262 GT SPS Neg Supplement

SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>

Bagley/Lotfi
RMA Bad-Terrorism.............................................................................................................................................2
RMA Bad-Overstrech............................................................................................................................................3
RMA Bad-Bloodless Warfare...............................................................................................................................4
RMA Bad-Readiness..............................................................................................................................................5
RMA Bad-Self D....................................................................................................................................................6
RMA Bad-Heg........................................................................................................................................................7
RMA Bad-Preemption ..........................................................................................................................................8
Hirsh ’05 (Jorge-, Prof. of Physics @ U.C.S.D., Nov. 1,” The Real Reason for Nuking Iran: Why a nuclear attack is on the
neocon agenda”, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ hirsch.php?articleid=7861; Jacob)...........................................................................8
RMA Bad-Arms Race............................................................................................................................................9
RMA Bad-Prolif...................................................................................................................................................10
RMA Bad-Prolif...................................................................................................................................................11
Space Colonization...............................................................................................................................................12
SPS Fails...............................................................................................................................................................17
SPS Bad – Space Mil............................................................................................................................................18
SPS Bad – Space Mil. Ext....................................................................................................................................19
Space Mil. Bad-Impacts Ext................................................................................................................................22
A2: Only for Defense...........................................................................................................................................23
A2: Only for Defense...........................................................................................................................................24
SPS Bad – Black Outs 1/1....................................................................................................................................25
Satellites DA Shell (econ version) ......................................................................................................................26
Satelites DA (readiness version).........................................................................................................................27
Satelites DA (readiness version).........................................................................................................................28
Satellites DA: Links- Hurts Satellites ................................................................................................................29
Satellites DA: A2: We Can Repair Satellites.....................................................................................................30
1
Way Better Than the Military Neg
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
RMA Bad-Terrorism
Turn-Terrorism
A. Increased RMA leads to terrorists gaining more advanced weapons for

attack.
Vickers and Martinage, 04 (December, Michael G. and Robert C., Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, "The Revolution in War" www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/
Archive/R.20041201.RevInWar/R.20041201.RevInWar.pdf)
The combination of increased transparency and connectivity, access to precision location information (i.e., GPS), and
availability of affordable standoff weapons could dramatically increase the striking power of non-state actors of all types.
Easily transportable standoff weapons that will likely become available on the world arms market over the next two decades
include precision-guided mortars, fiber- optic guided missiles (FOGMs), and MANPADS. Insurgents, terrorists, and other
non-state actors may also exploit offensive IW tools, both infectious and contagious BW pathogens, and low-tech, but highly
disruptive radiological dispersal devices (RDDs).
B. Nuclear terrorism will cause extinction

Sid-Ahmed, 4 (Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26-September 1, Issue no.
705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm)
A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain --
the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no
choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan,
nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes
the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of
a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it
turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What
would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of
the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be
stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would
proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if
humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from
which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will
be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
2
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
RMA Bad-Overstrech
Turn-Overstretch
A. RMA leads the military overstretch
Macgregor 04 (Douglas – retired Colonel of the US Army and Ph.D. Army Transformation: Implications for
the Future. Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on July 15, Online)
President Bush should be sending yellow roses to Gen. Eric Shinseki and begging him to come back. Before the war in Iraq,
General Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, said that Mr. Bush was going to need "several hundred thousand" Soldiers to
occupy and stabilize the country. The general was denounced by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's civilian team and
then ushered into retirement. Mr. Bush clung to Mr. Rumsfeld's misguided idea that a minimal force could not only capture
Baghdad but could also hold, stabilize and rebuild an entire country. Mr. Rumsfeld was right about the lightning strike into
Baghdad. But he was tragically wrong about everything else, and the deeper the United States gets into this badly planned
occupation, the more American Soldiers are paying the price. In the 13 months of war, about 700 American Soldiers have been
listed as killed, including at least 100 just in April. The White House cannot continue to deny our forces and the Iraqi people
the protection that adequate troop strength would provide. The administration agreed to increase the occupation force from
about 115,000 to about 135,000 after being surprised by an easily predictable uprising this month. But it did so by extending
the stay of already exhausted soldiers. And it authorized the increase for just 90 days, suggesting that it is continuing to put off
hard decisions and deny unpleasant realities. The White House does not talk about it much, but the Pentagon is planning to stay
in Iraq at least until the end of 2006. Even that timetable is extremely optimistic. It assumes everything will go precisely
according to a plan that no one outside Mr. Bush's circle seems to understand and that has certainly not worked well so far.
B. Military Overstretch kills heg
Paul Craig Roberts, November 2, 2007, http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/hegemony’s-cost-by-

paul-craig-roberts/
America’s status as a “superpower” is rapidly diminishing due to economic decline, military overstretch, and the fact that
everyone hates it now, wants to escape it’s hegemonic clutches. They sense the true weakness behind all the bullying
imperialist rhetoric now that America has played it’s hand and shown that it isn’t a “Royal Flush” after all! (South America are
leading the way in this regard). As the US depletes it’s power and reputation with stupid, made up, incompetently executed
imperalist wars, more vassal states will see how weak it really is, and see the opportunity to escape from it’s tyranny, following
the example of countries like Venezuela, Bolivia and Equador. Together, it’s is a god awful mess which may take Americans
back to the stone age unless it sorts out it’s huge deficit problems and it’s expensive addiction to war. If the whole of OPEC
(Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) including the house of Saud follow suit with the petroeuro, or even the
“petrobasket” (a hedge bet which uses “basket” of several strong, stable currencies), it will inevitably be “game over” for the
US Dollar as a reserve currency too. This is on top of the Japanese and Chinese grip on the American economy, the
“offshoring” and other problems which Paul Craig Roberts refers to in his piece. Altogether it’s a “perfect storm” that is
brewing.
3
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
RMA Bad-Bloodless Warfare

Turn-Bloodless Warfare
A. RMA leads to military having no risk when going to war.

Secondly, RMA provides an ability for the major military powers to use such potential in standoff or stealth weapons
platforms. Stand-off weapons platforms such as aircraft, missiles, ships, or long-range artillery of various forms allow military
powers to deliver precision ordnance without taking undue risks themselves. The use of stealth technologies offers the promise
of deploying weapons platforms in potentially dangerous proximity to an adversary, but reducing the risk by making the
platforms near invisible to tracking radars or other sensors
B. This creates the image of bloodless warfare leading to constant

unnecessary interventions
Jeffrey Record 2002, Parameters
But the very technology that makes "bloodless" war possible may also serve to encourage the use of force in circumstances where perc
eptions of stakes and risks might otherwise counsel restraint. Is the United States in fact transforming war into essentially a riskless en
terprise‐‐i.e., one in which the level of risk is dwarfed by the magnitude and high probability of strategic payoff? If so, then what is to
keep future Presidents from taking a casual approach to military intervention? Should the United States really look forward to creating
a capacity to wage "painless" war, war without American death, war dangerous and hurtful only to the other side? Would not the prosp
ect of casualty‐free combat invite the use of force over even trivial stakes?
After the virtually bloodless US victory over Serbia, Michael Ignatieff warned, New weaponry may force us to reassess an essential as
sumption about democracies: that they go to war less frequently than authoritarian regimes, and that they rarely, if ever, go to war agai
nst fellow democracies. Democracies may well remain peace loving only so long as the risks of war remain real to their citizens. If wa
r becomes virtual‐‐and without risk‐‐democratic electorates may be more willing to fight, especially if the cause is justified in the lang
uage of human rights and even democracy itself. (56)
4
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
RMA Bad-Readiness
Turn-Readiness
RMA leads to an increase in asymmetric warfare against the U.S. paralyzing

readiness.
Kamienski, 03 (September 2, M.A. in Political Science, M.S.c in International Relations, Strategic Insight "The
RMA and War Powers," published by the Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC), an arm of the National
Security Affairs Department at the Naval Postgraduate School,
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/sept03/strategy.asp)
The RMA is that is a double-edged sword. According to James Adams, "The countries that have the most effective IW
[Information Warfare] capabilities are also the most vulnerable to attack—uniquely in the history of the world, a single
individual armed with just a computer and a modem can literally hold America to ransom."[14] The accidental power failure
that affected up to 50 million Americans in August 2003 should be a warning that reveals an Achilles heel of the information-
based society. An asymmetric adversary does not have to target the military to paralyze a state's infrastructure. In fact, because
the U.S. military dominates the high-tech conventional battlefield, a determined adversary will be drawn to launch asymmetric
attacks against a relatively vulnerable American civil society to undermine the American effort to keep war short with few
casualties.
This lack of readiness encourages global conflict that the U.S. won’t be able to
respond to
Thomas Moore, Heritage Analyst, 1997, HERITAGE FOUNDATION REPORTS, “Maintaining an Effective
Military in a Budget Straitjacket”, Lexis Nexis
Today, this historic pattern of a lack of vigilance and concern about foreign policy and defense is being repeated, even in
Congress and among those for whom such concerns used to be paramount. The unifying and clarifying threat of the former
Soviet Union is gone -- even though a variety of other lesser threats continues to grow. But the strong-defense community is
not vocal or persuasive enough to overcome the force of this historical pattern. The downward spiral of defense spending cuts
continues for the time being, and the choice between Democrats and Republicans is simply one of how steep and how fast the
downward spiral will go. In fact, congressional Democrats have pointed out -- correctly, one must add -- that the Republicans'
"front-loaded" defense budget may spend more in the near term, but actually provides less in future years than the planned
Clinton budget for the same period. Furthermore, the 105th Congress may be tempted to cut defense even more to pay for
promised tax cuts. The result: Today, the United States has too few forces to fight two nearly simultaneous regional conflicts,
and too little money to pay for the inadequate forces. There is, however, more to the historical pattern than neglect and turning
inward. The lack of vigilance abroad after winning a war always has encouraged new aggression for which the United States
was unprepared. It is safe to predict that today's Age of Chaos will be no exception. Greed, passion, and folly are immutable
parts of human character; and somewhere, someday, a new dictator, having observed the lack of U.S. military preparedness,
will embark upon some mad venture that threatens America's vital interests or its allies. Sooner or later, there will be another
major conflict -- or multiple conflicts -- that will draw in the United States. In fact, the forces of conflict already are building
up steadily around the world -- great power competition, unbridled nationalism, ethnic strife, religious fanaticism, and hunger
for newly discovered or diminishing natural resources. When the inevitable crisis -- whether a single event or a succession of
converging regional crises -- erupts again in the world, the historic pattern shows the American people will rally and do what is
needed. Today's apathy and lack of interest in national security will evaporate overnight. But the American people rely on their
elected leaders to maintain the tools they will need to do the job. If they find the neglected military instrument rusty and brittle
in their hands, they will hold accountable those who let our defenses decline. The blood of their sons, brothers, husbands, and
fathers who die unnecessarily will demand it. This is where the strong-defense community can -- and must -- play a vital role.
If experts from this community cannot stop or reverse the historic pattern of postwar neglect, at least they can concentrate their
efforts on preserving a military that will remain relatively effective even while wearing a budget straitjacket.
5
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
RMA Bad-Self D
Turn-Self-D
A. An increase in RMA causes an increase in self-determination conflicts

Vickers and Martinage, 04 (December, Michael G. and Robert C., Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, "The Revolution in War" www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/
Archive/R.20041201.RevInWar/R.20041201.RevInWar.pdf)
One of the consequences of the ongoing information revolution is that states have become less able to control the flow of
information into and within their borders. As a result, the future will likely see an upsurge in the frequency and
formidability of challenges to state authority. With unprecedented access to information, sub-national groups could
become more aware of their relative deprivation, form higher expectations, and impose increasing demands on state
governments. In states that are unable to satisfy those demands, rising social discontent could create a fertile environment
for the emergence of insurgent groups championing populist sentiments and exploiting communal identities (e.g., ethnic,
religious, socio-economic, etc.). Insurgents could exploit the global information network to gain political support, recruit,
and raise funds, as well as to organize, plan and coordinate activities from multiple locations around the globe. If the
experience of the last several years is any guide, future non-state actors will not only be equipped with the weapons of
war, but also with the tools of information connectivity—portable satellite phones, computers with Internet access and
strong encryption algorithms, and satellite links to international television networks. Large segments of a population
might be mobilized and their energies directed against state authority more rapidly and efficiently than ever before.
B. Unchecked self-determination conflicts escalate to extinction caused

by nuclear war – Russian Federation and Ukraine, India and Pakistan
prove
Kamal Shehadi, Research Associate at the International Institute for Strategic

Studies, 12/1993, “Ethnic Self-Determination and the Break Up of States”, p. 81
This paper has argued that self-determination conflicts have direct adverse consequences on international security. As they
begin to tear nuclear states apart, the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of individuals or groups willing to
use them, or to trade them to others, will reach frightening levels. This likelihood increases if a conflict over self-determination
escalates into a war between two nuclear states. The Russian Federation and Ukraine may fight over the Crimea and the
Donbass area; and India and Pakistan may fight over Kashmir. Ethnic conflicts may also spread both within a state and from
one state to the next. This can happen in countries where more than one ethnic self-determination conflict is brewing: Russia,
India and Ethiopia, for example. The conflict may also spread by contagion from one country to another if the state is weak
politically and militarily and cannot contain the conflict on its doorstep. Lastly, there is a real danger that regional conflicts will
erupt over national minorities and borders.
6
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
RMA Bad-Heg
An increase in RMA leads to an overeliance on the military, killing heg
Metz and Kievit, 1995 (Steven, Associate Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic
Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, and James, Strategic Research Analyst at the Strategic Studies
Institute, U.S. Army War College, "STRATEGY AND THE REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS:
FROM THEORY TO POLICY," June 27, http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/rmastrat.pdf)
Yet another risk is that fruition of the current RMA might lead the United States to overreliance on the military element of
national power. This would be especially tempting if the global economic position of the United States continues to erode.
But as Napoleon, Hitler and others discovered, military dominance is a deadly siren when it causes leaders to ignore political
and economic power, leaving no foundation when military preeminence fades (as it invariably does). If this happens, the
current RMA may prove less a groundwork for a more permanent world order than a temporary expedient for keeping the
dogs of war at bay.
RMA undermines heg.

Hoffman 06 (Lt. Col. Frank G - senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and former analyst at the
Pentagon. Complex Irregular Warfare: The Next Revolution in Military Affairs. Orbis p. 395-411, Summer,
Science Direct //AGupta)
These are erroneous assumptions. The next RMA, complex irregular warfare, presents a mode of warfare that contests
America’s overwhelming conventional military capability. It effectively dissipates the hubris behind the concept that we
could ‘‘redefine war on our own terms’’ with our technology.48 This form of conflict challenges cherished but false American
conceptions about warfighting, and will continue to thwart America’s core interests and world order over the next generation.
The QDR released this past February was a start, but it failed to match its rhetoric about tomorrow’s protean enemies with
clear direction or resources49
RMA leads to the U.S. destroying all relationships with allies, killing heg.
Finally, there is the risk that overly vigorous pursuit of the current RMA might increase problems with friends and allies. Advocates
contend the RMA will make the U.S. military capable of successful, autonomous operations, and thus less dependent on allies. This
would be a mixed blessing. The 19th century French social theorist Auguste Comte speculated that prehistoric humans developed the
economic division of labor as a means of preserving social peace. Individuals reliant on the skills of others are less likely to do
violence to them. The same may hold for the global system. Other nations would probably consider a U.S. military freed from
dependence on allies much more dangerous than the pre-RMA one, thus tainting all aspects of cooperation.
7
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
RMA Bad-Preemption
Turn-Preemption
A. RMA leads to an increase in preventive military actions- Iraq proves.

Kurth, 2004 (James, Claude Smith Professor of Political Science at Swarthmore College, where he teaches
American foreign policy, defense policy, and international politics, The American Conservative, "Iraq: Losing
the American Way," March 15, http://www.amconmag.com/2004_03_15/print/featureprint.html)
From the beginning of the second Bush administration, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has worked vigorously and
systematically to overthrow the classical American way of war and the Weinberger/Powell Doctrine and to replace them with a
new program of military “transformation” and a new doctrine of preemptive (really preventive) war. He has moved to reduce
the role of heavy weapons systems (armor and artillery) and large combat divisions in the U.S. Army and to increase the role of
lighter and smaller forces (airborne and special operations); in effect, he seeks to reduce the role of mass and to accentuate the
role of mobility. To implement his transformation project, he has canceled the Crusader heavy-artillery system, and he has
appointed a retired Special Forces general to be the new Army Chief of Staff. Most importantly, however, Rumsfeld has seen
the Iraq War as the pilot plant and exemplary case of his grand project of transformation. If the U.S. could win a war in Iraq
with a transformed military and a transformed doctrine, it would also be a decisive victory in Washington for the thoroughly
new American way of war in its bureaucratic struggles with the old one .
B. Preemption leads to 3 scenarios of nuclear war
Hirsh ’05 (Jorge-, Prof. of Physics @ U.C.S.D., Nov. 1,” The Real Reason for Nuking Iran: Why a nuclear
attack is on the neocon agenda”, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ hirsch.php?articleid=7861; Jacob)
Yes, you read it right: The U.S. is prepared to break a 60-year-old taboo on the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear
countries – not because the survival of the country is at stake, not because the lives of many Americans or allies are at stake –
just to demonstrate that it can do it.The U.S. has maintained for some time now that it reserves the right to respond with nuclear
weapons to attacks or intended attacks with WMD, and that it intends to use nuclear weapons to destroy underground enemy
facilities. It is argued that such statements have deterrent value, and that maintaining ambiguity as to what might trigger a U.S.
nuclear attack deters countries from pursuing military initiatives that are contrary to U.S. interests. Nonsense. Those statements
have no deterrent value because no one in his or her right mind would believe that the greatest democracy in the world would
do such a thing. Unless the U.S. demonstrates, by actually doing it once, that it is indeed prepared to do so. How do you create
the conditions to perform such a demonstration and avoid immediate universal condemnation? … author continues …However,
the real world does not always follow the script envisioned by U.S. planners, as the Iraq experience illustrates. So here is a
more likely "post-demo" scenario: * Many non-nuclear countries, including those currently friendly to the U.S., will rush to
develop a nuclear deterrent, and many will succeed. * Terrorist groups sympathetic to Iran will do their utmost to retaliate in-
kind against the U.S., and eventually will succeed * With the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons broken, use of them by
other countries will follow in various regional conflicts, and subsequent escalation will lead to global nuclear war. Bye-bye
world, including the United States of America.
8
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
RMA Bad-Arms Race

RMA leads to countries taking counter measures leading to an arms race.
A second risk is that the greater the intensity with which the United States pursues the current RMA, the greater the intensity
with which opponents or potential opponents will seek countermeasures. Potential competitors will no doubt respond to
existing U.S. military preeminence. But such countermeasures are likely to take familiar forms against which superior U.S.
training and capabilities can prevail if hostilities result. U.S. pursuit of revolutionary capabilities will produce a search for
asymmetric countermeasures, including perhaps new biological and chemical weapons. Or American pursuit of the current
RMA could actually encourage the emergence of a peer competitor, either by developing a Dreadnought-type weapon that
instantly outmodes all previous systems, or by inspiring fear of what the United States intends to do with its increasing
military capabilities among technologically-capable, but currently nonhostile, states.
RMA Kills arms control- to attached to the private sector
Clarke – Director of the Centre for Defence Studies, King's College, University of London – 2001 (Michael, "The implications of the
revolution in military affairs for arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament," www.unidir.ch/pdf/articles/pdf-art27.pdf)
The first problem that RMA raises for arms control arises from the very nature of civil technologies and their military
applications. RMA is based on civilian-led technologies rather than specific military technologies. In fact, there are now very
few technologies that are purely military or which have a purely military application. The technologies of explosives and ordnance,
key technologies in rocketry and missiles, passive surveillance and passive sensors can all be regarded as almost exclusively
military technologies. But these are almost the only examples: the vast majority of those technologies crucial to warfare are now,
in reality, derived from the civil sector. Such technologies include communications, transport, aerospace, logistics, and
software, even chemical, biological, and nuclear technologies. And are essentially driven by civilian breakthroughs in the
application and integration of technical innovation. RMA, therefore, is driven by the imperatives of the developed post-
industrial society and the globalized economy in which it exists.7
9
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
RMA Bad-Prolif
Turn-Prolif
A. RMA causes WMD proliferation

Clarke – Director of the Centre for Defence Studies, King's College, University of London – 2001 (Michael, "The implications of the
revolution in military affairs for arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament," www.unidir.ch/pdf/articles/pdf-art27.pdf)
Another effect of RMA in the short- to medium-term is the encouragement it is likely to provide to the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD). If countries who would compete with the United States cannot do so in conventional
military terms, then it becomes even more attractive to take the WMD shortcut as a way of achieving military credibility
and being taken seriously as a military power. R.A. Manning in his Foreign Policy article of 1997 quoted the famous. so far
unnamed. Indian general who said that the lesson he drew from the Gulf War was that, .you don’t go to war with the United
States unless you are a nuclear power..8 There is every reason to believe that American conventional superiority, and that of its
allies, may create greater motives for other states to develop WMD-particularly non-nuclear WMD such as chemical and
biological devices.
10
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
RMA Bad-Prolif
B. Unchecked prolif leads to extinction
Utgoff 2002 [Victor A., Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute
for Defense Analysis, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions”, pgs. 87-90]
Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years, but chose not to, can be
reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Both
these superpowers had strong nuclear forces and put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold
War, the US has retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has extended its protection to some of the previous allies of the
Soviet Union and plans on taking in more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and proliferation programmes by North
Korea, Iran and Iraq, all involve states in the opposite situation: all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had
little prospect of establishing a reliable supporting alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed state. What would await the
world if strong protectors, especially the United States, were [was] no longer seen as willing to protect states from nuclear-
backed aggression? At least a few additional states would begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver
them to distant targets, and these initiatives would spur increasing numbers of the world’s capable states to follow suit.
Restraint would seem ever less necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are becoming capable of building
nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world’s states are becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the
technology for building nuclear forces continues to improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely that at some point,
halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will disappear. Once that happens, the transition
to a highly proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the line for a time, the
threats posed by wildfire proliferation in most other areas could create pressures that would finally overcome all restraint.
Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to world peace that every effort
should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking about much more
substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop nuclear proliferation, it
needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not
going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First, the dynamics of getting to a highly proliferated world could be
very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any
potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive nuclear war before the
opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent’s nuclear
programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building
nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as
biological weapons. [The article continues…] The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical
weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East
escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and
armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory
exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intenseand blinding anger is a
common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of
violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear
weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with
the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild
West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more
polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole
nations.
11
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
Space Colonization
1. Humans cant survive life in space or return home
The Guardian 10-31-02
To preserve the dignity of their returning astronauts, Nasa scoops them out from shuttle spacecraft with mechanical movers,
curtained off so no one can see the wrecked astronauts barely able to stand. In fact, many are ferried away in wheelchairs.
Forget about the Dan Dare adventures, space travel seriously damages your health. Astronauts can be wrecked by long spells in
space: muscles shrivelled, bones weakened, heart strained, lungs struggling. It all sounds strangely similar to old age. In fact,
overcoming the problems of space travel may well point to cures for osteoporosis and many of the other ills of ageing on Earth.
For Nasa, the medical questions are reaching crisis point as they plan to send a group of astronauts on a three-year mission to
Mars, taking 12 months to fly each way. It is planned for the year 2020, and although you might think there would be masses
of technical problems to overcome, Nasa seems reasonably confident of building the rockets and the space capsule. No, the
biggest headache is the astronauts themselves. Humans were never designed for zero-G. We evolved to thrive, where muscles
and skeleton, working against the Earth's gravity, makes them grow strong. Even with rigorous exercise, cosmonauts on the
Mir space station lost 1-2% of their bone mass each month. The risk of breaking a bone during a three-year mission to Mars
has been calculated at around 30%, with horrific consequences. "A limb fracture involving one of a six-person space crew
could seriously compromise a mission's objectives," explains Jay Shapiro, at the National Space Biomedical Research Institute.
For a human body, being weightless is like being confined to bed in a total body cast. Apart from bones, the muscles also waste
away from lack of use, and some, like those in the calves, can lose around 20% of their mass in zero-G. Tendons and ligaments
can weaken to the point that they tear like tissue paper. The lungs and other major organs suffer. Blood feels the lack of
gravity, too. When we're standing on Earth, blood sinks to the feet and leaves the brain lighter, creating a gradient of blood
pressure through the body. But in space, the pressure gradient disappears and the body thinks it's in trouble and makes less
blood, which spells trouble for the heart. "If you have less blood, then your heart doesn't need to pump as hard; it's going to
atrophy," explains Victor Schneider, research medical officer at Nasa. "It's a classic case of 'use it or lose it'." Medical
researchers are trying to find magic drugs to fight bone loss, perhaps using the natural hormones or enzyme factors involved in
building healthy bones. Nasa is also trying to develop gadgets to keep astronauts fit, but exercise alone is not enough. Alan
Hargens, an orthopaedic specialist who recently worked at Nasa, states: "You can't just put high loads on the bone and then
expect it to recover if you're not taking care of the blood flow to that bone as well." One device he is working on looks like a
spin-tub dryer, worn around the bottom half of the body, featuring a treadmill inside kept at low pressure with a vacuum
cleaner. "We've found that we can provide body weight by applying negative pressure over the lower body," says Hargens. The
machine restores the blood pressure gradient, strengthens the heart and muscles and also cuts down on bone loss. If it lives up
to its billing, it may be used on Earth to help rehabilitation in injuries, stroke, surgery or prolonged bed rest. Returning from
space to Earth is equally traumatic once the body has got used to weightlessness, as astronaut Andrew Thomas described after
his Mir venture. Bone recovery is the biggest problem and, after a six month space flight, it can take up to three years to repair
the damage, if the bones fully recover at all.
12
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
Space Colonization
2. No sex in space
McInnis 99 New Scientist
But just for the sake of argument, imagine that biology solves all the problems that are yet to be discovered about reproducing
in microgravity. Our space pioneers would still face at least one more perilous confrontation with nature. Space flight would
offer the ideal environment for evolutionary change—a small, confined population subject to extreme inbreeding and exposed
to high doses of mutation-inducing radiation."If you were in space for many generations, would you start to lose your feet?"
asks Jerry Brown, a space science specialist at the US Space Foundation in Colorado Springs, Colorado, which promotes space
exploration. "Instead of arms and legs you might have four arms. That would be far more useful in microgravity than a pair of
legs. But when you got to a planet, you'd be back to crawling about on all fours."Or would space explorers lose their distance
vision or much of their hearing because there's nothing to see out the window and little to hear? "There are no crickets in space,
no distant thunder, no cry of the loon," says Brown. Unlike explorers past, space explorers would probably bring along a
semblance of home in the form of computerised virtual reality displays. Still, says Brown, "what we would have is a person
developed as a space thing rather than an Earthbound thing".This could be a major problem once our interplanetary explorers
reached their destination. Instead of the physical agility and stamina of a Peary, Scott or Shackleton, they would be more likely
to be atrophied, misshapen beings ready to hit the new planet with a splat, unable to move in the stronger pull of a planet's
gravity. Of course, we may have faster-than-light spacecraft and artificial gravity by the time we're ready to go. We may even
discover a wormhole—a cosmic shortcut through space—to speed us to our destination. No one knows. But improving rocket
technology could be the least of the battle. Unless the biological hurdles are cleared as well, the best spaceship ever built won't
get us to new worlds in any sort of shape to survive on them.
3. Going to space causes extinction, intergalactic environmental exploitation,

epidemics, and war
Bruce K. Gagnon, Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, 1999,
http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/
We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Having shown such enormous
disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries" and "explorers" are now ready to rape and pillage the heavens.
Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets that regularly blow up on the launch pad, will seriously jeopardize life
on Earth. Returning potentially bacteria-laden space materials back to Earth, without any real plans for containment and
monitoring, could create new epidemics for us. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms race in space will
certainly have serious ecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years of consensus around international
space law will create new global conflicts and confrontations. Now is the time for all who care about peaceful and scientific
space exploration to learn more about these issues and to begin organizing to prevent this insanity before it happens. An
international debate must be created about the kind of seed we from Earth will carry with us as we explore space. Let this
historic debate begin now.
13
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
Space Colonization
4. Space exploration risks extra-terrestrial pandemics
Helen Caldicott, April 15, 2000, http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/
I digressed. Well, NASA and the relevant corporations plan bring this 300 grams of space minerals back to earth, but they are
not going to use a parachute, they're going to slam it into Utah at 300 to 400 G-force. Which will break the container apart.
Now why is this a problem? Oh, I forgot, they have to put two nuclear power plants up on Mars, by the year 2007, so they can
provide power for the human colony, keep it operating, turn the urine into water, do all that stuff, keep the men warm, and to
provide power I suppose to the robots that will travel around picking up the dirt. It is predicted that humans will be present on
Mars by the year 2016. But there is a problem, it is believed that there could be bacteria on Mars. Now, you know about the
Ebola virus. Everyone is scared by Ebola viruses well as HIV and many other dangerous viruses. Scientists predict that there
could be a massive epidemic of some uncontrollably dangerous virus in the future. It's quite interesting, though, when you look
at history, in the early to mid-1300s, one quarter of the European population died as the result of a flea from China that carried
the plague. When the Spaniards began to explore the Americas, they brought with them the smallpox virus, that killed tens of
thousands of people. European explorers to Polynesian Hawaii in the 1500s, infected the natives with microbes. We killed a
large number of Aborigines from just the common cold and flu in Australia. So if 300 grams of Martian soil slams into the
desert on earth and bursts apart, there is a possibility that the earth could be infected, and the microbes could spread. The
scientists will not have microscopes, labs and gram-positive stains to search for Martian bacteria, before they return. And what
about our bacteria infecting Mars? And guess what they'll do? They'll stick an American flag on Mars.
5. Turn-Ozone
A. Space flight destroys the ozone layer
Helen Caldicott, April 15, 2000, http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/
But in reality NASA is busily destroying the ozone layer. Because each space shuttle releases 240 tons of concentrated HCl,
hydrochloric acid, much of it in the stratosphere where the ozone layer is located. The chlorine atom then splits off from the
HCL molecule and starts eating up the ozone layer. It was predicted a few years ago by a Russian scientist that if the space
program continued as planned (though it's actually expanding), ten percent of the ozone would be depleted within ten years.
NASA didn't contradict this prediction. I broke this story in the US, and instead of NASA trying to fix the problem they
launched a satellite to measure the ozone depletion and the ozone holes in the southern hemisphere, and radioed back the
results to high schools here, so the children could all do projects on the ozone depletion. That's called management control in
PR language..
14
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
Space Colonization
B. Ozone destruction causes extinction
Anna Goodwin et al, students at the University of Bristol, 2001,
(http://www.priweb.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOLrp/82rp.htm)
The Permian-Triassic boundary extinction was the largest extinction the world has ever experienced. About 90 percent of all
species vanished in this mass extinction 250 million years ago. Approximately 85% of all marine species and 70% of all
terrestrial species went extinct in less than one million years. By studying the species which became extinct at this time, the
rate at which they became extinct, and the regions of the Earth in which the greatest extinction occurred, hypotheses about
possible methods for the cause of extinction have been devised. There are many theories which have been developed to
understand this historic mass extinction. One theory is the formation of a super-continent which caused a reduction of shallow
continental shelves. Such a reduction in oceanic continental shelves would result in ecological competition for space, perhaps
acting as an agent for extinction. However, although this is a viable theory, the formation of Pangaea and the ensuing
destruction of the continental shelves occurred in the early and middle Permian, and mass extinction did not occur until the late
Permian Impact from an extraterrestrial object is a common theory for the explanation of this extinction. The collision wasn't
directly responsible for the extinction but rather triggered a series of events, such as massive volcanism and changes in ocean
oxygen, sea level and climate. Those in turn led to species extinction on a wholesale level. The collision would either weaken
or kill much of the life that thrived during this time. Dust clouds and CO2 in the atmosphere would have caused major climate
changes for the species and make it unsuitable for them to thrive. Evidence of increased levels of atmospheric levels of CO2
exists in the fossil record. Glaciation is also a viable theory. Simultaneous glaciation events on the north and south poles could
have caused rapid warming and severe climatic fluctuations. In temperate zones, there is evidence of significant cooling and
drying in the sedimentological record, shown by thick sequences of dune sands and evaporites, while in the polar zones,
glaciation was prominent. This caused severe climatic fluctuations around the globe, and is found by sediment record to be
representative of when the Permian mass extinction occurred. Another theory is volcanism. Basaltic lava eruptions in Siberia
were large and sent a quantity of sulphates into the atmosphere. Evidence in China supports that these volcanic eruptions may
have been silica-rich, and thus explosive, a factor that would have produced large ash clouds around the world. The
combination of sulphates in the atmosphere and the ejection of ash clouds may have lowered global climatic conditions. The
age of the lava flows has also been dated to the interval in which the Permian mass extinction occurred. Other than changes in
atmospheric carbon, no other evidence exists for this theory. Scientists are working to precisely date volcanic ash from Permian
fossil reefs in Texas and China. This will provide a kind of timeline for the extinction to build a global database of extinction
for the Permian Age, which species died, where they died and when they died. This too will help him determine the timing of
the extinction in more detail and highlight gaps in the fossil record that may be distorting palaeontologists' understanding of
when various organisms went extinct and how rapidly they did so. Lastly, a new theory has been proposed- the Supernova
explosion. A supernova occurring 30 light years away from earth would release enough gamma radiation to destroy the ozone
layer for several years. Subsequent exposure to direct ultra-violet radiation would weaken or kill nearly all existing species.
Only those living deep in the ocean will be secured. Sediments contain records or short-term ozone destruction-large amounts
of NOx gasses and C14 plus "global and atmospheric cooling." With sufficient destruction of the ozone layer, these problems
could cause widespread destruction of life.
15
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
Space Colonization
7. Space colonization too expensive to be feasible
NASA 05 (Al Globus and Bryan Yager, September 22, “Space Settlement Basics,”
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/Basics/wwwwh.html#who)
Space colonization is extraordinarily expensive because launch vehicles are difficult to manufacture and operate. For
example, the current (2004) cost to put an individual into orbit for a short time is about $20 million. To enable large scale
space tourism by the middle class, this cost must be reduced to about $1,000-$10,000, a factor of 3 to 4 orders of magnitude.
Space tourism has launch requirements similar to space settlement suggesting that a radical improvement in
manufacturing technology my be necessary to enable space colonization. Note that current launch costs vary from $2,000-
$14,000 per pound for operational vehicles.
8. Space colonization has too much risk
Zimmerman 2000, “PREDICTING SUCCESSFUL INNOVATION FOR SPACE EXPLORATION AND

COLONIZATION” 2/24/00, Carl Zimmerman, techno-marketing writer in the U.S. for a major global manufacturer of animal
nutrition and health products, B.S. degree in chemistry and M.B.A. in marketing,
http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/101_fun_stuff/32939/latest/2
We can't afford failure This imaginary dialogue depicts the direction that the U.S. and many other developed countries are taking today--space exploration
and colonization. Currently, the main goal is to develop new technologies that will improve the quality of life on Earth, but as the dialogue suggests, the
colonists may "fall in love" with living on other planets. This will especially happen if the cost of solving major problems, such as ecological disasters, on
Earth becomes prohibitive. Models which predict the innovations that are likely to succeed will improve the quality of life on Earth as well as for our
colonists on distant planets. In some previous innovations, such the airplane, the consequences of early failure were limited
(e.g., a biplane crashing on the side of a barn). For innovations needed for space exploration and colonization, the costs
of failure would be enormous, including, for example, ecological disasters during testing on Earth and destruction of
entire colonies on other planets.
9. Humans will go extinct before colonizing the galaxy
Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, 08 (“The dread planet Why finding fossils on
Mars would be extremely bad news for humanity,” p. lexis, May 25, accessed on July 13, 2008)
There are planets that are billions of years older than Earth. Any intelligent species on those planets would have had ample time to recover from repeated social
or ecological collapses. Even if they failed a thousand times before they succeeded, they could still have arrived here hundreds of millions of years ago.
Obviously, we must hope that the Great Filter is behind us rather than ahead of us. If the Great Filter is ahead us, we have still to confront it. The kind of
risk we are talking about here is called an "existential risk" - one that would either cause the extinction of Earth-
originating intelligent life or destroy its potential for future development. It could be a war fought with powerful future weapons; badly
programmed super intelligent machines; even a high-energy physics experiment gone awry. If it is true that almost all intelligent species go
extinct before they master the technology for space colonization, then we must expect that our own species too will go
extinct before reaching technological maturity - we have no reason to think that we will be any luckier than most other species at our stage of
development. If the Great Filter is ahead of us, we must relinquish all hope of ever colonizing the galaxy, and we must fear
that our adventure will end soon, or at any rate that it will end prematurely.
10. Space Colonization is an impossible dream

Stross, science fiction writer, 07 (“The High Frontier, Redux” http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html, June, 16, accessed on July 14, 2008
This is not to say that interstellar travel is impossible; quite the contrary. But to do so effectively you need either (a)
outrageous amounts of cheap energy, or (b) highly efficient robot probes, or (c) a magic wand. And in the absence of (c)
you're not going to get any news back from the other end in less than decades. Even if (a) is achievable, or by means of (b)
we can send self-replicating factories and have them turn distant solar systems into hives of industry, and more
speculatively find some way to transmit human beings there, they are going to have zero net economic impact on our
circumstances (except insofar as sending them out costs us money). What do I mean by outrageous amounts of cheap energy?
16
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
SPS Fails
SPS can’t solve-energy distance

Robert Zubrin, PhD, Astronautical Engineer, President of Mars Society. Entering Space, Tarcher/Putnam,
New York., 1999
One of the concepts, whose foremost champion is Dr. David Criswell of the University of Houston-Clear Lake, is to mass-
produce solar power arrays on the moon out of lunar materials, deploy the arrays on the lunar surface and beam
the power to Earth. It will be observed that this idea is rather similar to Gerard ONeills solar power satellite plan, but it has a
number of advantages. Foremost among these, it eliminates the need to build a billion tonne orbiting colony out of materials
transported across space, as well as the need to transport millions of tonnes of solar power satellite material from the Moon to Earth
orbit ior assembly into gigantic power generation and transmission stations on orbit. These simplifications would tend to make
Criswell's approach to generating power several orders of magnitude cheaper than O'Neill's, thereby confirming the wisdom of
utilizing the resources of a planet that already exists instead of trying to build one yourself. However, there are a number of
problems. In the first place, Criswell’s concept requires beaming energy across 400,000 km of space, rather than
the “mere” 36, 000 km required by O’Neill’s systems. This itself is not a show stopper, but it means that either the
transmitting antenna needs to be ten times as big, or a transmitter frequency ten times as great needs to be
employed if the transmitted energy is to be focused on a receiver of a given size. For example, in order for an
O’Neill type SPS positioned in geosynchronous orbit 36,000 km above the earth to focus its power transmitted at a
frequency of 3 GHz (10-cm wavelength) on a 1-km-diameter rectenna receiver on the ground, the SPS would need a transmitting
antenna 36 km in diameter. That’s big, but Criswell’s would need to be a lot bigger—400 km in diameter to
achieve the same focus. If the systems were designed to operate at a higher frequency, say 30 GHz (1-cm
wavelength), the transmitting antennas would scale down in proportion, but at the higher frequency at least half of all
transmitted energy would be absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere. Producing all the silicon required for large-scale
solar arrays won’t be easy either. As we can see in Table 5.1, it’s certainly true that SiO2 is abundant on the lunar
surface, but reducing this material into metallic silicon require reacting it with carbon, which the moon
essentially lacks. The required reaction is: SiO2 + 2C  Si + 2CO (5.1) While the carbon monoxide waste stream so generated
can be processed to allow the carbon used to be recycled and used again, in reality there always loss in such cycling chemical
engineering systems. Thus large supplies of hard to get carbon will be needed. [p. 82-83]
17
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
SPS Bad – Space Mil.
SPS can be converted into a weapon
Richard Struzak, Prof, Consultant to UN & World Bank, Satellite Industries at the Turn of the Century,
“INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL RADIO REGULATIONS”. February 2003.
http://users.ictp.it/~pub_off/lectures/lns016/Vol_16.pdf
However, both, the high-power microwave beam and laser beam can create health and environmental problems, not solved yet.
Moreover, both are potentially double-application technologies. An SSP station could easily be converted into a dangerous weapon
and the current treaties prohibit weapons in outer space. Space weapons using solar energy are not a new idea. During World War II,
some German scientists were speculating that the use of gigantic mirrors could concentrate solar energy to set fire to the enemy_s
forests, crop fields and cities. The size, complexity, environmental hazard, and cost of an SSP undertaking are daunting challenges.
Space militarization will result in the destruction of the planet
Gordon M Mitchell, Assoc. Prof of Communications @ U. of Pitt, Kevin Ayotte & David Cram Helwich,
“Missile Defense: Transatlantic Diplomacy at a Cross-Roads”, ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense No. 6,
July 2001, p
The interlocking nature of offense and defense in military space technology stems from the inherent 'dual capability' of
spaceborne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UN Conference on Disarmament, explains:
'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use the same capability to target something on land'. 35 To the extent
that ballistic missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, such interceptors can also be used
as orbiting 'Death Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's atmosphere.
The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre
of split-second attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this
automation would enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit
violence out of human hands and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds
of accidental conflict.
Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial systems such as space
weapons, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawless performance. According to
Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. As Perrow
explains, '[t]he odd term "normal accident" is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpected
interactions of failures are inevitable'.36 Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or
unleash killer projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable, given the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'.
It is chilling to contemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny
projectile reentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage — even more than
would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of
peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines
dead cities of microwave-grilled people'.38 Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation
subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical
weapons. An accidental war sparked by a computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military
conflict ever seen.
18
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
SPS Bad – Space Mil. Ext.
SPS can be used to militarize space
Virgiliu Pop, PhD Student, Univ. Glasgow, Scotland, 2000 <“Security Implications of Non-Terrestrial
Resource Exploitation”
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/security_implications_of_non_terrestrial_resource_exploitation.shtml
This paper analyses the legality of Solar Power Satellites (SPS) and Peaceful Nuclear
Explosions (PNE), as means for exploiting extraterrestrial natural resources, from the prospective of peaceful uses of outer
space. The use of extraterrestrial natural resources for military purposes is also scrutinised. Envisioned as a means for the
exploitation of solar energy in outer space, SPS may have military capabilities, varying from their use as electromagnetic
weapons to their employment as anti ballistic missile systems and as means of hostile environmental modification. Their
dimensions and location may raise on the other hand issues regarding their defence. In order to avoid both their use as means of
warfare and their destruction, appropriate safeguards must be in place. Without these, it is unlikely that SPS systems will ever
be operating. The exploitation of mineral resources on the moon, asteroids and other celestial bodies may see the need of
employing PNE. These have fundamental legal implications in the light of the 1963 Moscow Treaty and of the CTBT Treaty.
Finally, the exploitation of extraterrestrial mineral resources may raise a legal debate regarding their use for military purposes.
This raises again the never-ending debate of the meaning of “peaceful”, i.e. non-military or nonaggressive.
SPS will be a major factor in the development of space weapons
Resource Exploitation”.
The prospective of exploitation of solar energy in the Geostationary Orbit and of mineral resources on the Moon and asteroids
raises the issue of legality of the exploitation technologies to be used from their military point of view. “The development of a
mineral resource regime for the Moon” - considers Bilder - “is likely to have less immediate practical military (...) significance
than has been the case with the general development of the Antarctic and Law of the Sea regimes”1. However, a certain
number of technologies that can be used for the peaceful exploitation of non-terrestrial natural resources carry also the potential
of being used for warfare. This is true both in the case of the Solar Power Satellites that would exploit solar energy in Earth
orbit, and in that of peaceful nuclear explosions that may be used in exploiting minerals from the Moon, asteroids and other
celestial bodies. These “dual-use technologies” raise security issues that need to be analysed in detail. In the same time,
important problems arise from the possible use of non-terrestrial mineral resources for the manufacture of weapons.
19
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
SPS are considered electromagnetic weapons.

.http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/security_implications_of_non_terrestrial_resource_exploitation.shtml
High power microwaves (HPM) are a new means of warfare. The use of microwaves as the means of transmission of energy
between the SPS and the ground based collecting rectenna may qualify them as electromagnetic weapons. The most widely
acknowledged effect of HPM is “disruption of electronic systems”, able to “reset computers, cause complete loss of stored data
and/or cause microprocessors to switch operating modes”7. This would “produce substantial paralysis in any target system,
thus providing a decisive advantage in the conduct of Electronic Combat, Offensive Counter Air and Strategic Air Attack”8. In
the same time, a HPM attack directed at an aircraft “could corrupt the plane’s control and navigation systems enough to cause a
crash”9. Although of a non-lethal nature10, the effects of electromagnetic weapons are significant, ranging from “nuisance to
catastrophic”11. This led experts to consider them as “Weapon[s] of Electrical Mass Destruction”12. Indeed, the reliance of
today’s society on electronic and computer systems makes it extremely fragile; a HPM attack would have far more catastrophic
effects than the Millennium Bug13. Another “mass destruction-like” effect may be presented by the SPS that would use lasers
instead of microwaves as means of transmission of energy and that may also have the capacity to cause catastrophic fires on
enemy territory. Gerrard and Barber note that “ there is some debate as to whether nuclearpowered lasers are [weapons of mass
destruction]”14. The same may be true in the case of use of orbiting solar mirrors: it may “become technically feasible to
concentrate solar energy in certain areas of the earth and thereby cause fires, scorch the earth, or cause floods”15. Precedents of
the use of solar rays as a weapon exist as far back as the 3rd Century BC, when Archimedes is said to have put fire to the
Roman fleet invading Syracuse by using solar rays
concentrated by mirrors.
20
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
SPS could be used to hide wmds
The question remains, however, whether the SPS could serve as a “Trojan horse” by hiding
a mass destruction weapon, be it nuclear, radiological, or chemical, under the peaceful exploitation mask. In order to avoid this
situation, a number of safeguards that we will analyse later must be in place.
SPS can be used as a laser weapon to destroy missiles

The SPS system, although not directly aimed at countering strategic ballistic missiles, might be accused of having an ABM
“hidden agenda”, given its real ABM capabilities. Indeed, “[i]t was speculated that a high-energy laser beam could function as
a thermal weapon to disable or destroy enemy missiles”22. Foldes also considers that one of the most logical offensive uses of
SPS can include the “microwave heating of other space objects”23. OTA believes that “[a]lthough unlikely, use of the SPS for
directed-energy weaponry, either directly, or as a source of energy to be transmitted to remote platforms, or for tracking, would
be regulated by the ABM Treaty. Use of the SPS for ABM purposes would hence be banned”24.
21
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
Space Mil. Bad-Impacts Ext.
Space weapons lead to accidental nuclear war

Graham (fmr. Pres. special representative of the for arms control, participated in every US arms control
negotiation from 1970-97) 2005
(Thomas, “Space Weapons and The Risk of Accidental Nuclear War”, Arms Control Today. v35 i10, ProQuest)
The United States and Russia maintain thousands of nuclear warheads on longrange ballistic missiles on 15-minute alert. Once
launched, they cannot be recalled, and they will strike their targets in roughly 30 minutes. Fifteen years after the end of the
Cold War, the chance of an accidental nuclear exchange has far from decreased. Yet, the United States may be contemplating
further exacerbating this threat by deploying missile interceptors in space. Both the United States and Russia rely on space-
based systems to provide early warning of a nuclear attack. If deployed, however, U.S. space-based missile defense
interceptors could eliminate the Russian early warning satellites quickly and without warning. So, just the existence of U.S.
space weapons could make Russia's strategic trigger fingers itchy. The potential protection space-based defenses might offer
the United States is swamped therefore by their potential cost: a failure of or false signal from a component of the Russian
early warning system could lead to a disastrous reaction and accidental nuclear war. There is no conceivable missile defense,
space-based or not, that would offer protection in the event that the Russian nuclear arsenal was launched at the United States.
Nor are the Russians or other countries likely to stand still and watch the United States construct space-based defenses. These
states are likely to respond by developing advanced anti-satellite weapon systems.1 These weapons, in turn, would endanger
U.S. early warning systems, impair valuable U.S. weapons intelligence efforts, and increase the jitteriness of U.S. officials.
This is the most probable extinction scenario

Bostrom, Professor of Philosophy and Global Studies at Yale, 2002
[www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html]
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war
was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify
as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a
nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4]
Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately.
There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear
exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s
potential permanently.
22
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
A2: Only for Defense
Even if SPS has a defense system in place, it would still be considered a

weapon.
Indeed, they are not more vulnerable than other ground-based facilities; nuclear plants can as well be attacked or sabotaged. At
ground level, self-defence systems are easy to implement; Foldes believes that SPS self defence is in principle “no more
difficult than the defence of a similar complexity power plant on the ground”43. As the UN Charter is applicable in outer space
and it legitimates self defence (Art. 51), the provision of a self defence system for a SPS would in theory not be illegal, as long
as the arms installed on the SPS do not contravene to the arms controls treaties in force. It is however difficult to imagine a
defence system strong enough to counter an attack and weak enough not to be considered an ABM system.
Other countries would still see SPS as a weapon

2.5. Self Defence of SPS At the opposite end of the security concerns related to the use of SPS lies their safety; while a “non-
owner state” is concerned with the military potential of a SPS, an “owner state” would see a SPS as “a target for any space-
capable nation with intentions hostile to the interests of that state”39.
23
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
A2: Only for Defense
SPACE EXPLOITATION GUARANTEES WEAPONIZATION – MILITARY WILL

PROTECT ECONOMIC INTEREST
Gen. Howell Estes, US Space Command, Defense Issues, Vol. 12, no. 20, April 3, 1997.
Commercial space, as I said earlier, will become an economic center of gravity, in my opinion, in the future and as such will be
a great source of strength for the United States and other nations in the world. As such, this strength will also become a
weakness, a vulnerability. And it’s here that the U.S. military will play an important role, for we will be expected to protect this
new source of economic strength.
24
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
SPS Bad – Black Outs 1/1
SPS is vulnerable to terrorist attacks causing blackouts

The use of a geosynchronous orbit makes the SPS “a “sitting duck” for anti-satellite weapons”, given “the absolute
predictability of these orbits”40. Its vulnerability is of high importance, “especially since it could be supplying a large portion
of a nation’s electricity”41. Security issues are raised also by the ground-based rectenna that “would be as vulnerable to
terrorist or quasi-military action as other large industrial complexes or power plants”42.
Blackouts cause nuclear accidents

Public Citizen ‘3
“The big Blackout and Amnesia in Congress,” http://www.citizen.org/documents/bigblackout.pdf//delo-uwyo]
In the aftermath of the recent blackout, it is important to consider the enormous risks and reliability deficiencies of nuclear
power. The unique dangers of nuclear power were exacerbated by the huge power outage: 21 nuclear reactors—which are,
ironically, dependent upon off-site power—were forced to shut down in the U.S. and Canada. Power loss from the grid forces
nuclear power stations to resort to emergency generators for basic safety operations while in shutdown mode—a contingency
operation that presents a whole host of new risks for the plant. Power outages, especially on a grand scale, put already-
vulnerable nuclear facilities at an even greater risk of serious accident.
This causes extinction

Harvey Wasserman, Senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service
“Nuclear Power and Terrorism,” Earth island Journal Spring 2002 Vol. 17, No.1//delo-uwyo]
As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, natural ecosystems would be
permanently and irrevocably destroyed. Spiritually, psychologically, financially and ecologically, our nation would
never recover.
This is what we missed by a mere 40 miles on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read
this.
There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse operating in the US. They generate a mere 8 percent of
our total energy. Since its deregulation crisis, California cut its electric consumption by some 15 percent. Within a year, the US could
cheaply replace virtually all the reactors with increased efficiency.
Yet, as the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking the extension of the Price-Anderson Act, a form of legal immunity that
protects reactor operators from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack.
Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation?
If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must
be shut down.
25
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
Satellites DA Shell (econ version)

A. SPS risks knocking out satellites in a number of ways
National Research Council 81, (Electric Power From Orbit: A Critique of a Satellite Power System, A report by the
Committee on Satellite Power Systems, Environmental Studies Board, Commission on Natural Resources, National Research Council,
p. 97)
Several problems of perhaps lesser priority will also affect the electromagnetic compatibility of SPS with itself and with
other satellites. These are (a) the generation of spurious electromagnetic radiations by its power generation, rectification,
and associated subsystems; (b) the creation of additional propagation paths on satellite-relayed communications circuits
through scatter or reflection; (c) excessive illumination of satellites in lower orbits that may traverse the SPS power
beam, and (d) the compatibility of SPS with its own power beam command and control systems (discussed in Chapter 2).
In addition, the huge size of each SPS satellite means that the possibility of satellite collisions must be taken seriously,
even though it has been appropriate hitherto for ITU to ignore the possibility of such collisions.
B. US economy dependent on satellites

Dowd 02, (World and I May 1, 2002 SECTION: No. 5, Vol. 17; Pg. NA ; ISSN: 0887-9346 HEADLINE: Taking the high ground -
The U.S. Military Marches Into Space. BYLINE: Dowd, Alan W, l/n)
Space already plays a crucial role in the U.S. economy, and America's dependence on space will only deepen in the
coming decades. Whether we recognize it or not, what happens in space affects our very way of life. "More than any other
country," Rumsfeld argues, "the United States relies on space for its security and well-being."9 The United States has more
than eight hundred active satellites and probes orbiting the earth at any given moment. Fully a quarter of them have no
military purpose at all. Instead, they circle the earth to relay everything from Nike ads to the Nikkei average; improve
the use and development of farmland; guide ships, planes, and trucks to their destinations; synchronize financial
networks; support police and fire departments; and connect a people and an economy that move at ever- increasing
speed.
C. Economic decline leads to nuclear war

Mead 1992 (Sir Walter Russell, New Perspectives Quarterly, p. 30 Summer)
If so, this new failure – the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression –
will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions – billions – of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the
international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the West –
because they believe our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even
shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia,
China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to
world order than Germany and Japan did in the ‘30s.
26
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
Satelites DA (readiness version)

A. SPS not being used now because of interference with global satellites
Richard M. Dickinson, member of the Technical Staff at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, Jan. 29,1999,<“Lasers for Wireless Power
Transmission” trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/16855/1/99-
0263.pdf>
A major issue in space solar power systems employing microwave power transmission is their potential interference
with satellite communication systems, which use frequencies in the same multi-gigahertz range that is best suited to
microwave power transmission. The filtering and/or frequency restrictions necessary to avoid such interference could be
a major barrier to the economics of space-based power systems for terrestrial consumption, and obtaining their
approval by the Federal Communications Commission and the International Telecommunications Union may be extremely
difficult due to the potential interference with the ubiquitous global satellite communication services
B. Plan causes the development of SPS
C. Satellite Communications are key to Military readiness- Iraq proves
Usha Lee McFarling, Times Staff Writer, Los Angeles Times April 24, 2003 “The Eyes and Ears of War”
Stretched across a wall at the U.S. Air Force's Combined Air Operations Center near the Persian Gulf is a shimmering, ever-
changing display, showing the location of every aircraft above Iraq.
Throughout the war, commanders at the operations center used the map to reroute bombers the moment targets emerged --
whether they were Saddam Hussein sightings or Iraqi missile launches. In a matter of minutes -- not hours or days as in past
wars -- commanders identified targets and then sent out orders to bomb.
This compression of time, known in the military as "shortening the kill chain," was possible for just one reason: satellite
information. Flowing through a network of electronic eyes and ears above Earth, information bathed the battlefield, sending
location data to GPS units in tanks, messages to sturdy portable computers with the troops and satellite images to weather
stations set up on the dusty front lines.
The fire hose of information from space was a little-heralded but critical part of the swift victory in Iraq, providing a
different kind of shock and awe: the ability to act almost instantaneously and cripple the Iraqi army's ability to respond.
In the Iraq war, space became the ultimate military high ground.
While last year's conflict in Afghanistan saw the use of space technologies in small skirmishes, the Iraq war marked the first
effort to apply them across an entire battlefield swarming with hundreds of thousands of soldiers and a constant rush of tanks,
jets and helicopters.
"If you ask what was the difference between Iraq's army and America's army, the big difference was satellites," said John
Pike, a defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, an intelligence and military policy think tank based in Alexandria, Va. "And
it's technology you don't even notice."
Though overshadowed by headline-grabbing pilotless drones and 21,000-pound MOAB bunker-buster bombs, the quick, quiet,
almost mundane flow of electronic information -- whether from polar orbiting weather satellites 23,000 miles above Earth or
school bus-sized KH or "keyhole class" spy satellites keen enough to read large newspaper headlines from space -- proved
one of the U.S. military's most powerful weapons.
"Information is not just a weapon, it's an enabling technology that changes the culture, institution and setting in which
war is conducted. It changes everything," said Loren Thompson, a defense and satellite expert at the Lexington Institute, a
nonprofit think tank in Arlington, Va. "It is bringing about changes that are more fundamental than any we've ever seen
before -- more fundamental than the tank, or the submarine, or even the atomic weapon."
27
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
Satelites DA (readiness version)

In the current war, about 90% of the allied bombs used were so-called smart bombs that were guided either with lasers or GPS
signals from orbiting satellites, military officials said. In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, only about 10% of weapons were
precision-guided.
D. Readiness prevents Nuke war

<insert card here>
28
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
Satellites DA: Links- Hurts Satellites

SSP would disrupt communications satellites
EPRI Journal 00, (March 22, 2000 SECTION: No. 1, Vol. 25; Pg. 6 ; ISSN: 0362-3416 HEADLINE: Renewed Interest in Space
Solar Power; Brief Article BYLINE: MOORE, TAYLOR, l/n)
Since 1986, Osepchuk has argued that although public fear of microwaves may represent a greater obstacle to the eventual
deployment of SPS technology, the most serious technical problem in the near term is that of radio-frequency
interference (RFI) and the related issue of frequency allocation. Over the past 20 years, many communications
companies have been using frequencies in the 2.4-2.5-GHz microwave band supposedly reserved for industrial,
scientific, and medical use, crowding the spectrum in which SSP systems were envisioned to operate. SSP power beams
are likely to pose an RFI threat to nearby communications systems that operate in the same frequency band.
29
SPS Neg Supplement
DDI 2008 <GT>
Bagley/Lotfi
Satellites DA: A2: We Can Repair Satellites

Satellite repair impossible
McCauly and Davis 01, (An Economic Assessment of Space Solar Power as a Source of Electricity for Space-Based Activities
Molly K. Macauley and James F. Davis, Resources for the Future, October 2001 • Discussion Paper 01–46,
http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-01-46.pdf, accessed 10/14/04)
Electrical power on spacecraft is so critical and expensive that a spacecraft design handbook begins its chapter on power
subcomponents with those words.1 Engineers use batteries, solar cells and arrays, radiators, and a host of other devices to
create power systems that are able to survive extreme vibration during launch and then operate in a harsh space environment.
But the moving parts of solar arrays can fail to operate or wear out quickly. Furthermore, the systems are difficult or
impossible to repair once the spacecraft is in orbit. The power supplies are also heavy and bulky, and spacecraft can ill
afford their weight and volume.
30

262 GT SPS Neg Supplement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

262 GT SPS Neg Supplement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPS Neg Supplement

DDI 2008 <GT>

A. Increased RMA leads to terrorists gaining more advanced weapons for

B. Nuclear terrorism will cause extinction

A. RMA leads the military overstretch

B. Military Overstretch kills heg

Paul Craig Roberts, November 2, 2007, http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/hegemony’s-cost-by-

RMA Bad-Bloodless Warfare

A. RMA leads to military having no risk when going to war.

B. This creates the image of bloodless warfare leading to constant

RMA leads to an increase in asymmetric warfare against the U.S. paralyzing

A. An increase in RMA causes an increase in self-determination conflicts

B. Unchecked self-determination conflicts escalate to extinction caused

Kamal Shehadi, Research Associate at the International Institute for Strategic

An increase in RMA leads to an overeliance on the military, killing heg

RMA undermines heg.

A. RMA leads to an increase in preventive military actions- Iraq proves.

RMA Bad-Arms Race

RMA Kills arms control- to attached to the private sector

A. RMA causes WMD proliferation

3. Going to space causes extinction, intergalactic environmental exploitation,

8. Space colonization has too much risk

Zimmerman 2000, “PREDICTING SUCCESSFUL INNOVATION FOR SPACE EXPLORATION AND

9. Humans will go extinct before colonizing the galaxy

10. Space Colonization is an impossible dream

SPS can’t solve-energy distance

SPS Bad – Space Mil.

SPS can be converted into a weapon

Space militarization will result in the destruction of the planet

SPS Bad – Space Mil. Ext.

SPS can be used to militarize space

SPS will be a major factor in the development of space weapons

SPS Bad – Space Mil. Ext.

SPS are considered electromagnetic weapons.

SPS Bad – Space Mil. Ext.

SPS could be used to hide wmds

SPS can be used as a laser weapon to destroy missiles

Space Mil. Bad-Impacts Ext.

Space weapons lead to accidental nuclear war

This is the most probable extinction scenario

A2: Only for Defense

Even if SPS has a defense system in place, it would still be considered a

Other countries would still see SPS as a weapon

A2: Only for Defense

SPACE EXPLOITATION GUARANTEES WEAPONIZATION – MILITARY WILL

SPS Bad – Black Outs 1/1

SPS is vulnerable to terrorist attacks causing blackouts

Blackouts cause nuclear accidents

This causes extinction

Satellites DA Shell (econ version)

B. US economy dependent on satellites

C. Economic decline leads to nuclear war

Satelites DA (readiness version)

B. Plan causes the development of SPS

C. Satellite Communications are key to Military readiness- Iraq proves

Satelites DA (readiness version)

D. Readiness prevents Nuke war

Satellites DA: Links- Hurts Satellites

Satellites DA: A2: We Can Repair Satellites

You might also like