Will Malson Drew 2NC Page 1 of 6

Roadmap is CP, new DA, then a surprise at the bottom of the cereal box!!! Weighing comes in the 2NR.
1NR is T, I-Spec, K.
Word count is 1566.

A. CP Text:

1. Impact to lobbying the international community? Well if there is one, it’s not negative.
How is this a point?

2. I think he misses the point of my cp. Visual example: his plan is a toaster strudel (glorified
delicious poptart). Potentially good, right? Well, it’s frozen. We need to thaw it first. My cp is
the toaster + his plan. Look at the possibilities:
a) we get some (or all) countries to work with us on this. That means I get all of his
advantages multiplied by the number of countries that cooperate.
b) we get no countries to work with us on this. That means I get all of his advantages.

The point is, we won’t know until we try. Aff throws out all the potential benefits of
international cooperation out the window. My cp doesn’t – and, it doesn’t throw out his
advantages. Look at it this way:
a) voting aff: will get you domestic sbsp without any international co-op.
b) voting neg: will potentially get you international co-op on sbsp that benefits everyone,
and if not that, then domestic sbsp.

3. He can’t perm the toaster in (haha, the cp) because that’d be:
a) severing his timeline, which is an independent voter, and
b) new; he doesn’t do that in the 2AC, which would be another independent voter.

B. Solvency of the CP:

1. Space colonization comes from multilateral space co-op only.

Aff’s only refutation was that it didn’t matter, and that there are future opportunities to cooperate on
sbsp in the future. I wasn’t applying it to sbsp though – it’s a set-up for a CP advantage.

a) The card itself was conceded. He didn’t address it in its original form. Advantage time!

A. Link: the card: space colonization comes from multilateral space co-op only. Aff breaks away from
this approach, which hinders the necessary approach to make space colonization a sustainable option.

B. Impact 1: The future of an earthbound human race holds a bleak future of inevitable extinction - only
colonizing space can enable the possibility of surviving in the long term - it’s do or die. Matheny 07
Jason G. Matheny [Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, MBA is a Consultant to
the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC. Previously he worked for the World Bank, the Center for Global Development, and the Packard Foundation,
evaluating public health projects. He is a Sommer Scholar and PhD student in Health Economics at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. He
received a BA from the University of Chicago, an MPH from Johns Hopkins University, and an MBA from Duke University. He has published on health
economics, risk analysis, biotechnology, and bioethics], "Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction", Risk Analysis, Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 1335 - 1344,
Published Online: 7 Dec 2007, ©2009 Society for Risk Analysis [An international journal; an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis], DOI:
Will Malson Drew 2NC Page 2 of 6

10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00960.x (HEG)

2. HUMANITY'S LIFE EXPECTANCY We have some influence over how long we can delay human extinction.
Cosmology dictates the upper limit but leaves a large field of play. At
its lower limit, humanity could be extinguished as soon
as this century by succumbing to near-term extinction risks: nuclear detonations, asteroid or comet
impacts, or volcanic eruptions could generate enough atmospheric debris to terminate food production; a
nearby supernova or gamma ray burst could sterilize Earth with deadly radiation; greenhouse gas
emissions could trigger a positive feedback loop, causing a radical change in climate; a genetically
engineered microbe could be unleashed, causing a global plague; or a high-energy physics experiment
could go awry, creating a "true vacuum" or strangelets that destroy the planet (Bostrom, 2002 ; Bostrom & Cirkovic,
2007 ; Leslie, 1996 ; Posner, 2004 ; Rees, 2003 ). Farther out in time are risks from technologies that remain theoretical but might be developed in the next
century or centuries. For instance, self-replicating nanotechnologies could destroy the ecosystem; and cognitive enhancements or recursively self-improving
computers could exceed normal human ingenuity to create uniquely powerful weapons (Bostrom, 2002 ; Bostrom & Cirkovic, 2007 ; Ikle, 2006 ; Joy, 2000 ;
Leslie, 1996 ; Posner, 2004 ; Rees, 2003 ). Farthest
out in time are astronomical risks. In one billion years, the sun will
begin its red giant stage, increasing terrestrial temperatures above 1,000 degrees, boiling off our
atmosphere, and eventually forming a planetary nebula, making Earth inhospitable to life (Sackmann, Boothroyd, & Kraemer, 1993 ;
Ward & Brownlee, 2002 ). If we colonize other solar systems, we could survive longer than our sun, perhaps another
100 trillion years, when all stars begin burning out (Adams & Laughlin, 1997 ). We might survive even longer if we exploit nonstellar energy sources. But it
is hard to imagine how humanity will survive beyond the decay of nuclear matter expected in 1032 to 1041 years (Adams & Laughlin, 1997 ).3 Physics
seems to support Kafka's remark that "[t]here is infinite hope, but not for us." While it may be physically possible for humanity or its descendents to flourish
for 1041 years, it seems unlikely that humanity will live so long. Homo sapiens have existed for 200,000 years. Our closest relative, homo erectus, existed
for around 1.8 million years (Anton, 2003 ). The median duration of mammalian species is around 2.2 million years (Avise et al., 1998 ).

C. Impact 2: Space colonization solves extinction. Maryniak 92

Gregg Maryniak [former Vice President of the Space Studies Institute, Chief Operating Officer for the XPRIZE Foundation, Juris Doctor from
Northwestern, winner of the Tsiolkovsky Medal] Christian Science Monitor, “How Space Colonies Could Benefit From Earth”, 1992 (HEG)

Space colonization means much more than Antarctic-style research habitats on the moon or other planets for an elite group of astronauts. Space
can be
colonized and provide Earth with the equivalent of the New World that Columbus "discovered" in the
15th century. Space colonies can supply clean energy necessary for human survival in the 21st century.
In addition, they can provide new homelands and an expanded ecological niche for our species. For many
people, the term "space colony" brings to mind visions of domed cities on the moon or the surface of a hostile planet. Since September 1974, however, the
words have had a very different meaning. That month's issue of Physics Today contained an article by Princeton University professor and nuclear physicist
Gerard K. O'Neill entitled, "The Colonization of Space." Dr. O'Neill proposed construction of large-scale habitats built in free space rather than on the
surface of planets. (See interview, Page 17.) Building the structures in space would allow the inhabitants to select whatever gravity level they desired by
controlling the rate of rotation of the habitat. O'Neill showed that even if relatively simple materials such as steel cables were used in colony construction,
habitat cylinders of up to 20 miles (32 kilometers) in length and 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) in diameter could be built to house up to 1 million people under
comfortable conditions. Early habitats would be much smaller, with populations of hundreds or thousands. Each habitat would have provisions for
agriculture and closed-cycle life support so that once a colony is established, very little outside material would be required to sustain it.

2. Only International SBSP can solve

Will Malson Drew 2NC Page 3 of 6

a) *hems and haws* okay droppin’ this. I’ll change it to:

b) International SBSP is waaaaaayyyyyy better. See warrants in my card: “There are three
reasons why interested parties may wish to abandon their preference for autonomy in favor of an
international effort. These are: 1) to share the high costs and risks; 2) to expand the global
market; 3) to forestall foreign opposition and/or promote international cooperation.

3. China advantage
a) power-tagged card is power-tagged – his Dinerman 07 (b.) card says it would help China’s
econ. I don’t argue this, but the advantage isn’t that unique, and doesn’t have much of a
threshold anyway for 2 reasons:
i] China’s economy BALLS.
Dawber 10
Alistair Dawber [reporter], "The world in 2010: China continues its unstoppable economic charge", The Independent (UK), January 2, 2010,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-world-in-2010-china-continues-its-unstoppable-economic-charge-1855425.html
(HEG)

China and six other South-east Asian countries yesterday toasted the inauguration of the biggest free
trade area in the world, when the Association of South East Asian Nations, or Asean-6, was formally launched.
Covering nearly 2 billion people in Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, along with China, Asean-6's stated aim is to eliminate
China, by far the biggest member, holds the whip hand in the bloc,
tariffs on almost all traded goods between its members.
with some voicing concerns that the country's manufacturers, who have become the engine behind the
world's economy for a number of years, will force overseas competitors out of business. Indeed, four members
of Asean have opted not to join the founding six countries in the free trade area. Vietnam and Cambodia, for example, are only due to join in five years' time.
The launching of Asean-6 further demonstrates China's growing and seemingly unstoppable rise as a
global economic superpower, however, and even if 2009 was benign by Beijing's recent history, by
Western standards growth in the world's most populous nation was breathtaking. The World Bank predicted in June
that the planet's third biggest economy (behind the US and Japan) would grow by 7.2 per cent in 2009 (the Chinese themselves predicted a slightly more
impressive 8 per cent), a marked improvement on the "disappointing" 6.1 per cent of GDP growth recorded in the first quarter of last year, which was
China's worst three-month performance since 1990.

ii] any advantages he gets would be in 30+ years. No depression – the recession will end
“soon”, so that makes it even less unique (and no threshold still).
Reuters 09
Lucia Mutikani, Reuters, "U.S. recession to end soon, modest recovery seen: poll", May 27, 2009,
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE54Q0MW20090527 (HEG)

- The U.S. recession is set to end "soon," but continued job losses and plunging house prices point to an
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
The survey of 45 professional
economic recovery that will be more moderate than those experienced in previous downturns, a survey showed.
forecasters released by the National Association of Business Economists (NABE) on Wednesday found almost
three-quarters expected the economic downturn to end by the third quarter of this year. The remaining
saw the turning point delayed until either the last quarter of this year or the first three months of 2010.
None of the respondents believed the recession, now in its 17th month, would extend beyond the first
quarter of 2010.

b) his hegemony advantage is non-specific: no internal link to China hegemony, don’t give it to
him. However I do have the link, which he never contested: “a multilateral approach leads to
sustainable space cooperation and maintains US tech hegemony.”
c) his hegemony advantage doesn’t stand up to my mandates: international cooperation >
Will Malson Drew 2NC Page 4 of 6

hegemony. In fact…

International cooperation is the new hegemony. Stiles 05

Kendall Stiles, Brigham Young University Paper presented at the annual meetings of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, March 1-5,
2005, “Theories of Non-hegemonic Cooperation DRAFT”, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/7/0/3/4/pages70346/p70346-
1.php (HEG)

Three Questions:
For several decades, scholars of international organization have argued that
internationalcooperative arrangements do not emerge spontaneously, but rather are the result
ofconcerted effort, political and economic pressure, and close monitoring and enforcement.These tasks,
it has been argued, can only occur with the active and sustained support of ahegemon – a single,
dominant actor that enjoys a preponderance of economic andpolitical power. Although there are many variants on this
basic theory, ranging fromhegemonic stability theory to leadership theory, it is generally understood by many thatleadership – particularly US leadership in
this period of history – is a necessaryingredient for large-scale international cooperation. Conversely,
many argue that thedecline of
the United States signals the end of international cooperation (Daalder &Lindsay 2003). Therefore it
comes as a paradox to many that in recent years there have emerged anumber of apparently vibrant
international institutions that not only do not have thesupport of the United States, but are targets of its
open opposition. Among them are theInternational Criminal Court, the Convention on the Rights of the
Child (signed butunratified by the US) and its associated Committee, the Antipersonnel Landmine Ban,
theThird Convention on the Law of the Sea (accepted by the US a decade after its cominginto force),
and the Small Arms Convention. One could also add the Kyoto Protocolwhich, for lack of Russian support, would have come into effect in
2003, but which willbe complied with by most countries anyway. These new rules and institutions representlandmarks in
international cooperation that bring together virtually the entire globe onissues of considerable weight
and urgency. The US role has been at best ambivalent andat worst obstructionist. Before going on, let me note that
by “cooperation” I am referring to new, universal (opento all states), long-term arrangements that involve formal agreement between states(usually with the
concomitant creation of an organizational structure). In this sense, I amdefining the dependent variable in the strictest terms, terms that are most consistent
withhegemonic stability theory. I am excluding informal understandings and other forms of“soft law” or “global governance”. I am also excluding major
revisions to existinginternational agreements. This historic development begs the question whether hegemonic leadership is – or everwas – essential to
international cooperation.

New – Weaponization DA.

Will Malson Drew 2NC Page 5 of 6

First, an underview – if you agree with me that there’s a possibility of internat co-op, then you should
vote neg via net benefits. In addition, here’s a disad that applies to domestic development of SBSP – it
wouldn’t apply to internat co-op.

A. Space weaponization is not an inevitability; satellites required for SBSP would cause
international resentment and a perpetuation of an arms race. Lallanilla 04
MARC LALLANILLA [Master's Degree Candidate, Department of Journalism and Mass Communications, New York University, Master's Degree,
Environmental and Urban Planning, University of California at Berkeley], “Shooting Stars: U.S. Military Takes First Step Towards Weapons in Space”,
Published by ABCnews.com, March 30, 2004, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Technology/Story?id=165290&page=1 (HEG)

“"Weapons in space are not inevitable. If it were, it would have happened already," argued the senior defense expert,
adding, "We should instead be taking the lead to make [weapons] agreements with other countries."
Indeed, other nations have moved for the non-militarization of space. As early as 1967, for example, the United Nations
brokered the Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits the use of weapons of mass destruction in space. The United States is a signatory to the treaty.
Summarizing the differences between the United States and European views on space was Jean-Jacques Dordain, head of the European Space Agency, who
said in a recent interview: "For the U.S., space is an instrument of domination -- information domination and leadership. Europe should be proposing a
different model -- space as a public good." Criticism
of the U.S. plans to weaponize space is not limited to Europeans.
The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Defense Information, a non-governmental organization founded
by retired senior U.S. military offices, said in a 2002 report, "Space is already 'militarized' by both
military and commercial satellites. The only practical place to draw the line today is space
weaponization." Concluded the report: "The United States has and will continue to have more interests
in space assets both civil and military than most countries, and it will retain a net benefit if no one
[including the United States itself] has weapons in space."”

B. Space weaponization undermines US military readiness, leads to arms race, and increased
prolif. Krepon 04
Michael Krepon [president emeritus of the Henry L. Stimson Center, is the author of Space Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case Against Weaponizing
Space with Christopher Clary (Henry L. Stimson Center, 2004), Cooperative Threat Reduction, Missile Defense, and the Nuclear Future (Palgrave
Macmillan, 2003), and editor of Nuclear Risk Reduction in South Asia (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004)], "Weapons in the Heavens: A Radical and Reckless
Option”, The Arms Control Association (ACA) [a national nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and
support for effective arms control policies. Through its public education and media programs and its magazine, Arms Control Today (ACT), ACA provides
policy-makers, the press and the interested public with authoritative information, analysis and commentary on arms control proposals, negotiations and
agreements, and related national security issues. In addition to the regular press briefings ACA holds on major arms control developments, the
Association's staff provides commentary and analysis on a broad spectrum of issues for journalists and scholars both in the United States and abroad],
November 2004, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/Krepon (HEG)

Weaponizing space would poison relations with China and Russia, whose help is essential to stop and
reverse proliferation. ASAT weapon tests and deployments would surely reinforce Russia’s hair-trigger
nuclear posture, and China would likely feel compelled to alter its relaxed nuclear posture, which would then
have negative repercussions on India and Pakistan. The Bush administration’s plans would also further alienate America’s
friends and allies, which, with the possible exception of Israel, strongly oppose the weaponization of
space. The fabric of international controls over weapons of mass destruction, which is being severely
challenged by Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, could rip apart if the Bush administration’s interest in
testing space and nuclear weapons is realized.This highly destabilizing and dangerous scenario can be avoided, as there is no pressing
need to weaponize space and many compelling reasons to avoid doing so. If space becomes another realm for the flight-testing
and deployment of weapons, there will be no sanctuary in space and no assurance that essential satellites
will be available when needed for military missions and global commerce. Acting on worst-case assumptions often can
increase this likelihood. Crafting a space assurance[6] posture, including a hedging strategy in the event that others cheat, offers more potential benefits and
lower risks than turning the heavens into a shooting gallery.

Surprise!! ‘Nother CP (MR actually), dispo on theory.

Will Malson Drew 2NC Page 6 of 6

A. NASA has cancelled its research and development of SBSP due to lack of funding.
This was in his 1AC.

B. If they were R&Ding before, all we need to do is give them the money for R&D, which makes
his case pointless. Squo can solve if we implement the following minor repair:

Mandate: aff’s funding.

In a nutshell: fund nasa to R&D sbsp the same way aff does. Implementation is what squo would do.

C. RTP: MRs > plans because they solve back aff harms without excessive government action. And,
they’re more real world – the government mostly does funding and delegates other things off to agencies
like the EPA and NASA. The MR is a more real-world option than his plan.

D. Why? The MR solves back all of his harms without most of his mandates.