1nc

The affirmative team claims that the perfect solution to solve

one of todays biggest problems-global warming- is to spray
salt water into the atmosphere. As you can imagine, there are
several things wrong with that. The first being the plan flaw.

Plan flaw
Their plan text ONLY mandates that the USFG put money into
the Chinese shipping industry. Remember that when you as the
judge vote affirmative, you are affirming that their plan text
should become law. THAT MEANS ALL YOU ADVOCATE FOR IS
putting more money into Chinas ship industry. Since they cant
ensure China will use that money to build these cloud seeding
ships, you cannot ensure you will solve for the problem they
provide. WE CANNOT ASSUME CHINA USES THAT MONEY FOR
WHAT THE AFF ADVOCATES, so there is a separation between
what they advocate and what they say will solve. This is a plan
flaw so its not something they can argue, its literally in their
plan text.

Weather Wars DA
Cloud Seeding cannot be targeted to one area. Seeding in one
country can negatively impact other countries. This triggers
international conflict
Mirfendereski 13 (Guive Mirfendereski P.H.d; Public and Private International
Law. International Trade and Investment. Corporate and Business Law. Privatization
of State-owned Enterprises. International Relations. Foreign Policy of the United
States in the Middle East. Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf Regional Studies. Asiatic
Scythian (Saka) History. Toponymy. "An International Law of Weather Modification.
Revisited" vol i pg 41-64)INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WEATHER MODIFICATION
The question must be raised as to why weather modification should be a subject of international law. The answer can be explored on two levels: on the
one hand, issues raised by weather modification are of international character. By 1974, some sixty States had experimented with it.23 On the other hand,

No State can modify the

weather for its own purposes without affecting other States. The
dispute arising from weather modification must be resolved by recourse to international law.

role of international law, as addressed in this article, is to settle one of two kinds of situations of immediate concern to States. First, a State may undertake
weather modification within its jurisdiction or control, in the res communis, or in the res nullius, that would prove to have effects in another State. Second,
a State may undertake weather modification within its jurisdiction or control, or in the res communis, that would prove to have effects in the res communis
in which other States nevertheless have a vested interest. This article will restrict itself to the legal framework within which transboundary effects of
weather modification, undertaken by one State and felt in another, can be settled. Having espoused the belief that "no country can afford to be indifferent
to extensive weather control activities, no matter where or by whom they are undertaken,"2 4 it is incumbent upon public international law not only to
regulate the standards of weather modification, whatever the activity and the extent of such activity, but also to provide legal principles capable of
resolving future disputes. Although weather modification is currently more a concern of municipal law, public or private in a limited number of States, it
cannot be denied that many matters presently reserved to municipal law "will become proper subjects of international law which may gradually come to

Weather modification has already

entered the domain of international concern.It appears highly
appropriate to give examples of disputes which could arise in
international law as a result of weather modification: Cloud Y that naturally
encompass the whole range of regulated human activities. "2

passes through States A and B is seeded by A while passing through A's airspace, for example, enhancing precipitation on A. State B, the natural
recipient of Cloud Y's rain, is precluded from receiving its normal rainfall

State A seeds a hurricane that is believed to cause damage in State A. The

hurricane changes course and, moving through State B, causes damage in State B. State A suppresses a hailstorm

occur

in A,

cross the border, and cause damage

. Flash floods

in State B. State A begins hail

suppression. The storm accelerates entering State B, causing flash floods. The above permutations may be labeled acts of commission. There are,
however, acts of omission, for example: Hurricanes occur in a consistent pattern through States A and B. State A decides, for its own purposes, to divert,
or disperse, them so as to minimize their damaging potential along the path located in its jurisdiction. State B, the lower riparian, relying on A's consistent
behavior, realizes that the area that was once on the path of the hurricanes can now be made habitable and cultivated. State A, for its own purposes,
abandons the hurricane project. Hurricanes resume their original path, causing extensive damage to the new settlement in State B. There have been

Israel and
Rhodesia have been accused of rain-rustling by their hostile
neighbours. In 1973, Honduras and El Salvador accused the US of
stealing their rain by seeding hurricanes off the coast of
Florida. Several wars have followed.27 It must be noted that the extent of dispute over weather modification is not confined to cases of
several situations where weather modifications undertaken by one State have been objected to by downwind States.

deprivation of or unwanted subjugation to weather activity. The agents used for modification may become the center of a dispute, with aggrieved parties
objecting to polluting affects of those agents. In matters involving weather modification, proving cause and effect is practically impossible.28 It is
advanced that the major limitation in all cloud modification activities is "the inability to maintain controlled conditions and isolate artifically generated
results from the naturally occurring fluctuations."29 The scientific inability to establish cause and effect poses serious legal questions of causation and
proof. In the late 1940's, science was thought to have created a legal vacuum. It is submitted that the vacuum is not in the law, but rather in the very
same science that created that vacuum. In bridging the gap between an act of a modifier, and the loss suffered by those injured, one cannot expect law to
prove a connection between acts done and consequences suffered. Science must demonstrate such a connection. Only then would law step in to provide
remedy to a victim. That is not only desirable as a basis for assessing damages after the fact, but also for predicting irreparable or unacceptable damage
for injunctive purposes.

The bare fact is, Clouds move and weather is not entirely
predictable. History and science shows that seeding in one
state or even country, can have disastrous after shocks in
other areas. And as history proves once again, this could be a
potential flashpoint, as nations go to war over accusations of
stealing rain, or sending hurricanes.
However, governments use this to their advantage. Cloud
Seeding can and has been used as a weapon of mass
destruction. Rejection is best before its too late.
Mirfendereski, a foreign policy analyst, writes in 2013 that
(Guive Mirfendereski P.H.d; Public and Private International Law. International Trade
and Investment. Corporate and Business Law. Privatization of State-owned
Enterprises. International Relations. Foreign Policy of the United States in the Middle
East. Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf Regional Studies. Asiatic Scythian (Saka) History.
Toponymy. "An International Law of Weather Modification. Revisited" vol i pg 4164)Weapon-of- War Uses.
The fundamental objective of the peaceful application of weather modification
techniques is to abate or to avoid loss of life or property resulting from the weather.
It can, however, be applied as a weapon of war, 17 and such uses are hardly
dependent on future technological developments. During the Vietnam War,
the US Department of Defense spent some $40 million on a sevenyear cloud-seeding program, in an attempt to waterlog the Ho

Chi Minh trail as a revenge plot for a supposed cloud seeding

scheme from the Vietnamese to render the US airspace immobile.18 The
prohibition of weather modification as a weapon of war has
become a concern of the US, the USSR, and the United Nations.
For now, it is very easy to obtain and deploy silver iodide based seeding
technologies . We must do everything in our power to shut down

these programs before its too late or in the not too distant
future, modern society will become the battleground for
environmental warfare..
Despite international treaties, the US continues to explore the
military capabilities of Cloud Seeding. This risks Russian
intervention that could lead to extinction. We must be working
to downsize any development in cloud seeding.
The Daily Express 15 (Global Research Organization 1/8/15; Weather War:
New evidence suggests US & Russia are embroiled in an illegal race to harness the
power of hurricanes & earthquakes p 105)
The huge mushroom cloud soared skywards, the captain was gripped by fear, believing his plane was about to be engulfed by the fallout from a nuclear
explosion. After declaring mayday and ordering his crew to don oxygen masks, the experienced pilot had the presence of mind to record that the cloud
measured an estimated 200 miles in diameter and was tipped by an eerie light, like nothing he had seen before. Eventually, it soared harmlessly into the
atmosphere, leaving the passenger jet to continue safely on its journey from Anchorage, in Alaska, to Tokyo. But far below, a fleet of fishing boats trawling

the sea between Japan and the Soviet Union was drenched by a violent but short-lived downpour before the weather suddenly cleared. Nuclear tests and
volcanic activity were later ruled out but scientists concluded that this was not a natural phenomenon. More than two decades later suspicion still exists
that the stunned airline crew and fishermen in 1973 were witnessing a sinister Cold War experiment, in which water from the Sea of Japan was blown into
the air to create clouds and rain. British government papers, just released by the National Archives, show that throughout the Seventies there was deep
mistrust between the two superpowers over environmental warfare. The documents reveal that both the US, which led the field, and the Soviet Union had
secret military programmes with the goal of controlling the worlds climate. By the year 2025 the United States will own the weather, one scientist is
said to have boasted. Since then, a United Nations treaty has been signed which bans environmental warfare, such as causing earthquakes, melting the
polar ice caps and altering climate. However work to create the ultimate weapon of mass destruction continues by the US Department of Defense. These
claims are dismissed by sceptics as wild conspiracy theories and the stuff of James Bond movies but there is growing evidence that the boundaries
between science fiction and fact are becoming increasingly blurred. The Americans now admit that they invested over 40 Million over five years during the
Vietnam war on cloud seeding deliberately creating heavy rainfall to wash away enemy crops and destroy supply routes on the Ho Chi Minh trail, in an
operation codenamed Project Popeye. It is claimed that rainfall was increased by a third in targeted areas, making the weather-manipulation weapon a
success. At the time, government officials said the region was prone to heavy rain. However this sort of rain-making experiment was nothing new. In
Britain, it has been alleged that before the devastating Lynmouth floods in Devon in 1952, the RAF had been conducting secret rain-making tests. Aircraft
showered clouds with silver iodide, on which water droplets formed, became heavy and eventually fell to the ground as rain. In the next 12 hours nine
inches of rain fell 250 times the normal amount for August and 35 people were killed. Former North Devon MP Tony Speller, then a 22-year-old soldier
who helped in the relief effort, sought answers from the MoD. I have no doubt they were seeding in the area because there were RAF log books to prove
it, he says now. Of course the MoD denied any knowledge but that is not to say it did not happen. Speller, now 76, adds: I doubt we'll ever know the

evidence suggests that the

Americans continued to experiment behind closed doors even
after the UN ban in the mid-Eighties, and now in the 21st century possess sophisticated
systems which are capable of controlling the weather with
potentially devastating results. In the US, the technology was developed under the high-frequency active auroral research
truth. Early work on climate control was crude and unpredictable but

programme ( HAARP) originally part of Ronald Reagans controversial Star Wars defence system. Based in Gokoma, Alaska, the weapon operates by
beaming powerful radio waves into the upper atmosphere to alter weather patterns. Some experts claim the system is already up and running, while
others say it wont be ready for another 20 years. Michel Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University of Ottawa in Canada, who has studied
official US military documents about HAARP, is in no doubt that the weapon is ready . There are very clear statements by the US Air Force to the effect
that weather modification technology is available. HAARP will be fully operational by next year and could be used in actual military situations, he says.

To claim this system has any nonmilitary purposes is twisting

the truth. I dont think there are any peaceful applications The only reason the US would invest in such
a program is it is a weapon of mass destruction, capable of
major climatic disturbance. Evidence proves no practical application for water or environmental issues. Part of the
advantage is that the enemy might never know that a weapon had been used. I believe the UN agreement is
certainly being violated. He claims that at least one British firm has been involved in its development. It is time

people began focusing on these weapons instead of concentrating solely on global warming, Chossudovsky adds. Both are a serious threat. The
Americans are thought to have their own weather steering system, called Woodpecker, involving the transmission of low-frequency waves which are
capable of disrupting the atmosphere and altering the path of the jet stream. It is claimed that a prolonged drought in California in the Eighties was caused
by the blocking of warm, moist air for many weeks. According to Damian Wilson, a physicist with the Met Office, controlling climate is a reality but not a
precise science. Clearing fog by dropping dry ice into clouds is a proven technique which has been around for decades, he says. Large amounts of
research have been invested in seeding clouds to generate rain and it is done in countries where there are water shortages. The problem is that it is
unpredictable and you need clouds to start with. The technology does not exist to make rain fall from clear blue skies so it cannot be used in the desert to
end droughts and famines. WILSON believes it is possible to alter the course of a hurricane, which could have enormous life-saving potential. The current
mayhem in the Caribbean and Americas Eastern seaboard also shows what a destructive weapon a well-targeted storm could prove . The Americans used
cloud seeding to try to control a hurricane in 1947 but the tactic backfired when it picked up strength and hit Savannah, Georgi a. It is known that the US
carried out further hurricane-manipulation experiments between 1962 and 1983, under the codename Project Stormfury, after it was calculated that a
single hurricane contained as much energy as all the worlds power stations combined. More recent projects have involved pouring tens of thousands of
gallons of vegetable oil on to the sea. Hurricanes gather their strength from the warm sea surface, says Wilson. By spreading a large film of oil on the

Russia has
acknowledged US research in weather modification and says it
will not be scared to create a weather weapon arsenal of its
own if provoked or a threat is seen. It would be wise for the US
to back down in further weather modification ventures or the
resulting war could be disastrous and serve an existential threat.t
sea it would reduce the intensity by cooling the surface. In theory it is possible to change the path of the hurricane this way.

would not surprise me if military research into controlling the weather goes on. As we suffer more summer droughts in the south-east of England I would
also expect to see pressure for cloud seeding to be introduced in this country. It is not just the weather that has attracted the attention of the military.
Scientists have also researched ways of triggering earthquakes. By setting off small quakes, pressure could be released and a disaster averted. But
military scientists believe it is also possible to direct powerful energy beams into vulnerable fault zones, causing the Earths plates to shift, creating a
massive earthquake. Along fault lines beneath the oceans, the same technology could be used to launch devastating tsunamis. Part of the problem in
banning experiments involves agreeing a definition of what environmental warfare is. It has been argued that the famous Dambusters mission during the
Second World War, when bouncing bombs were used to flood the German industrial heartland, were a form of environmental warfare. Half a century later,
the threat is still being taken sufficiently seriously.

THIS ARGUMENT IS PARAMOUNT WHEN CONSIDERING THE

IMPLICATIONS OF THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE. PASSING THIS PLAN
WOULD ALLOW THE US AND CHINA TO SEED CLOUDS WHICH
COULD LEAD TO ALLEGATIONS THAT ONE COUNTRY IS USING
WEATHER TO ATTACK OTHERS. OUR LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE
SAYS THAT US AND CHINA COOPERATING ON THIS COULD LEAD
TO RUSSIAN INTERVENTION WHICH WOULD LEAD TO WAR. THE
ONLY WAY TO STOP THIS IS TO VOTE NEG.

Albedo case turn

Their plan is to spray salt water in the air so that clouds
become more reflective. This is known as increasing the
albedo- or reflectiveness of clouds.
Increasing the albedo effect makes warming worse and speeds
it up
University of Washington, 2014
(Hannah, February 18, 2014, Embarking on geoengineering, then stopping, would
speed up global warming,
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/02/18/embarking-on-geoengineering-thenstopping-would-speed-up-global-warming/, Accessed: 7/9/14) //AMM

Spraying reflective particles into the atmosphere to reflect

sunlight and then stopping it could exacerbate the problem of
climate change, according to new research by atmospheric scientists at the University of Washington. Carrying out geoengineering
for several decades and then stopping would cause warming at a rate that will greatly
exceed that expected due to global warming, according to a study published Feb. 18 in
Environmental Research Letters. The absolute temperature ends up being roughly the same as what it would have been, but the rate of
change is so drastic, that ecosystems and organisms would
have very little time to adapt to the changes, said lead author Kelly McCusker, who did
the work for her UW doctoral thesis. The study looks at solar radiation management, a proposed method of geoengineering by spraying tiny sulfur-based
particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight. This is similar to what happens after a major volcanic eruption, and many experts believe the
technique is economically and technically feasible. But continuous implementation over years depends on technical functioning, continuous funding,

if an business-as-usual emissions
pathway is followed up until 2035, allowing temperatures to rise 1C above the 1970-1999 mean, and then geoengineering is
implemented for 25 years and suddenly stopped, global temperatures could rise by
4C in the following three decades, a rate more than double
what it would have been otherwise, and one that exceeds
historical temperature trends. The rate of standard projected global warming alone is going to be really
bureaucratic agreement and lack of negative side effects. The UW team used a global climate model to show that

detrimental to a lot of organisms, so if you increase that by a factor of 2 to 3, then those organisms are going to have an even harder time adapting or
migrating, said McCusker, now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Victoria in Canada. The results build on recent work led by British
researchers pointing to the risk of implementing and then stopping geoengineering. That study compared several climate models, showing that the result
is not specific to any one model. The UW researchers used a single model with a more realistic scenario, where instead of simply decreasing the strength
of the sun they actually simulated sulfate particles to stabilize the temperature, allowing a more precise look at the spatial and seasonal pattern of the

The changes that will be needed to adapt to a warmer

climate are really profound, said co-author David Battisti, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences. The faster the
response.

climate changes, the less time farmers have to develop new agricultural practices, and the less time plants and animals have to move or evolve. The
total amount of warming after stopping geoengineering would be largest in winter near the poles, but compared to typical historical rates of change they
found that changes would be most extreme in the tropics in summertime, where there is usually very little temperature variation. According to our

tropical regions like South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa

will be hit particularly hard, the very same regions that are
home to many of the worlds most food-insecure populations ,
McCusker said. The potential temperature changes also pose a severe
threat to biodiversity. The researchers looked at different variables and found that the rate of warming is largely
simulations,

determined by the length of time that geoengineering is deployed and the amount of greenhouse gases emitted during that time, rather than by how

it does not give us an

excuse to keep emitting greenhouse gases, McCusker said. On the contrary, our results
sensitive the climate is to changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations. If we must geoengineer,

demonstrate that if geoengineering is ever deployed, its imperative that greenhouse gases be reduced at the same time to reduce the risk of rapid
warming.

Solvency
Cloud seeding doesnt attack the root cause of global warming.
Karin 2008 [Janice Karin is a research analytst and reporter for The Future of
Things, Cloud Seeding Yachts Sail the Seas, August 7,
http://thefutureofthings.com/news/1274/cloud-seeding-yachts-sail-the-seas.html ]
The yachts would use Flettner rotors, or spinning vertical cylinders, rather than sails
to generate power from wind. The vessels would also use turbines placed under the
hull to power additional operations of the boat including the actual spraying
process. They would be unmanned and controlled via GPS positioning. Estimates of
the number of cloud seeders needed to counter global warming range from as low
as 50 boats to as high as 1000. Each vessel would cost an estimated 500 million
dollars. In order to reach the desired 3% increase, scientists estimate over 10% of
the cloud cover must be seeded with enough salt to double their current levels. If
this project moves forward, most of the necessary boats would likely be deployed in
the southern oceans and seas where the marine cloud cover is thickest and thus
they could do the most good. There is resistance to this project from

environmentalists who claim that it just glosses over the

problem of increased carbon emissions without doing anything to solve
it. They claim that by fixing the symptoms of the problem and not reducing the
emissions themselves, all these cloud seeders would do is make it

harder to promote and implement a better solution that

actually reduces the harmful gases rather than countering
their effects. There are also some worries about potential weather changes and
moving forward without fully understanding the consequences of changing the
composition of our cloud cover. TFOT has previously written about
unmanned helicopters powered by tiny fuel cells, an offshore wind turbine capable
of generating as much as 6000 Watts in 32.5 mile per hour winds, and about a new
material that makes CO2 absorption easier. You can find more information about the
science behind these cloud-seeding yachts in this article on John Latham and more
information about the use of marine technology to help the environment at Stephen
Salters University of Edinburgh staff page.

They propose a bandaid solution for a problem that is much

more complicated. It makes people think the problem of global
warming is solved which means people are more likely to burn
more fossil fuels and not look to alternative energy sources.
So as an overview. First, their plan text doesnt even advocate
for