony, processes of globalization and democratization are likely to falter, as are the international institutions currentlydependent upon Washington's leadership to function effectively. Geopolitical fault lines will reemerge among centers of power in North America, Europe, and East Asia . The central challenge for U.S.

grand strategy will be managing and taming the dangers arising from these new fault lines. The UnitedStates cannot and should not resist the end of unipolarity and the return of a world of multiple centersof power. To do so would only risk alienating and risking conflict with a rising Europe and an

ascendant Asia. And it would likely stoke an isolationist backlash in the United States by pursuing alevel of foreign ambition for which there would be insufficient political support. Asking that the UnitedStates prepare for and manage its exit from global primacy, however, is a tall order. Great powers haveconsiderable difficulty accepting their mortality; few in history have willfully made room for risingchallengers and adjusted their grand strategies accordingly. In managing the return of multipolarity,America should be guided by the principles of strategic restraint and institutional binding. Strategic

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 3/21

restraint means making room for rising centers of power so that they array their rising strength withrather than against the United States. Institutional binding entails the use of international institutions to bind major powers to each other and to bound their behavior through adherence to common norms.Institutions also promise to fulfill another important function--that of guiding path that offers a middleground between unilateralism and isolationism.

AND, NASA DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING

UPI 09' UPI.com, 100 years of journalistic expertise.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/10/23/NASA-needs-funding-boost-to-fulfill-goals/UPI-70081256312792/ 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 (UPI) -- Congress needs to boost NASA's funding by at least $3

billion a year for the agency to deliver ambitious manned space flights, a panel of U.S.

experts said.

The panel Thursday delivered its assessment of NASA's options for the next generation ofmanned space exploration, concluding NASA's goals are too ambitious for the money

earmarked to pay for them, the Houston Chronicle reported Friday.

"The human space flight program that the United States is currently pursuing is on an

unsustainable trajectory," said the panel's leader, retired aerospace executive NormanAugustine.

President Barack Obama and Congress will use the assessment to determine whether toboost NASA's $18.7 billion annual funding by at least $3 billion or scale back programs, the

Chronicle reported.

The panel suggested delaying retirement of the remaining three space shuttles by one year

until 2011 and lengthening the life of the International Space Station by five years to 2020. Thepanel also recommended that commercial firms ferry astronauts and cargo to the spacestation.

CONTENTION TWO: ADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGE ONE: TECHNOLOGY

THE UNITED STATES IS LOSING ITS TECHNOLOGICAL DOMINANCE

Yale Global http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/america-losing-its-edge

The long-standing pre-eminence of US technology and innovation worldwide may now face achallenge, as the changing face of the global marketplace takes its toll. As US trade anddevelopment has expanded overseas, partner nations have taken advantage of this access.Particularly in Asia, nations are making large strides in research and development (R&D) andother scientific technology. Budget troubles, declining numbers of graduates in technology-related fields, and foreign expertise "brain drain" may also hurt American R&D in the nextdecade. The United States still has a clear advantage, with its unparalleled resources and

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 4/21

infrastructure, but it must innovate aggressively in order to remain one step ahead of globalcompetitors

THE US IS FALLING BEHIND BOTH TECHNOLOGICALY AND

HEGEMONICALLY

Adam Segal 04'  Adam Segal is Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on

Foreign Relations and the author of Digital Dragon: High Technology Enterprises in China.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/america-losing-its-edge

The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientificinnovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economicprosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the

semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed theU.S. lead.

Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the

most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased

investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and

technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and

ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and

science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan

is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application

services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of 

software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S.advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even

China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and

advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of 

manufacturing.

 Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research

and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the

United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways:it is both a potent catalyst of U.S.

technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be

able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant

only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; tokeep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better atfostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

 AND, NOT ENOUGH MONEY IS SPENT ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN

THE U.S.

Adam Segal 04'  Adam Segal is Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign

Relations and the author of Digital Dragon: High Technology Enterprises in China.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/america-losing-its-edge

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 5/21

 At the moment, it would be premature to declare a crisis in the United States' scientific ortechnological competitiveness. The United States is still the envy of the world for reasonsranging from its ability to fund basic scientific research to the speed with which its companiescommercialize new breakthroughs.

This year, total U.S. expenditures on R&D are expected to top $290 billion-more than twice

the total for Japan, the next biggest spender. In 2002, the U.S. R&D total exceeded that of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom combined (although the

United States trailed Finland, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, and Sweden in the ratio of R&D to

GDP). And although scholars from other parts of the world may write relatively more science

and engineering papers than Americans do, U.S. research continues to be cited the most.

The United States also leads the major global technology markets, holding commanding

market shares in aerospace, scientific instruments, computers and office machinery, and

communications instruments. U.S. information and communications technology producers

lead almost every sector. And for the last two decades, U.S. firms have been the top providers

of high-technology services, accounting for about one-third of the world's total.

These strengths, however, should not obscure the existence of new threats to the long-termhealth of science and innovation in the United States. A record $422 billion budget deficit, for

example, may undermine future government support for R&D. Recent shifts in federal

spending will leave basic research-that driven by scientific curiosity rather than

specific commercial applications-underfunded, depriving the economy of the

 building blocks of future innovation. Although federal expenditures on R&D are

expected to reach $132 billion in fiscal year 2005 and $137.5 billion in 2009, new spending

 will be concentrated in the fields of defense, homeland security, and the space program.

Funding for all other R&D programs, meanwhile, will remain flat this year and decline in real

terms over the next five years.

In July, Congress approved a record-breaking $70.3 billion for R&D for the DefenseDepartment in 2005, a 7.1 percent increase from last year and more than the Pentagon had

asked for (in fact, the department's top brass had asked to cut R&D spending). Such largesse

makes it likely that the Pentagon will be able to continue innovation in the near term. Its

longer-term prospects, however, are more worrying. According to five-year projections by the

 American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Defense Department will focus

more and more on weapons development while neglecting basic and applied research.

Privately funded industrial R&D, meanwhile-which accounts for over 60 percent of the

U.S. total-is also starting to slip as a result of the current economic slowdown.

Private industry cut R&D spending by 1.7 percent in 2001, 4.5 percent in 2002, and 0.7

percent in 2003. This year, R&D spending is expected to increase-but by less than onepercent, which is less than the inflation rate. Furthermore, with less than 10 percent of its

R&D spending dedicated to basic research, industry will not be able to fill in the gaps created

 by the government's shift of funding to defense and homeland security-related research.

These funding decreases may be exacerbated by a coming labor shortage. The number of 

 Americans pursuing advanced degrees in the sciences and engineering is

declining, and university science and engineering programs are growing more

dependent on foreign-born talent. Thirty-eight percent of the nation's scientists and

engineers with doctorates were born outside the country. And of the Ph.D.'s in science and

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 6/21

engineering awarded to foreign students in the United States from 1985 to 2000, more than

half went to students from China, India, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Such dependence on foreign talent could become a critical weakness for the

United States in the future, especially as foreign applications to U.S. science and

engineering graduate programs decline. With booming economies and improving

educational opportunities in their countries, staying at home is an increasingly attractive

option for Chinese and Indian scientists. In addition, visa restrictions put in place after theterrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have created new barriers for foreign students trying

to enter the United States. Surveys conducted by the Association of American Universities, the

 American Council on Education, and other education groups have blamed repetitive security 

checks, inefficient visa-renewal processes, and a lack of transparency for significant drops in

applications to U.S. graduate programs this year.

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION IS ULTIMATELY THE MAIN GOAL OF NASA Todd J. Farrar and Ian Roth 10' The following is an interview with Dr. Bobby Braun, NASA's New Chief

Technology Officer in charge of The Space Technology Program.

http://www.dawnbreaker.com/about/phase3.php

NASA’s 2011 budget implements significant programmatic and structural changes to the way

that NASA approaches not only space exploration, but also R&D. Changes include the

cancellation of the Constellation Program and the shifting of funds to support the commercial

space sector as it addresses future space transportation and exploration needs. Another

significant change is the establishment of the Space Technology Program under the Aeronautics

and Space Research and Technology Mission Directorate. Late last year, Dr. Bobby Braun was

appointed as the Chief Technology Officer operating the Office of the Chief Technologist. This

office oversees the new Space Technology Program.

The Space Technology Program highlights NASA’s new approach to the support and maturation of truly innovative and advanced technologies. The program is designed to accomplish a multitude of 

tasks, including reducing typical barriers to infusion of advanced concepts, offering greater

infusion opportunities to innovators, mitigating risk for technology adoption by the commercial

space industry, and helping the U.S. remain a leader in space technology development and future

space exploration. Recently, Dr. Braun sat down with Phase III Commercialization and discussed theSpace Technology Program and the effects that the program changes will have for NASA,technologists, small businesses and the commercial sector.The structure and goals of the Space Technology program were established largely on therecommendations made by four National Academy reports that have come out since 2008. “With the

start of the space technology program, we are trying to provide a critical mass of talented people

from across the country working on what I call foundational technology activities,” explained Dr.Braun. “These are activities that may not affect the very next mission but are designed to strategicallyimpact a whole suite of future NASA missions.”The Space Technology Program changes NASA’s budgetary focus for funding advanced technologies.In the past, each mission directorate in NASA (Science Mission Directorate, the Aeronautics MissionDirectorate or Exploration) had a portion of their budget focused on technologies. According to Braun,“It’s no secret that over time, in particular over this past decade, that those budgets have been reducedand so the total technology activity at NASA has been reduced.…NASA has been more near termmission focused.”

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 7/21

The new Space Technology Program is unique in that it is designed to reduce some of the previous barriers and potential valleys of death that NASA funded technologies or projects faced when movingfrom concept to flight readiness. The program is comprised of three main components: Early StageInnovation, Game Changing Technology and Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations. Together these

components provide a stage gate type approach that facilitates the realization of new concepts,

figures out which ideas work and which do not (“proof of concept”), assists the maturation of 

technologies in a lab setting (prototype and demo/test), and for the most promising developmentsprovides opportunities for flight testing. Each of the three components provides a number of publicand private funding vehicles and incentives for technology development and maturation efforts atspecific ranges of technology readiness levels (TRLs). (For more information concerning TRLs, seeDawnbreaker’s free portal of information at

SPIN OFF TECHNOLOGY JUSTIFIES THE COST OF SPACE EXPLORATION AND

RETURNS U.S. TECHONOLOGIAL DOMINANCEArnold, Banke and Armstrong 06’ Excerpt from the publication: America’s Vision; the Case for Space. Failure is not an

option. All three are experts in the field of Space Exploration. http://www.partnersforstennis.org/pdf/TheCaseForSpace.pdf 

When President Kennedy challenged America to land on the Moon before 1970, no one

said, “If we do this, then in 40 years consumers will be able to purchase laptop computers, satelliteradio receivers, and hand-held GPS devices from a neighborhood store.” But that’s what happened.Solving the problems inherent in sending astronauts and satellites into space resulted in new productsand capabilities that have transformed our culture and spawned a major segment of the global economyworth trillions of dollars. So is it reasonable to expect that investing billions more in the Vision for

Space Exploration will yield future economic benefits presently impossible to predict? In thefollowing, we look at the impact of the space program on the global economy and learn just how pervasive the influence of space is. Space exploration has advanced telecommunications, medicaltechnology, weather forecasting, navigation, television, radio, computing, and many other industries.The nation’s commitment to space exploration has engaged us in a unique type of problem solving. Asa direct result of the innovations, inventions, and discoveries that have enabled us to explore space, our daily lives on Earth have changed profoundly. Space exploration requires experts in many differentareas to work together to develop entirely new capabilities that operate reliably in a remote and hostileenvironment. Few other endeavors combine this interdisciplinary focus with the need to achieve notsimply concepts or demonstrations, but also functional end-state results. No other endeavor addressesthe same challenges as space exploration. Many of the capabilities and technologies we have developedthrough space exploration probably would not have been developed in its absence, even with the samelevel of investment. Goods and services enabled through the use and exploration of space

permeate our economy. Massive industries, with annual revenues of hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars, rely on space systems to provide key capabilities. From television to cell phones,

from maps to weather forecasts, fundamental aspects of American life rely on an infrastructure of in-space systems in place today. Many others — personal computers, compact discs, and cordless tools,among countless examples — derive in part from past investments in space technology.

Moreover, the impact of investment in space exploration extends far beyond the United

States and the small number of other space-faring nations. Space capabilities shape life around

the world.

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 8/21

The global space economy is built on a space infrastructure consisting of manufacturers, service

 providers, and technologists in industry and government who deploy and operate launch

vehicles, satellites, and space platforms such as the International Space Station. The cost of this

space infrastructure is borne by commercial firms that sell satellite services; governments in

many countries that use satellites to provide long-distance telephone, television, and Internet to

their citizens; and the national space agencies (mainly those of the United States, Europe, Russia,

Ukraine, China, Japan, and a few others)

THE RESULTS OF THIS SPACE EXPLORATION WILL BE MUC LIKE THOSE OF THE

1960S AND WILL LEAD TO INTANGIBLE AMOUNTS OF NEW TECHNOLOGY

 Vernikos 08’ Joan Vernikos, a member of the Space Studies Board of the National Academy and

former director of NASA’s Life Sciences Division: http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-

space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/

Why explore? Asked why he kept trying to climb Everest, English mountaineer George Malloryreputedly replied, “Because it was there.” Exploration is intrinsic to our nature. It is the contest between man and nature mixed with the primal desire to conquer. It fuels curiosity, inspiration andcreativity. The human spirit seeks to discover the unknown, and in the process explore the physical and psychological potential of human endurance.There have always been the few risk-takers who ventured for the rest of us to follow. Because of earlier  pioneers, air travel is now commonplace, and space travel for all is  just around the corner. Economicand societal benefits are not immediately evident, but they always follow, as does our understanding of human potential to overcome challenges. Fifty years after Sputnik, space remains the next frontier.Without risking human lives, robotic technology such as unmanned missions, probes, observatories,and landers enables space exploration. It lays the groundwork, and does the scouting. But as I heardformer astronaut Thomas Jones often say, “only a human can experience what being in space feels like,and only a human can communicate this to others.” It is humans who repair the Hubble telescope. It ishumans who service the International Space Station (ISS). Mercury astronauts were the first to photograph Earth from space with hand-held cameras. Earth scientists in orbit on the ISS may viewaspects of global change that only a trained eye can see. In addition, studying astronauts in themicrogravity of space has been the only means of understanding how gravity affects humandevelopment and health here on Earth. It is highly probable that, in this century, humans will settle onother planets. Our ability to explore and sustain human presence there will not only expand Earth’saccess to mineral resources but, should the need arise, provide alternative habitats for humanity’ssurvival.

At what cost? Is there a price to inspiration and creativity? Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. Globally, 43 countries now havetheir own observing or communication satellites in Earth orbit. Observing Earth has provided G.P.S.,meteorological forecasts, predictions and management of hurricanes and other natural disasters, andglobal monitoring of the environment, as well as surveillance and intelligence. Satellitecommunications have changed life and business practices with computer operations, cell phones, global banking, and TV. Studying humans living in the microgravity of space has expanded our understanding

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 9/21

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 10/21

is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and William Ziegler Professor at Harvard Business School

http://www.niallferguson.com/site/FERG/Templates/Home.aspx?pageid=1

Could an apolar world today produce an era reminiscent of the age of Alfred? It could, though withsome important and troubling differences.

Certainly, one can imagine the world’s established powers—the United States, Europe, and China— 

retreating into their own regional spheres of influence. But what of the growing pretensions toautonomy of the supranational bodies created under U.S. leadership after the Second World War? TheUnited Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization(formerly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) each considers itself in some way representativeof the “international community.” Surely their aspirations to global governance are fundamentallydifferent from the spirit of the Dark Ages.

Yet universal claims were also an integral part of the rhetoric of that era. All the empires claimed torule the world; some, unaware of the existence of other civilizations, may even have believed that theydid. The reality, however, was not a global Christendom or an all-embracing Empire of Heaven, but political fragmentation. And that is also true today. The defining characteristic of our age is not a shift

of power upward, to supranational institutions, but downward. With the end of states’ monopoly on themeans of violence and the collapse of their control over channels of communication, humanity hasentered an era characterized as much by disintegration as by integration.

If free flows of information and of means of production empower multinational corporations andnongovernmental organizations (as well as evangelistic religious cults of all denominations), the freeflow of destructive technology empowers both criminal organizations and terrorist cells. These groupscan operate, it seems, wherever they choose, from Hamburg to Gaza.

By contrast, the writ of the international community is not global at all. It is, in fact, increasinglyconfined to a few strategic cities such as Kabul and Pristina. In short, it is the nonstate actors who truly

wield global power—including both the monks and the Vikings of our time.

So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortifiedcities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one thanthe Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous—roughly 20 times more— meaning that friction between the world’s disparate “tribes” is bound to be more frequent. Technologyhas transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on fresh water and the harvest butalso on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too; itis now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it.

For more than two decades, globalization—the integration of world markets for commodities, labor,and capital—has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shutthemselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization—which anew Dark Age would produce—would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. Asthe United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work,visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe’s Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists’ infiltration of the E.U. would become irreversible, increasing transatlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the communist system into crisis,

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 11/21

unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors wouldlose out and conclude that lower returns at home were preferable to the risks of default abroad.

The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. Thewealthiest ports of the global economy—from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai—would becomethe targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas,

targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentratedon making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. InLatin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in evangelical Christianity imported by U.S.religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work.The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents;who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there?

For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than itfrightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony—its fragileself-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier—its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony or even a return to the good old balance of power.

Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity—a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.

ADVANTAGE TWO: ECONOMY

US ECONOMY IS IN THE “GOODWILL” OF FOREIGN HANDS

Hamsayeh.Net - Signals that the so-called world’s largest economy will in 2011 creep closer to another round of economic, social and political crisis are being picked-up by independent

media outlets before the end of this year.

A new report by the Standard and Poor’s/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices released on

Tuesday shows home prices in 20 major cities across the United States dropped more than

expected during the month of October. This is while government affiliated economists and

think tanks kept announcing that the economy was going back to normal during the said

period.

The report showed US home price dropped another 1.3 percent and 0.7 percent in October 

and September, respectively. A double increase for house price falling across major 

metropolitan areas is a sure sign of economic trouble. ‘There is no good news in October's

report; home prices across the country continue to fall. The trends we have seen over the

past few months have not changed,’ said David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee

at Standard and Poor's.

Using phony statistics, the Obama administration still hopes it could stretch the timeline to a

certain financial collapse that experts believe might happen at any moment from the first day

of 2011.

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 12/21

Heavily oil-dependent yet still in denial, for the US in order to maintain the status of dollar, it

must rely on the goodwill of world’s major energy producers including Russia, Venezuela,

Saudi Arabia among others to keep supplying a steady level of oil and gas within an ever-

increasing tense international environment and growing lawlessness. Washington could no

longer count on raising the global oil output, as any excess of oil would quickly be absorbed

by Asia’s fast-evolving economies.

Global oil prices have peaked up steam after US Federal Reserve injected close to a trillion

dollars of unsupported money dubbed QE2 into its economy about two months ago. All of that

money has now been absorbed by the increase in oil prices. For every one dollar increase in

the price of oil translates into a $100 billion dollar per year energy expenditure in the US.

Currently the price of oil is hovering near $100 per barrel mark and it is expected to reach a

more natural median price at $150 a barrel in the future, analysts predict.

Not only is this an embarrassing situation for the United States but it also is further 

proof that heg is failing

CURRENTLY, THE US ECONOMY IS DETERIORATING

JUNE 1, 2011 

Yesterday’s US consumer confidence survey, manufacturing numbers, and housing data all showedsharp drop offs from their previous readings. However, the negative economic data was largely ignoredin the FX markets as traders chose to focus on events in the euro zone and gains in equity markets.Today’s ISM data may indicate a slowdown in US economic growth with further evidence coming

on Friday from the monthly jobs report.Today’s Economic Data Releases:GBP – Manufacturing PMI – 08:30 GMTExpectations: 54.2. Previous: 54.6After a respectable run from the pound during the previous week the rally has stalled, particularly in theCable where the pair made three unsuccessful attempts to form a beachhead above the 1.6315 mark. Aclose above this level would target the April high of 1.6745. To the downside the initial support isfound at 1.6300 followed by the rising trend line off of the 2010 May low which comes in today at1.6120.USD – ADP Non-Farm Employment Change – 12:15 GMTExpectations: 177K. Previous: 179K.The ADP report has a low success rate of predicting Friday’s jobs report from the Department of Labor.However, a strong ADP report may feed into USD selling today.USD – ISM Manufacturing PMI – 14:00 GMTExpectations: 58.1. Previous: 60.4.A pullback in US economic data was apparent yesterday but was largely ignored by FX traders. Today

market participants may look past the euro zone crisis and focus on the slowdown in the US economy.A sharp decline in today’s ISM data may cause some economists to scale back their Q2 GDP estimatesand induce a bout of USD buying. EUR/USD support comes in at 1.4345 off of the May 20th highfollowed by 1.4130. To the upside the overnight low at 1.4440 is the first resistance level. A break hereopens the door to 1.4590 and1.4750.

Connell 01/11/2008 , Kathleen M. Connell, a principal of The Connell Whittaker Group, a founding team member 

of   NASA’s Astrobiology Program, and former policy director of the Aerospace States Association:http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 13/21

 The value of public sector human space exploration is generally perceived asworth the cost when exploration outcomes address one or more nationalimperatives of the era. For example, in the twentieth century, the Soviet Union’slaunch of Sputnik required a bold technological retort by the U.S. Apollo put bootson the moon, winning the first space race. The resulting foreign policy boost andpsychic prestige for the U.S. more that justified the cost for the Cold War

generation. Unquestionably, manned exploration of that era also createdunintended economic consequences and benefits, such as the spinoff of miniaturization that led to computers and cell phones. Apollo also created newNASA centers in the South, acting as an unanticipated economic developmentanchor for those regions, both then and now.

In the twenty-first century, what would happen if U.S. manned space programswere managed based upon the contemporary demands of the planet and theAmerican taxpayer? NASA could be rewarded to explore, but with terrestrialreturns as a priority. Space exploration crews could conduct global warmingresearch on the International Space Station National Laboratory, while other crewsfrom the public or private sector could rapidly assemble solar energy satellites for

clean energy provision to Earth. Lunar settlements could be established todevelop new energy sources from rare compounds that are in abundance on themoon. Getting to Mars, to develop a terrestrial lifeboat and to better understandthe fate of planets, suddenly takes on new meaning and relevance.

I have to come the conclusion[is that], after over 20 years in the spaceindustry, that addressing global challenges with space solutions that benefithumanity and American constituents is the key to justifying the cost of manned space exploration. I believe we are about to find out, all over again, if civil manned space capability and policy can adapt and rise to meet newimperatives.

INCREASING SPACE EXPLORATION REKINDLES ECONOMY AND NATIONALISMFRAUST 07’ Dr Jeff Foust is an aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher. He is the editor and publisher of The Space Review and

has written for Astronomy Now and The New Atlantis. He has a bachelor's degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and a Ph.D in planetary sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.http://www.thespacereview.com/article/962/1

One of the biggest debates in the first half-century of spaceflight has been regarding the economicrationale for sending spacecraft—robotic or human—into the cosmos. Opponents of spaceflight, particularly human missions, see such efforts as extravagances that waste money that could be better spent “on Earth”, that is, in different areas like the environment, education, and social programs, amongothers. (Money devoted to space programs is, of course, spent on Earth, although an article in thesatirical newspaper The Onion last year touched on this by describing a NASA mission to launch $700

million into deep space.) Proponents of spaceflight describe the benefits created by such programs,be it in direct forms like contracts and jobs, or, indirectly, in technological “spinoffs” that impact

the economy and society far beyond the aerospace sector.

As the Space Age turns 50, the economic debate shows no sign of abating. While NASA has carved outa modest but relatively stable wedge in the overall federal budget, some wonder whether that wedge is big enough for the agency to do all it has been tasked to do, from kickstarting an ambitious humanexploration program to maintaining its portfolio of science and aeronautics research. Meanwhile, long-term budget pressures, particularly from entitlement programs as the Baby Boomer generation

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 14/21

approaches retirement, could make it difficult for NASA to retain even its current share of the budgetover the long haul. That requires NASA to both better justify the importance of a government space program while also seek means to work with the private sector to do more for less—approaches that NASA administrator Michael Griffin described in two very different speeches last Monday.

Defining “The Space Economy”

In June, NASA released a new strategic communications plan to better communicate the agency’smission to a public that was skeptical or simply unaware of the relevance the agency has in their lives(See “NASA’s new outreach plan”, The Space Review, July 2, 2007). Part of that plan was a conceptcalled “The Space Economy” that is intended to demonstrate the full effect of space exploration on theeconomy: “the full range of activities and use of resources that create and provide value and benefits tohuman beings in the course of exploring, understanding and utilizing space.”

Griffin discussed The Space Economy concept during a luncheon speech before an invited audience of over 100 people from the space industry at a downtown Washington hotel on Monday, September 17.The speech was the first in a new lecture series established by NASA to help celebrate its 50thanniversary next October (a concept also included in the aforementioned strategic communications plan.) In his remarks, he made it clear that his Space Economy idea went beyond simply embracingspinoffs. “I do think there is a very strong link, the strongest possible link, between doing the hardestthing people do, which is flying in space, and how it benefits the rest of our economy, and indeed our whole way of life,” he said.

“Fundamentally, NASA opens new frontiers and creates new opportunities,” he continued. “And because of that, we are a critical driver of innovation, but not in a way that just creates jobs. We createnew markets, and new possibilities for economic growth, that didn’t previously exist. We’ve taken at NASA to calling this ‘The Space Economy’. It is an emerging economy, but it a robust one even

so.”

Griffin noted that the higher standards of performance companies are held to when working on space projects have an as-yet unmeasured effect on the overall economy. “I often wonder if it might be possible to quantify the value to society of upgrading the standards of precision to which the entireindustrial base of that society operates,” he said. “How do we value that asset? I don’t know, but I amabsolutely convinced that it is real and, without the space industry, we wouldn’t have it.”

He also discussed competition among nations, not in space per se, but in innovation and economicdevelopment. “Economic growth is driven by technological innovation. Societies that foster it lead

the pack, and others lag behind. But if technological innovation drives competitiveness and growth,what drives innovation? There are many factors, but the exploration and exploitation of space is one of those.”

Another factor in innovation and economic competitiveness that Griffin said is often overlooked is theimage that various nations project to the world. “The nation that appears to be at the top of the technical pyramid has taken a very large step towards being there in fact,” he said. “Developing countries like

China recognize the value of space activities as a driver of innovation, a source of national pride,

and membership in the most exclusive of clubs, that of spacefaring societies.

SPACE EXPLORATION BENEFITS PEOPLE AND THE ECONOMY IMMEDIEATELY

Campbell 09’ Study conducted by Dr. Charles A. Campbell, professor of economics, Mississippi

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 15/21

State University, February 2009. http://www.partnersforstennis.org/pdf/FS-2009-03-00079-SSC_Economic_Impact_fact_sheet.pdf 

 NASA’s John C. Stennis Space Center is a significant source of employment and income in the localarea. If Stennis had not been in operation, considering both direct and indirect effects, a veryconservative estimate of reduction in employment for the local area would be almost 31, 778 jobs. Avery similar conservative estimate indicates that personal income would have been reduced by morethan 1.2 billion, and retail sales would have been reduced by $491 million. It is estimated that Stennis

has an impact of $132 million on local government tax revenue.There is widespread belief that the space program is a good thing for our nation. But ask why andyou’ll get as many different types of answers as there are people.

• According to astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the rationale for our space program has as much todo with national security and the economy as it does with the intangible, indefinable spirit of exploration that is written into our DNA.

The key point, Tyson argues, is that we can enjoy the many benefits of a robust space exploration program and afford to pay for it. In fact, we should probably spend a lot more on something that is soimportant to our culture but is all too often taken for granted.

THIS STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS CREATES A REDUCED SCOPE FOR POLICIES, IN

OTHER WORDS THE BEGINNING OF THE DEMISE OF US HEGEMONY

Subacchi 08’ Paola Subacchi is research director on international economics at Chatham House

http://www.foresightproject.net/publications/articles/article.asp?p=3522

What does the current financial crisis mean for the standing of the US in the world? Will it mark theend of US hegemony and superpowerdom? For many commentators the crisis represents "a true globalwatershed" between a world dominated by the American brand, epitomised, in Francis Fukuyama'swords, by capitalism and liberal democracy, and the post-American world in which the US is no longer the world's only superpower and economic hegemon. For Peer Steinbrück, Germany's finance minister,

it is not even a matter of time: "The United States is no longer a financial superpower", he said in arecent interview.

Large empires, from ancient Rome to Great Britain, declined at least in part as a result of economicweakness. Financial meltdown and recession in the US may act as a catalyst to the ongoing shift of theworld economic order by dramatically rupturing the credibility of and respect for the American model.Such a shift has been prophesised for some time. China's rapid economic growth and the potential for other emerging market economies to expand substantially over the next three to five decades, due totheir large population, strong economic expansion and integration in the world economy, seem toindicate the emergence of a new world order. New players could use their recently acquired economicmight to gain influence and challenge established powers, notably the US. Can the crisis accelerate this

"shift of power"?

The global financial turmoil is huge in scale, worthy of comparison to the Great Depression in the1930s where stress in financial markets led to prolonged recession. After several weeks of marketturmoil there is no doubt that the world economy is taking a "synchronised dive", the recovery fromwhich promises to be slow. In the case of the US economy, the latest IMF outlook predicts the return to potential growth in 2010. But there are many risks that could derail the recovery: the credit crunchcould be worse than feared, house prices may not climb until after 2010, a higher unemployment rateand low confidence could constrain domestic demand growth.

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 16/21

The critical point here, and the one which could bear significant consequences, is the existence, withinthe US economy, of structural weaknesses that enhance the current distress and limit the scope for future policy action. The US has an almost zero national savings rate, increasing indebtedness and bloated budget deficit. In addition to the cost of the $700bn bailout (and an additional $100bn of tax provisions for businesses and the middle class), will be the rising cost of healthcare programmes that

are under strain due to an increase in the ageing population. The increase in expenditure means, in theshort term, limited scope for loose fiscal policy and continuous reliance on foreign lenders. In thelonger term, it implies tighter fiscal policy and constraints on policy in a number of areas, from militaryintervention to discretionary international aid and projects.

The crisis certainly exacerbates the economic weaknesses that could be ignored over the last decade because of foreign investors' willingness to invest in the US. It also constrains policy initiatives in away that will be felt in years to come. All this will accelerate the relative decline of the US. However,cries for the end of US economic hegemony may be premature, as are predictions of China's takeover.Despite being badly hit by the credit crisis, the US may still show great resilience. It is the economy best endowed with the flexibility and resources needed to get past present difficulties. Moreover, theUS dollar will continue to lead the international monetary system-as the euro is far from having aglobal role and hence able to seriously challenge the greenback's dominance.

In spite of all the talk about decoupling, the US remains the engine of the world's economic growth,with no economy left immune from the current trouble. Following years of high growth, emergingmarket economies are surely more "self-reliant" than before and so far better insulated from the effectsof the financial crisis, partly because their financial sector is still relatively small and disconnectedfrom the real economy. However, their growth depends on demand from developed countries, notablythe US, so the effects of the financial crisis in the west are inevitably spilling over into the emergingeconomies.

The US is due to remain at the helm of the international economic and monetary system - at least for some years to come. However, the financial strait-jacket and the loss of "moral authority"-both not adirect consequence of, but exacerbated by the crisis-will change the role of the US in the world affairs. No longer a super-power, but a primus inter pares the US will have the responsibility to engagedeveloped and developing countries in the governance of the world economy. Assuming that thecurrent crisis does not put a halt to economic integration, then the most plausible scenario for the yearsahead is a leaderless world, where economic power is more diffuse, but less effective, and where thegovernance of the world economy is, hopefully, more and more a matter of multilateral coordination.

One lesson from the crisis is that more players should be involved in any dialogue on the reform of theinternational financial architecture-in particular China and oil exporting countries because of their largeforeign exchange official reserves. This dialogue needs to focus on the still unresolved imbalance, insome economies, between the ability to generate surplus and the capacity to absorb it, and on how touse such surplus to support the global economy rather than destabilise it. The way the emergingcountries have responded to the crisis, however, raises questions about their ability to intervene in crisisresolution. As China made it clear at the recent Asia-Europe meeting, domestic economic growth andstability are the priorities for these countries, so their only contribution to resolving the crisis is bykeeping their economies stable. And if the Chinese authorities have in principle scope for coordinating policies with developed countries, if they wish so, others are more constrained. India, for example, hashigh inflation, volatile commodity prices and large current account and fiscal deficits, which leave lessroom for manouevring. The inability of playing an active role in crisis resolution, however, would not

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 17/21

restrain the main emerging economies, especially China, from being engaged in a broad discussion of  policy lessons from the crisis and principles on which the new financial architecture should be based.Rethinking principles and norms is possibly the best contribution that these countries can offer whileworking on a new consensus on rules.

WITHOUT THE U.S. AS A WORLD LEADER, GLOBAL PEACE AND PROSPERITY WILLWITHER SPARKING WARS AROUND THE WORLD

Brookes 06’ Peter Brookes is a Senior Fellow for national security affairs at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington,

D.C.-based think tank. He is also a weekly columnist for the New York Post. Brookes frequently appears on cable newssuch as FOX, CNN, and MSNBC as well as hosts major market radio talk shows. He is the author of: "A Devil's Triangle:Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction and Rogue States." (http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,104122,00.html)

The picture isn't pretty. Absent U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, military might, economic power and unprecedented generosity, life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim, indeed. Set aside thedifferences America made last century -- just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan.1, 2001.On security, the United States is the global balance of power. While it's not our preference, we are the

world's "cop on the beat," providing critical stability in some of the planet's toughest neighborhoods.Without the U.S. "Globo-cop," rivals India and Pakistan might well find cause to unleash the dogs of war in South Asia -- undoubtedly leading to history's first nuclear (weapons) exchange. Talk aboutFourth of July fireworks . . .In Afghanistan, al Qaeda would still be an honored guest, scheming over a global caliphate stretchingfrom Spain to Indonesia. It wouldn't be sending fighters to Iraq; instead, Osama's gang would befighting them tooth and nail from Saudi Arabia to "Eurabia."In Asia, China would be the "Middle Kingdom," gobbling up democratic Taiwan and compelling pac ifist Japan (reluctantly) to join the nuclear weapons club. The Koreas might fight another horrificwar, resulting in millions of deaths.A resurgent Russia, meanwhile, would be breathing down the neck of its "near abroad" neighbors.

Fo rget the democratic revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, Comrade! In Europe, they'd be taking ordersfrom Paris or Berlin -- if those rivals weren't at each other's throats again.In Africa, Liberia would still be under Charles Taylor's sway, and Sudan would have no peaceagre ement. And what other nation could or would provide freedom of the seas for commerce, including the

shipment of oil and gas -- all free of charge?

Weapons of mass destruction would be everywhere. North Korea would be brandishing a solid nuclear arsenal. Libya would not have given up its weapons, and Pakistan's prodigious proliferator, A.Q. Khan,would still be going door to door, hawking his nuclear wares.Also missing would be other gifts from "Uncle Sugar" -- starting with 22 percent of the U.N. budget.That includes half the operations of the World Food Program, which feeds over 100 million in 81cou ntries. Gone would be 17 percent of UNICEF's costs to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 157countries -- and 31 percent of the budget of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, which assistsmore than 19 million refugees across the globe.In 2005, Washington dispensed $28 billion in foreign aid, more than double the amount of the nexthighest donor (Japan), contributing nearly 26 percent of all official development assistance from thelarge industrialized countries.Moreover, President Bush's five-year $15 billion commitment under the Emergency Plan for AIDSR elief is the largest commitment by a single nation toward an international health initiative -- ever --working in over 100 (mostly African) countries.

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 18/21

The United States is the world's economic engine. We not only have the largest economy, we spend40 percent of the world's budget on R&D, driving mind-boggling innovation in areas like informationtechnology, defense and medicine. We're the world's ATM, too, providing 17 percent of theInternational Monetary Fund's resources for nations in fiscal crisis, and funding 13 percent of WorldBank programs that dole out billions in development assistance to needy countries.

CONTENTION THREE: SOLVENCY1. Plan solves for preserving US hegemony

Christopher Stone, May 24th, 2011. Stone is Christopher Stone is a space policy analyst and strategist who lives near Washington DC. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1

Recently, Lou Friedman wrote a piece where he articulated his view on what American leadership in

space means to many and what it means to him (see “American leadership”, The Space Review,

February 14, 2011). I would like to respond by providing some context that I think is lacking from the

discussion.

First, let me start by saying that I agree with Mr. Friedman’s assertion that “American leadership is a

 phrase we hear bandied about a lot in political circles in the United States, as well as in many space

 policy discussions.” I have been at many space forums in my career where I’ve heard the phrase used by speakers of various backgrounds, political ideologies, and nation. Like Mr. Friedman states, “it has

many different meanings, most derived from cultural or political biases, some of them contradictory”.

This is true: many nations, as well as organizations and individuals worldwide, have different

 preferences and views as to what American leadership in space is, and/or what it should be. He also

concludes that paragraph by stating that American leadership in space could also be viewed as

“synonymous with American… hegemony”. I again will agree that some people within the United

States and elsewhere have this view toward American leadership. However, just because people believe

certain viewpoints regarding American leadership does not mean that those views are accurate

assessments or definitions of what actions demonstrate US leadership in the space medium.

When it comes to space exploration and development, including national security space and

commercial, I would disagree somewhat with Mr. Friedman’s assertion that space is “often”

overlooked in “foreign relations and geopolitical strategies”. My contention is that while space is

indeed overlooked in national grand geopolitical strategies by many in national leadership, space is

used as a tool for foreign policy and relations more often than not . In fact, I will say that the US

space program has become less of an effort for the advancement of US space power and exploration,

and is used more as a foreign policy tool to “shape” the strategic environment to what President Obama

referred to in his National Security Strategy as “The World We Seek”. Using space to shape the

strategic environment is not a bad thing in and of itself. What concerns me with this form of “shaping”

is that we appear to have changed the definition of American leadership as a nation away from thetraditional sense of the word. Some seem to want to base our future national foundations in space using

the important international collaboration piece as the starting point. Traditional national leadership

would start by advancing United States’ space power capabilities and strategies first, then proceed

toward shaping the international environment through allied cooperation efforts. The United States’

goal should be leadership through spacefaring capabilities, in all sectors. Achieving and maintaining

such leadership through capability will allow for increased space security and opportunities for

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 19/21

all and for America to lead the international space community by both technological and political

example.

The world has recognized America as the leaders in space because it demonstrated technological

advancement by the Apollo lunar landings, our deep space exploration probes to the outer planets, and

deploying national security space missions. We did not become the recognized leaders in astronautics

and space technology because we decided to fund billions into research programs with no firm budgetary commitment or attainable goals. We did it because we made a national level decision to do

each of them, stuck with it, and achieved exceptional things in manned and unmanned spaceflight. We

have allowed ourselves to drift from this traditional strategic definition of leadership in space

exploration, rapidly becoming participants in spaceflight rather than the leader of the global

space community. One example is shutting down the space shuttle program without a viable domestic

spacecraft chosen and funded to commence operations upon retirement of the fleet. We are paying

millions to rely on Russia to ferry our astronauts to an International Space Station that US

taxpayers paid the lion’s share of the cost of construction. Why would we, as United States citizens and

space advocates, settle for this? The current debate on commercial crew and cargo as the stopgap

 between shuttle and whatever comes next could and hopefully will provide some new and excitingsolutions to this particular issue. However, we need to made a decision sooner rather than later.

Finally, one other issue that concerns me is the view of the world “hegemony” or “superiority” as dirty

words. Some seem to view these words used in policy statements or speeches as a direct threat. In my

view, each nation (should they desire) should have freedom of access to space for the purpose of 

advancing their “security, prestige and wealth” through exploration like we do. However, to maintain

leadership in the space environment, space superiority is a worthy and necessary byproduct of the

traditional leadership model. If your nation is the leader in space, it would pursue and maintain

superiority in their mission sets and capabilities. In my opinion, space superiority does not imply a

wall of orbital weapons preventing other nations from access to space, nor does it precludeinternational cooperation among friendly nations. Rather, it indicates a desire as a country to

achieve its goals for national security, prestige, and economic prosperity for its people, and to be

known as the best in the world with regards to space technology and astronautics. I can assure you

that many other nations with aggressive space programs, like ours traditionally has been, desire the

same prestige of being the best at some, if not all, parts of the space pie. Space has been characterized

recently as “congested, contested, and competitive”; the quest for excellence is just one part of 

international space competition that, in my view, is a good and healthy thing. As other nations pursue 

excellence in space, we should take our responsibilities seriously, both from a national capability

standpoint, and as country who desires expanded international engagement in space.

If America wants to retain its true leadership in space, it must approach its space programs as the

advancement of its national “security, prestige and wealth” by maintaining its edge in spaceflight

capabilities and use those demonstrated talents to advance international prestige and influence in

the space community. These energies and influence can be channeled to create the international space

coalitions of the future that many desire and benefit mankind as well as America. Leadership will

require sound, long-range exploration strategies with national and international political will behind it.

American leadership in space is not a choice. It is a requirement if we are to truly lead the world

into space with programs and objectives “worthy of a great nation”.

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 20/21

2.Affirmative plan solves for boosting US economy

Kosmas 09’ suzanne M. Kosmas (born February 25, 1944) is the former U.S. Representative for  Florida's 24th congressional district,

serving from 2009 until 2011. She is a member of the Democratic Party. She previously served in the Florida House of Representatives.

The district consists of several portions of the Orlando-Daytona Beach area as well as portions of the Space Coast region

One of the keys to job growth and economic recovery is to fully fund NASA so that we can restorefunding to science programs, repair hurricane damage and minimize our space-flight gap by extendingthe shuttle program and accelerating Constellation.Kennedy Space Center is an economic engine for the 24th District as well as the entire state, employing

tens of thousands of Floridians. But like many others, KSC and surrounding local businesses arefee ling the economic strain. In order to ensure a robust Space Coast economy, we must do all that wecan to protect the highly skilled work force at KSC and the small businesses that support the center'soperations.Last week, details of the economic recovery package were made public. The initial plan calls for $600million for NASA's science and aeronautics programs, as well as funding to repair some of the damagecaused by natural disasters in 2008.While I applaud this much-needed infusion of funds, I believe it does not go far enough,

especially in light of funding shortfalls caused by flat budgets in recent years.

That is why I sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House leadership urging an additional $2 billion in the economic stimulus for NASA's exploration systems and space operations. We would be

remiss to leave out funding for human space exploration from this recovery package.If the goal of this legislation is to stimulate our economy, support science, and maintain and

create highly skilled jobs, there is no better place to dedicate resources than to our human

spaceflight program.

Small businesses in nearly every state supply NASA programs, employing more than half a million

Americans and contributing nearly $100 billion to our economy in 2004 alone. The reach of the

space economy is broad, and its contributions are vital to enhancing our nation's economy and

technological leadership.

Increasing funding for NASA in the recovery package will allow for the extension of our shuttle program and the acceleration of the Constellation program while providing an immediate and long-term economic boost to the 24th District, as well as the rest of Florida and communities across our 

nation.Minimizing the spaceflight gap will ensure that taxpayer dollars, which would otherwise go to foreigncountries to ferry our cargo and astronauts to space, will stay in the United States and drive our economy.In addition, the benefits of NASA's space operations go beyond pure economics. Technologiesdeveloped for human spaceflight improve the quality of life for all our citizens and lead to discoveriesthat enable us to address important issues facing our nation, including developing alternative energy,improving health care, strengthening commerce and communications, and studying and understandingclimate change.

8/6/2019 Space Aff (Revised)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/space-aff-revised 21/21

I will do everything I can to ensure that Kennedy Space Center and our local businesses are protectedand given the opportunity to thrive.