S P S

Plan Text:The USFG should substantially increase space exploration through NASA to retain its global hegemony CONTENTION ONE: INHERENCY US GLOBAL HEG IS DETERIORATING, THE REST OF THE WORLD HAS CAUGHT UP Hoffman 09 (Andy, American Hegemony: The Beginning and the End. Midas Letter. 4/18/09.
<http://www.midasletter.com/commentary/090418-2_US-hegemony-the-beginning-and-the-end.php>)

The financial market madness we are currently witnessing is difficult to put into words. So much so, that for the first time in years, I find myself at times speechless. Irrespective, I have untied my tongue long enough to put together some thoughts describing my view of what is going on from the highestlevel, macroeconomic sense. In essence,what we are seeing today is the death throes of U.S. global hegemony, as described below. In my opinion,September 11th marked the beginning of the end of U.S. global hegemony, or in simple terms its role as a global superpower. Not because of the damage done by Islamic terrorists, which was trivial, but to itself by the powers that be in Washington and Wall Street. Since that day, the forces pushing the U.S. down the slope of the global power chain accelerated, with the 9/11 attacks essentially lighting the fuse.

1 A C D D I

The U.S. has been the lone global superpower for roughly 20 years, probably the shortest period of such hegemony by a major economic power in the world's history. If you combine that period with the previous 45 years when the U.S. shared that status with the Soviet Union, we are talking about a total of 65 years, still a tiny drop in the bucket of time. If you want to think in terms of significant superpowers, counted in centuries rather than decades, think of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, Shangs and Zhous (of China), or even the British and Spanish of the 13th to 19th centuries. The U.S. and Russia were fortunate enough to find themselves in that position because the major European powers nearly destroyed themselves during World War II. At that time, Japan's economic advancement had not yet commenced, while China remained mired in the throes of unproductive communism. In the post World War II era, the United States, through a combination of ingenuity, financial strength, and a (now long-gone) work ethic, managed to secure a major share of global manufacturing market share, reaching a golden age in the 1950s and 60s which marked the peak of its standing in the world. Russia similarly was in a strong financial position following the war, but its leadership instead promoted the closed-minded communist policies which yielded growth (and ultimately collapse) in but one area, its nuclear arsenal. But even as America was flourishing, the inevitable competition from the "Rest of World" was smoldering behind the scenes. Once the aftermath of World War II passed, which in Europe took many years, these forces started to gain momentum. Remember, the U.S. possesses less than 3% of the world's population but consumes roughly 30% of its energy, and is not particularly blessed with natural resources. Thus, it was only a matter of time before the "Rest of World" caught up. By the 1960s, little Japan, with barely one-third of the U.S. population, one-twentieth the land, and even less natural resources, had already snagged a major share of global manufacturing market share, particularly in the automotive industry, one of America's truly "own" creations and sources of pride. And all the while, completely under the radar, the seeds of domination were growing in China, India, and Southeast Asia. These indomitable forces have gained strength over the past five decades, but in my view two key events served to accelerate them exponentially, yielding the situation where, here in 2009, the U.S.

has lost essentially ALL of its superpower status. The first of the two events was the Vietnam War in 1965 (and the consequential end of the gold standard in 1971), and the second was September 11th, 2001. All empires peak when arrogance rears its ugly head, and in the U.S.'s case it was Vietnam that triggered it. As someone too young to have been around during the era of the "Red Peril", it is hard to envision the fear of the spread of Communism that existed in America. But it most certainly did, yielding numerous standoffs, skirmishes, and wars (such as the Korean conflict and the Cuban missile conflict) before the real damage occurred in Vietnam. Part of the rationale for Vietnam was the fear of communism, particularly the Russians, but an equal part was the growing U.S. belief that, thanks to just 20 years of global hegemony, its beliefs and ideals, politically, economically, and socially, should be foisted onto the rest of the world, at any cost. That line of thinking is what made the Egyptians and Romans into global empires, and even the British for that matter. But those were different times, when worldwide communications and technologies were more limited and protected, unlike today where ideas and processes are instantaneously transferred around the world with the click of a mouse. Thus, Vietnam was a critical point in U.S. history, representing the point that it started to squander its financial advantage, spread its military too thin, and sow the seeds of global resentment. Not to mention, just like Iraq it was a completely unprovoked war, started by propaganda in Washington targeted at stirring up "patriotism."

FOREIGN POWERS THREATEN US HEG Caraley 04

(Demetrios, Professor of Political Science and H. Robb Professor of the Social Sciences, Barnard College, American Hegemony: Preventive War, Iraq, and Imposing Democracy,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=h2L_znvDMPcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=American+Hegemony:+Preventive+War,+Iraq, +and+Imposing+Democracy%E2%80%9D&ots=ccxm__Fk22&sig=AUgurV8RuWO8hEtpf5D827YAtJ0#v=snippet&q=Combine%20the %20rise%20of%20Europe%20and%20Asia%20with%20the%20decline%20of%20liberal%20internationalism%20in%20the%20United %20States%20and%20&f=false, June 28, 2010 )

Combine the rise of Europe and Asia with the decline of liberal internationalism in the United States and it becomes clear that America's unipolar moment is not long for this world. At the same time that alternative centers of power are taking shape, the United States is drawing away from multilateral institutions in favor of a unilateralism that risks estranging those power centers, raising the chances that their ascent will lead to a new era of geopolitical rivalry. As unipolarity gives way to multipolarity, the strategic competition now held in abeyance by U.S. primacy will return--and with a vengeance if America's unilateralist impulse prevails. No longer steadied by U.S. hegemony, processes of globalization and democratization are likely to falter, as are the international institutions currently dependent upon Washington's leadership to function effectively. Geopolitical fault lines will reemerge among centers of power in North America, Europe, and East Asia. The central challenge for U.S. grand strategy will be managing and taming the dangers arising from these new fault lines. The United States cannot and should not resist the end of unipolarity and the return of a world of multiple centers of power. To do so would only risk alienating and risking conflict with a rising Europe and an ascendant Asia. And it would likely stoke an isolationist backlash in the United States by pursuing a level of foreign ambition for which there would be insufficient political support. Asking that the United States prepare for and manage its exit from global primacy, however, is a tall order. Great powers have considerable difficulty accepting their mortality; few in history have willfully made room for rising challengers and adjusted their grand strategies accordingly. In managing the return of multipolarity, America should be guided by the principles of strategic restraint and institutional binding. Strategic

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

AND, NASA DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING UPI 09' UPI.com, 100 years of journalistic expertise. http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/10/23/NASA-needs-funding-boost-tofulfill-goals/UPI-70081256312792/
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 (UPI) -- Congress needs to boost NASA's funding by at least $3 billion a year for the agency to deliver ambitious manned space flights, a panel of U.S. experts said. The panel Thursday delivered its assessment of NASA's options for the next generation of manned space exploration, concluding NASA's goals are too ambitious for the money earmarked to pay for them, the Houston Chronicle reported Friday. "The human space flight program that the United States is currently pursuing is on an unsustainable trajectory," said the panel's leader, retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine. President Barack Obama and Congress will use the assessment to determine whether to boost NASA's $18.7 billion annual funding by at least $3 billion or scale back programs, the Chronicle reported. The panel suggested delaying retirement of the remaining three space shuttles by one year until 2011 and lengthening the life of the International Space Station by five years to 2020. The panel also recommended that commercial firms ferry astronauts and cargo to the space station.

CONTENTION TWO: ADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGE ONE: TECHNOLOGY THE UNITED STATES IS LOSING ITS TECHNOLOGICAL DOMINANCE Yale Global http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/america-losing-its-edge The long-standing pre-eminence of US technology and innovation worldwide may now face a challenge, as the changing face of the global marketplace takes its toll. As US trade and development has expanded overseas, partner nations have taken advantage of this access. Particularly in Asia, nations are making large strides in research and development (R&D) and other scientific technology. Budget troubles, declining numbers of graduates in technologyrelated fields, and foreign expertise "brain drain" may also hurt American R&D in the next decade. The United States still has a clear advantage, with its unparalleled resources and

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

THE US IS FALLING BEHIND BOTH TECHNOLOGICALY AND HEGEMONICALLY

Adam Segal 04'
Adam Segal is Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of Digital Dragon: High Technology Enterprises in China.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/america-losing-its-edge The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways:it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at

fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

AND, NOT ENOUGH MONEY IS SPENT ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE U.S. Adam Segal 04' Adam Segal is Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign
Relations and the author of Digital Dragon: High Technology Enterprises in China.

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

At the moment, it would be premature to declare a crisis in the United States' scientific or technological competitiveness. The United States is still the envy of the world for reasons ranging from its ability to fund basic scientific research to the speed with which its companies commercialize new breakthroughs. This year, total U.S. expenditures on R&D are expected to top $290 billion-more than twice the total for Japan, the next biggest spender. In 2002, the U.S. R&D total exceeded that of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom combined (although the United States trailed Finland, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, and Sweden in the ratio of R&D to GDP). And although scholars from other parts of the world may write relatively more science and engineering papers than Americans do, U.S. research continues to be cited the most. The United States also leads the major global technology markets, holding commanding market shares in aerospace, scientific instruments, computers and office machinery, and communications instruments. U.S. information and communications technology producers lead almost every sector. And for the last two decades, U.S. firms have been the top providers of high-technology services, accounting for about one-third of the world's total. These strengths, however, should not obscure the existence of new threats to the long-term health of science and innovation in the United States. A record $422 billion budget deficit, for example, may undermine future government support for R&D. Recent shifts in federal spending will leave basic research-that driven by scientific curiosity rather than specific commercial applications-underfunded, depriving the economy of the building blocks of future innovation. Although federal expenditures on R&D are expected to reach $132 billion in fiscal year 2005 and $137.5 billion in 2009, new spending will be concentrated in the fields of defense, homeland security, and the space program. Funding for all other R&D programs, meanwhile, will remain flat this year and decline in real terms over the next five years. In July, Congress approved a record-breaking $70.3 billion for R&D for the Defense Department in 2005, a 7.1 percent increase from last year and more than the Pentagon had asked for (in fact, the department's top brass had asked to cut R&D spending). Such largesse makes it likely that the Pentagon will be able to continue innovation in the near term. Its longer-term prospects, however, are more worrying. According to five-year projections by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Defense Department will focus more and more on weapons development while neglecting basic and applied research. Privately funded industrial R&D, meanwhile-which accounts for over 60 percent of the U.S. total-is also starting to slip as a result of the current economic slowdown. Private industry cut R&D spending by 1.7 percent in 2001, 4.5 percent in 2002, and 0.7 percent in 2003. This year, R&D spending is expected to increase-but by less than one percent, which is less than the inflation rate. Furthermore, with less than 10 percent of its R&D spending dedicated to basic research, industry will not be able to fill in the gaps created by the government's shift of funding to defense and homeland security-related research. These funding decreases may be exacerbated by a coming labor shortage. The number of Americans pursuing advanced degrees in the sciences and engineering is declining, and university science and engineering programs are growing more dependent on foreign-born talent. Thirty-eight percent of the nation's scientists and engineers with doctorates were born outside the country. And of the Ph.D.'s in science and

engineering awarded to foreign students in the United States from 1985 to 2000, more than half went to students from China, India, South Korea, and Taiwan. Such dependence on foreign talent could become a critical weakness for the United States in the future, especially as foreign applications to U.S. science and engineering graduate programs decline. With booming economies and improving educational opportunities in their countries, staying at home is an increasingly attractive option for Chinese and Indian scientists. In addition, visa restrictions put in place after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have created new barriers for foreign students trying to enter the United States. Surveys conducted by the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, and other education groups have blamed repetitive security checks, inefficient visa-renewal processes, and a lack of transparency for significant drops in applications to U.S. graduate programs this year. TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION IS ULTIMATELY THE MAIN GOAL OF NASA Todd J. Farrar and Ian Roth 10' The following is an interview with Dr. Bobby Braun, NASA's New Chief
Technology Officer in charge of The Space Technology Program.

http://www.dawnbreaker.com/about/phase3.php NASAs 2011 budget implements significant programmatic and structural changes to the way that NASA approaches not only space exploration, but also R&D. Changes include the cancellation of the Constellation Program and the shifting of funds to support the commercial space sector as it addresses future space transportation and exploration needs. Another significant change is the establishment of the Space Technology Program under the Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology Mission Directorate. Late last year, Dr. Bobby Braun was appointed as the Chief Technology Officer operating the Office of the Chief Technologist. This office oversees the new Space Technology Program. The Space Technology Program highlights NASAs new approach to the support and maturation of truly innovative and advanced technologies. The program is designed to accomplish a multitude of tasks, including reducing typical barriers to infusion of advanced concepts, offering greater infusion opportunities to innovators, mitigating risk for technology adoption by the commercial space industry, and helping the U.S. remain a leader in space technology development and future space exploration. Recently, Dr. Braun sat down with Phase III Commercialization and discussed the Space Technology Program and the effects that the program changes will have for NASA, technologists, small businesses and the commercial sector. The structure and goals of the Space Technology program were established largely on the recommendations made by four National Academy reports that have come out since 2008. With the start of the space technology program, we are trying to provide a critical mass of talented people from across the country working on what I call foundational technology activities, explained Dr. Braun. These are activities that may not affect the very next mission but are designed to strategically impact a whole suite of future NASA missions. The Space Technology Program changes NASAs budgetary focus for funding advanced technologies. In the past, each mission directorate in NASA (Science Mission Directorate, the Aeronautics Mission Directorate or Exploration) had a portion of their budget focused on technologies. According to Braun, Its no secret that over time, in particular over this past decade, that those budgets have been reduced and so the total technology activity at NASA has been reduced.NASA has been more near term mission focused.

The new Space Technology Program is unique in that it is designed to reduce some of the previous barriers and potential valleys of death that NASA funded technologies or projects faced when moving from concept to flight readiness. The program is comprised of three main components: Early Stage Innovation, Game Changing Technology and Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations. Together these components provide a stage gate type approach that facilitates the realization of new concepts, figures out which ideas work and which do not (proof of concept), assists the maturation of technologies in a lab setting (prototype and demo/test), and for the most promising developments provides opportunities for flight testing. Each of the three components provides a number of public and private funding vehicles and incentives for technology development and maturation efforts at specific ranges of technology readiness levels (TRLs). (For more information concerning TRLs, see Dawnbreakers free portal of information at

SPIN OFF TECHNOLOGY JUSTIFIES THE COST OF SPACE EXPLORATION AND RETURNS U.S. TECHONOLOGIAL DOMINANCE Arnold, Banke and Armstrong 06 Excerpt from the publication: Americas Vision; the Case for Space. Failure is not an
option. All three are experts in the field of Space Exploration. http://www.partnersforstennis.org/pdf/TheCaseForSpace.pdf

When President Kennedy challenged America to land on the Moon before 1970, no one said, If we do this, then in 40 years consumers will be able to purchase laptop computers, satellite radio receivers, and hand-held GPS devices from a neighborhood store. But thats what happened. Solving the problems inherent in sending astronauts and satellites into space resulted in new products and capabilities that have transformed our culture and spawned a major segment of the global economy worth trillions of dollars. So is it reasonable to expect that investing billions more in the Vision for Space Exploration will yield future economic benefits presently impossible to predict? In the following, we look at the impact of the space program on the global economy and learn just how pervasive the influence of space is. Space exploration has advanced telecommunications, medical technology, weather forecasting, navigation, television, radio, computing, and many other industries. The nations commitment to space exploration has engaged us in a unique type of problem solving. As a direct result of the innovations, inventions, and discoveries that have enabled us to explore space, our daily lives on Earth have changed profoundly. Space exploration requires experts in many different areas to work together to develop entirely new capabilities that operate reliably in a remote and hostile environment. Few other endeavors combine this interdisciplinary focus with the need to achieve not simply concepts or demonstrations, but also functional end-state results. No other endeavor addresses the same challenges as space exploration. Many of the capabilities and technologies we have developed through space exploration probably would not have been developed in its absence, even with the same level of investment. Goods and services enabled through the use and exploration of space permeate our economy. Massive industries, with annual revenues of hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars, rely on space systems to provide key capabilities. From television to cell phones, from maps to weather forecasts, fundamental aspects of American life rely on an infrastructure of inspace systems in place today. Many others personal computers, compact discs, and cordless tools, among countless examples derive in part from past investments in space technology. Moreover, the impact of investment in space exploration extends far beyond the United States and the small number of other space-faring nations. Space capabilities shape life around the world.

The global space economy is built on a space infrastructure consisting of manufacturers, service providers, and technologists in industry and government who deploy and operate launch vehicles, satellites, and space platforms such as the International Space Station. The cost of this space infrastructure is borne by commercial firms that sell satellite services; governments in many countries that use satellites to provide long-distance telephone, television, and Internet to their citizens; and the national space agencies (mainly those of the United States, Europe, Russia, Ukraine, China, Japan, and a few others)

THE RESULTS OF THIS SPACE EXPLORATION WILL BE MUC LIKE THOSE OF THE 1960S AND WILL LEAD TO INTANGIBLE AMOUNTS OF NEW TECHNOLOGY Vernikos 08 Joan Vernikos, a member of the Space Studies Board of the National Academy and former director of NASAs Life Sciences Division: http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/isspace-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/

Why explore? Asked why he kept trying to climb Everest, English mountaineer George Mallory reputedly replied, Because it was there. Exploration is intrinsic to our nature. It is the contest between man and nature mixed with the primal desire to conquer. It fuels curiosity, inspiration and creativity. The human spirit seeks to discover the unknown, and in the process explore the physical and psychological potential of human endurance. There have always been the few risk-takers who ventured for the rest of us to follow. Because of earlier pioneers, air travel is now commonplace, and space travel for all is just around the corner. Economic and societal benefits are not immediately evident, but they always follow, as does our understanding of human potential to overcome challenges. Fifty years after Sputnik, space remains the next frontier. Without risking human lives, robotic technology such as unmanned missions, probes, observatories, and landers enables space exploration. It lays the groundwork, and does the scouting. But as I heard former astronaut Thomas Jones often say, only a human can experience what being in space feels like, and only a human can communicate this to others. It is humans who repair the Hubble telescope. It is humans who service the International Space Station (ISS). Mercury astronauts were the first to photograph Earth from space with hand-held cameras. Earth scientists in orbit on the ISS may view aspects of global change that only a trained eye can see. In addition, studying astronauts in the microgravity of space has been the only means of understanding how gravity affects human development and health here on Earth. It is highly probable that, in this century, humans will settle on other planets. Our ability to explore and sustain human presence there will not only expand Earths access to mineral resources but, should the need arise, provide alternative habitats for humanitys survival. At what cost? Is there a price to inspiration and creativity? Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. Globally, 43 countries now have their own observing or communication satellites in Earth orbit. Observing Earth has provided G.P.S., meteorological forecasts, predictions and management of hurricanes and other natural disasters, and global monitoring of the environment, as well as surveillance and intelligence. Satellite communications have changed life and business practices with computer operations, cell phones, global banking, and TV. Studying humans living in the microgravity of space has expanded our understanding

of osteoporosis and balance disorders, and has led to new treatments. Wealth-generating medical devices and instrumentation such as digital mammography and outpatient breast biopsy procedures and the application of telemedicine to emergency care are but a few of the social and economic benefits of manned exploration that we take for granted. Space exploration is not a drain on the economy; it generates infinitely more than wealth than it spends. Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA. I firmly believe that the Life Sciences Research Program would be self-supporting if permitted to receive the return on its investment. NASA has done so much with so little that it has generally been assumed to have had a huge budget. In fact, the 2007 NASA budget of $16.3 billion is a minute fraction of the $13 trillion total G.D.P. Whats the hurry? is a legitimate question. As the late Senator William Proxmire said many years ago, Mars isnt going anywhere. Why should we commit hard-pressed budgets for space exploration when there will always be competing interests? However, as Mercury, Gemini and Apollo did 50 years ago, our future scientific and technological leadership depends on exciting creativity in the younger generations. Nothing does this better than manned space exploration. There is now a national urgency to direct the creative interests of our youth towards careers in science and engineering. We need to keep the flame of manned space exploration alive as China, Russia, India, and other countries forge ahead with substantial investments that challenge U.S. leadership in space.

U.S. hegemony will decrease in the next decade; other nations will step in
Park Sang-seek 2009 (is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. - Ed. How will
the world change in 2010s? THE KOREA HERALD December 31, lexis)

In the second decade, it will become more difficult for the United States to maintain its hegemony. First of all, in the security field the United States can hardly deal with non-traditional issues alone. Even in the case of traditional security issues, the United States can defeat a nation but can hardly subjugate its people. Moreover, international public opinion will strongly oppose it. Secondly, China and other great powers including India and Russia will make stronger efforts to transform the unipolar political and economic order into a new one. This new international order is already emerging and is likely to coexist with the existing one at least in the second decade. Third, nations will have no choice but to deal with the consequences of globalization jointly. Henceforth, the United Nations will play a more proactive role and international civil society organizations will become more influential. They will closely cooperate to nurture new global common goods and preserve the existing ones. Fourth,, despite globalization, nation-states will continue to remain the main actors and this will make international relations more complicated and domestic, regional and global disputes and conflicts of all kinds will increase. Finally, as U.S. hegemony weakens, the world is likely to split into three security and economic complexes: Asian, European and Asia-Pacific. The United States will try to stay between the three, Russia between the European and Asia-Pacific complexes and China between the Asian and Asia-Pacific complexes. In view of this future development and its geopolitical and economic necessity, South Korea in the second decade needs to navigate very cautiously between the Asian continent and the Pacific Ocean. A WORLD WITHOUT THE US HEGEAMON WOULD BE CATASTROPHIC Ferguson 04' From the publication A World Without Power. Naill Ferguson is Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil.,

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

http://www.niallferguson.com/site/FERG/Templates/Home.aspx?pageid=1 Could an apolar world today produce an era reminiscent of the age of Alfred? It could, though with some important and troubling differences. Certainly, one can imagine the worlds established powersthe United States, Europe, and China retreating into their own regional spheres of influence. But what of the growing pretensions to autonomy of the supranational bodies created under U.S. leadership after the Second World War? The United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (formerly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) each considers itself in some way representative of the international community. Surely their aspirations to global governance are fundamentally different from the spirit of the Dark Ages. Yet universal claims were also an integral part of the rhetoric of that era. All the empires claimed to rule the world; some, unaware of the existence of other civilizations, may even have believed that they did. The reality, however, was not a global Christendom or an all-embracing Empire of Heaven, but political fragmentation. And that is also true today. The defining characteristic of our age is not a shift of power upward, to supranational institutions, but downward. With the end of states monopoly on the means of violence and the collapse of their control over channels of communication, humanity has entered an era characterized as much by disintegration as by integration. If free flows of information and of means of production empower multinational corporations and nongovernmental organizations (as well as evangelistic religious cults of all denominations), the free flow of destructive technology empowers both criminal organizations and terrorist cells. These groups can operate, it seems, wherever they choose, from Hamburg to Gaza. By contrast, the writ of the international community is not global at all. It is, in fact, increasingly confined to a few strategic cities such as Kabul and Pristina. In short, it is the nonstate actors who truly wield global powerincluding both the monks and the Vikings of our time. So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populousroughly 20 times more meaning that friction between the worlds disparate tribes is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on fresh water and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too; it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalizationthe integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capitalhas raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalizationwhich a new Dark Age would producewould certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europes Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists infiltration of the E.U. would become irreversible, increasing transatlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the communist system into crisis,

unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home were preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economyfrom New York to Rotterdam to Shanghaiwould become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemonyits fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontierits critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolaritya global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.

ADVANTAGE TWO: ECONOMY US ECONOMY IS IN THE GOODWILL OF FOREIGN HANDS Hamsayeh.Net - Signals that the so-called worlds largest economy will in 2011 creep closer to another round of economic, social and political crisis are being picked-up by independent media outlets before the end of this year. A new report by the Standard and Poors/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices released on Tuesday shows home prices in 20 major cities across the United States dropped more than expected during the month of October. This is while government affiliated economists and think tanks kept announcing that the economy was going back to normal during the said period. The report showed US home price dropped another 1.3 percent and 0.7 percent in October and September, respectively. A double increase for house price falling across major metropolitan areas is a sure sign of economic trouble. There is no good news in October's report; home prices across the country continue to fall. The trends we have seen over the past few months have not changed, said David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at Standard and Poor's. Using phony statistics, the Obama administration still hopes it could stretch the timeline to a certain financial collapse that experts believe might happen at any moment from the first day of 2011.

Heavily oil-dependent yet still in denial, for the US in order to maintain the status of dollar, it must rely on the goodwill of worlds major energy producers including Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia among others to keep supplying a steady level of oil and gas within an everincreasing tense international environment and growing lawlessness. Washington could no longer count on raising the global oil output, as any excess of oil would quickly be absorbed by Asias fast-evolving economies. Global oil prices have peaked up steam after US Federal Reserve injected close to a trillion dollars of unsupported money dubbed QE2 into its economy about two months ago. All of that money has now been absorbed by the increase in oil prices. For every one dollar increase in the price of oil translates into a $100 billion dollar per year energy expenditure in the US. Currently the price of oil is hovering near $100 per barrel mark and it is expected to reach a more natural median price at $150 a barrel in the future, analysts predict. Not only is this an embarrassing situation for the United States but it also is further proof that heg is failing CURRENTLY, THE US ECONOMY IS DETERIORATING JUNE 1, 2011 Yesterdays US consumer confidence survey, manufacturing numbers, and housing data all showed sharp drop offs from their previous readings. However, the negative economic data was largely ignored in the FX markets as traders chose to focus on events in the euro zone and gains in equity markets. Todays ISM data may indicate a slowdown in US economic growth with further evidence coming on Friday from the monthly jobs report. Todays Economic Data Releases: GBP Manufacturing PMI 08:30 GMT Expectations: 54.2. Previous: 54.6 After a respectable run from the pound during the previous week the rally has stalled, particularly in the Cable where the pair made three unsuccessful attempts to form a beachhead above the 1.6315 mark. A close above this level would target the April high of 1.6745. To the downside the initial support is found at 1.6300 followed by the rising trend line off of the 2010 May low which comes in today at 1.6120. USD ADP Non-Farm Employment Change 12:15 GMT Expectations: 177K. Previous: 179K. The ADP report has a low success rate of predicting Fridays jobs report from the Department of Labor. However, a strong ADP report may feed into USD selling today. USD ISM Manufacturing PMI 14:00 GMT Expectations: 58.1. Previous: 60.4. A pullback in US economic data was apparent yesterday but was largely ignored by FX traders. Today market participants may look past the euro zone crisis and focus on the slowdown in the US economy. A sharp decline in todays ISM data may cause some economists to scale back their Q2 GDP estimates and induce a bout of USD buying. EUR/USD support comes in at 1.4345 off of the May 20th high followed by 1.4130. To the upside the overnight low at 1.4440 is the first resistance level. A break here opens the door to 1.4590 and1.4750. Connell 01/11/2008 , Kathleen M. Connell, a principal of The Connell Whittaker Group, a founding team member
of NASAs Astrobiology Program, and former policy director of the Aerospace States Association: http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/

The value of public sector human space exploration is generally perceived as worth the cost when exploration outcomes address one or more national imperatives of the era. For example, in the twentieth century, the Soviet Unions launch of Sputnik required a bold technological retort by the U.S. Apollo put boots on the moon, winning the first space race. The resulting foreign policy boost and psychic prestige for the U.S. more that justified the cost for the Cold War generation. Unquestionably, manned exploration of that era also created unintended economic consequences and benefits, such as the spinoff of miniaturization that led to computers and cell phones. Apollo also created new NASA centers in the South, acting as an unanticipated economic development anchor for those regions, both then and now. In the twenty-first century, what would happen if U.S. manned space programs were managed based upon the contemporary demands of the planet and the American taxpayer? NASA could be rewarded to explore, but with terrestrial returns as a priority. Space exploration crews could conduct global warming research on the International Space Station National Laboratory, while other crews from the public or private sector could rapidly assemble solar energy satellites for clean energy provision to Earth. Lunar settlements could be established to develop new energy sources from rare compounds that are in abundance on the moon. Getting to Mars, to develop a terrestrial lifeboat and to better understand the fate of planets, suddenly takes on new meaning and relevance. I have to come the conclusion[is that], after over 20 years in the space industry, that addressing global challenges with space solutions that benefit humanity and American constituents is the key to justifying the cost of manned space exploration. I believe we are about to find out, all over again, if civil manned space capability and policy can adapt and rise to meet new imperatives. INCREASING SPACE EXPLORATION REKINDLES ECONOMY AND NATIONALISM FRAUST 07 Dr Jeff Foust is an aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher. He is the editor and publisher of The Space Review and
has written for Astronomy Now and The New Atlantis. He has a bachelor's degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and a Ph.D in planetary sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/962/1

One of the biggest debates in the first half-century of spaceflight has been regarding the economic rationale for sending spacecraftrobotic or humaninto the cosmos. Opponents of spaceflight, particularly human missions, see such efforts as extravagances that waste money that could be better spent on Earth, that is, in different areas like the environment, education, and social programs, among others. (Money devoted to space programs is, of course, spent on Earth, although an article in the satirical newspaper The Onion last year touched on this by describing a NASA mission to launch $700 million into deep space.) Proponents of spaceflight describe the benefits created by such programs, be it in direct forms like contracts and jobs, or, indirectly, in technological spinoffs that impact the economy and society far beyond the aerospace sector. As the Space Age turns 50, the economic debate shows no sign of abating. While NASA has carved out a modest but relatively stable wedge in the overall federal budget, some wonder whether that wedge is big enough for the agency to do all it has been tasked to do, from kickstarting an ambitious human exploration program to maintaining its portfolio of science and aeronautics research. Meanwhile, longterm budget pressures, particularly from entitlement programs as the Baby Boomer generation

approaches retirement, could make it difficult for NASA to retain even its current share of the budget over the long haul. That requires NASA to both better justify the importance of a government space program while also seek means to work with the private sector to do more for lessapproaches that NASA administrator Michael Griffin described in two very different speeches last Monday. Defining The Space Economy In June, NASA released a new strategic communications plan to better communicate the agencys mission to a public that was skeptical or simply unaware of the relevance the agency has in their lives (See NASAs new outreach plan, The Space Review, July 2, 2007). Part of that plan was a concept called The Space Economy that is intended to demonstrate the full effect of space exploration on the economy: the full range of activities and use of resources that create and provide value and benefits to human beings in the course of exploring, understanding and utilizing space. Griffin discussed The Space Economy concept during a luncheon speech before an invited audience of over 100 people from the space industry at a downtown Washington hotel on Monday, September 17. The speech was the first in a new lecture series established by NASA to help celebrate its 50th anniversary next October (a concept also included in the aforementioned strategic communications plan.) In his remarks, he made it clear that his Space Economy idea went beyond simply embracing spinoffs. I do think there is a very strong link, the strongest possible link, between doing the hardest thing people do, which is flying in space, and how it benefits the rest of our economy, and indeed our whole way of life, he said. Fundamentally, NASA opens new frontiers and creates new opportunities, he continued. And because of that, we are a critical driver of innovation, but not in a way that just creates jobs. We create new markets, and new possibilities for economic growth, that didnt previously exist. Weve taken at NASA to calling this The Space Economy. It is an emerging economy, but it a robust one even so. Griffin noted that the higher standards of performance companies are held to when working on space projects have an as-yet unmeasured effect on the overall economy. I often wonder if it might be possible to quantify the value to society of upgrading the standards of precision to which the entire industrial base of that society operates, he said. How do we value that asset? I dont know, but I am absolutely convinced that it is real and, without the space industry, we wouldnt have it. He also discussed competition among nations, not in space per se, but in innovation and economic development. Economic growth is driven by technological innovation. Societies that foster it lead the pack, and others lag behind. But if technological innovation drives competitiveness and growth, what drives innovation? There are many factors, but the exploration and exploitation of space is one of those. Another factor in innovation and economic competitiveness that Griffin said is often overlooked is the image that various nations project to the world. The nation that appears to be at the top of the technical pyramid has taken a very large step towards being there in fact, he said. Developing countries like China recognize the value of space activities as a driver of innovation, a source of national pride, and membership in the most exclusive of clubs, that of spacefaring societies. SPACE EXPLORATION BENEFITS PEOPLE AND THE ECONOMY IMMEDIEATELY Campbell 09 Study conducted by Dr. Charles A. Campbell, professor of economics, Mississippi

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

NASAs John C. Stennis Space Center is a significant source of employment and income in the local area. If Stennis had not been in operation, considering both direct and indirect effects, a very conservative estimate of reduction in employment for the local area would be almost 31, 778 jobs. A very similar conservative estimate indicates that personal income would have been reduced by more than 1.2 billion, and retail sales would have been reduced by $491 million. It is estimated that Stennis has an impact of $132 million on local government tax revenue. There is widespread belief that the space program is a good thing for our nation. But ask why and youll get as many different types of answers as there are people. According to astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the rationale for our space program has as much to do with national security and the economy as it does with the intangible, indefinable spirit of exploration that is written into our DNA. The key point, Tyson argues, is that we can enjoy the many benefits of a robust space exploration program and afford to pay for it. In fact, we should probably spend a lot more on something that is so important to our culture but is all too often taken for granted. THIS STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS CREATES A REDUCED SCOPE FOR POLICIES, IN OTHER WORDS THE BEGINNING OF THE DEMISE OF US HEGEMONY Subacchi 08 Paola Subacchi is research director on international economics at Chatham House http://www.foresightproject.net/publications/articles/article.asp?p=3522 What does the current financial crisis mean for the standing of the US in the world? Will it mark the end of US hegemony and superpowerdom? For many commentators the crisis represents "a true global watershed" between a world dominated by the American brand, epitomised, in Francis Fukuyama's words, by capitalism and liberal democracy, and the post-American world in which the US is no longer the world's only superpower and economic hegemon. For Peer Steinbrck, Germany's finance minister, it is not even a matter of time: "The United States is no longer a financial superpower", he said in a recent interview. Large empires, from ancient Rome to Great Britain, declined at least in part as a result of economic weakness. Financial meltdown and recession in the US may act as a catalyst to the ongoing shift of the world economic order by dramatically rupturing the credibility of and respect for the American model. Such a shift has been prophesised for some time. China's rapid economic growth and the potential for other emerging market economies to expand substantially over the next three to five decades, due to their large population, strong economic expansion and integration in the world economy, seem to indicate the emergence of a new world order. New players could use their recently acquired economic might to gain influence and challenge established powers, notably the US. Can the crisis accelerate this "shift of power"? The global financial turmoil is huge in scale, worthy of comparison to the Great Depression in the 1930s where stress in financial markets led to prolonged recession. After several weeks of market turmoil there is no doubt that the world economy is taking a "synchronised dive", the recovery from which promises to be slow. In the case of the US economy, the latest IMF outlook predicts the return to potential growth in 2010. But there are many risks that could derail the recovery: the credit crunch could be worse than feared, house prices may not climb until after 2010, a higher unemployment rate and low confidence could constrain domestic demand growth.

The critical point here, and the one which could bear significant consequences, is the existence, within the US economy, of structural weaknesses that enhance the current distress and limit the scope for future policy action. The US has an almost zero national savings rate, increasing indebtedness and bloated budget deficit. In addition to the cost of the $700bn bailout (and an additional $100bn of tax provisions for businesses and the middle class), will be the rising cost of healthcare programmes that are under strain due to an increase in the ageing population. The increase in expenditure means, in the short term, limited scope for loose fiscal policy and continuous reliance on foreign lenders. In the longer term, it implies tighter fiscal policy and constraints on policy in a number of areas, from military intervention to discretionary international aid and projects. The crisis certainly exacerbates the economic weaknesses that could be ignored over the last decade because of foreign investors' willingness to invest in the US. It also constrains policy initiatives in a way that will be felt in years to come. All this will accelerate the relative decline of the US. However, cries for the end of US economic hegemony may be premature, as are predictions of China's takeover. Despite being badly hit by the credit crisis, the US may still show great resilience. It is the economy best endowed with the flexibility and resources needed to get past present difficulties. Moreover, the US dollar will continue to lead the international monetary system-as the euro is far from having a global role and hence able to seriously challenge the greenback's dominance. In spite of all the talk about decoupling, the US remains the engine of the world's economic growth, with no economy left immune from the current trouble. Following years of high growth, emerging market economies are surely more "self-reliant" than before and so far better insulated from the effects of the financial crisis, partly because their financial sector is still relatively small and disconnected from the real economy. However, their growth depends on demand from developed countries, notably the US, so the effects of the financial crisis in the west are inevitably spilling over into the emerging economies. The US is due to remain at the helm of the international economic and monetary system - at least for some years to come. However, the financial strait-jacket and the loss of "moral authority"-both not a direct consequence of, but exacerbated by the crisis-will change the role of the US in the world affairs. No longer a super-power, but a primus inter pares the US will have the responsibility to engage developed and developing countries in the governance of the world economy. Assuming that the current crisis does not put a halt to economic integration, then the most plausible scenario for the years ahead is a leaderless world, where economic power is more diffuse, but less effective, and where the governance of the world economy is, hopefully, more and more a matter of multilateral coordination. One lesson from the crisis is that more players should be involved in any dialogue on the reform of the international financial architecture-in particular China and oil exporting countries because of their large foreign exchange official reserves. This dialogue needs to focus on the still unresolved imbalance, in some economies, between the ability to generate surplus and the capacity to absorb it, and on how to use such surplus to support the global economy rather than destabilise it. The way the emerging countries have responded to the crisis, however, raises questions about their ability to intervene in crisis resolution. As China made it clear at the recent Asia-Europe meeting, domestic economic growth and stability are the priorities for these countries, so their only contribution to resolving the crisis is by keeping their economies stable. And if the Chinese authorities have in principle scope for coordinating policies with developed countries, if they wish so, others are more constrained. India, for example, has high inflation, volatile commodity prices and large current account and fiscal deficits, which leave less room for manouevring. The inability of playing an active role in crisis resolution, however, would not

restrain the main emerging economies, especially China, from being engaged in a broad discussion of policy lessons from the crisis and principles on which the new financial architecture should be based. Rethinking principles and norms is possibly the best contribution that these countries can offer while working on a new consensus on rules. WITHOUT THE U.S. AS A WORLD LEADER, GLOBAL PEACE AND PROSPERITY WILL WITHER SPARKING WARS AROUND THE WORLD Brookes 06 Peter Brookes is a Senior Fellow for national security affairs at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington,
D.C.-based think tank. He is also a weekly columnist for the New York Post. Brookes frequently appears on cable news such as FOX, CNN, and MSNBC as well as hosts major market radio talk shows. He is the author of: "A Devil's Triangle: Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction and Rogue States." (http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,104122,00.html)

The picture isn't pretty. Absent U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, military might, economic power and unprecedented generosity, life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim, indeed. Set aside the differences America made last century -- just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan. 1, 2001. On security, the United States is the global balance of power. While it's not our preference, we are the world's "cop on the beat," providing critical stability in some of the planet's toughest neighborhoods. Without the U.S. "Globo-cop," rivals India and Pakistan might well find cause to unleash the dogs of war in South Asia -- undoubtedly leading to history's first nuclear (weapons) exchange. Talk about Fourth of July fireworks . . . In Afghanistan, al Qaeda would still be an honored guest, scheming over a global caliphate stretching from Spain to Indonesia. It wouldn't be sending fighters to Iraq; instead, Osama's gang would be fighting them tooth and nail from Saudi Arabia to "Eurabia." In Asia, China would be the "Middle Kingdom," gobbling up democratic Taiwan and compelling pacifist Japan (reluctantly) to join the nuclear weapons club. The Koreas might fight another horrific war, resulting in millions of deaths. A resurgent Russia, meanwhile, would be breathing down the neck of its "near abroad" neighbors. Forget the democratic revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, Comrade! In Europe, they'd be taking orders from Paris or Berlin -- if those rivals weren't at each other's throats again. In Africa, Liberia would still be under Charles Taylor's sway, and Sudan would have no peace agreement. And what other nation could or would provide freedom of the seas for commerce, including the shipment of oil and gas -- all free of charge? Weapons of mass destruction would be everywhere. North Korea would be brandishing a solid nuclear arsenal. Libya would not have given up its weapons, and Pakistan's prodigious proliferator, A.Q. Khan, would still be going door to door, hawking his nuclear wares. Also missing would be other gifts from "Uncle Sugar" -- starting with 22 percent of the U.N. budget. That includes half the operations of the World Food Program, which feeds over 100 million in 81 countries. Gone would be 17 percent of UNICEF's costs to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 157 countries -- and 31 percent of the budget of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, which assists more than 19 million refugees across the globe. In 2005, Washington dispensed $28 billion in foreign aid, more than double the amount of the next highest donor (Japan), contributing nearly 26 percent of all official development assistance from the large industrialized countries. Moreover, President Bush's five-year $15 billion commitment under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is the largest commitment by a single nation toward an international health initiative -- ever -working in over 100 (mostly African) countries.

The United States is the world's economic engine. We not only have the largest economy, we spend 40 percent of the world's budget on R&D, driving mind-boggling innovation in areas like information technology, defense and medicine. We're the world's ATM, too, providing 17 percent of the International Monetary Fund's resources for nations in fiscal crisis, and funding 13 percent of World Bank programs that dole out billions in development assistance to needy countries. CONTENTION THREE: SOLVENCY 1. Plan solves for preserving US hegemony Christopher Stone, May 24th, 2011. Stone is Christopher Stone is a space policy analyst and strategist who lives near
Washington DC. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1

Recently, Lou Friedman wrote a piece where he articulated his view on what American leadership in space means to many and what it means to him (see American leadership, The Space Review, February 14, 2011). I would like to respond by providing some context that I think is lacking from the discussion. First, let me start by saying that I agree with Mr. Friedmans assertion that American leadership is a phrase we hear bandied about a lot in political circles in the United States, as well as in many space policy discussions. I have been at many space forums in my career where Ive heard the phrase used by speakers of various backgrounds, political ideologies, and nation. Like Mr. Friedman states, it has many different meanings, most derived from cultural or political biases, some of them contradictory. This is true: many nations, as well as organizations and individuals worldwide, have different preferences and views as to what American leadership in space is, and/or what it should be. He also concludes that paragraph by stating that American leadership in space could also be viewed as synonymous with American hegemony. I again will agree that some people within the United States and elsewhere have this view toward American leadership. However, just because people believe certain viewpoints regarding American leadership does not mean that those views are accurate assessments or definitions of what actions demonstrate US leadership in the space medium. When it comes to space exploration and development, including national security space and commercial, I would disagree somewhat with Mr. Friedmans assertion that space is often overlooked in foreign relations and geopolitical strategies. My contention is that while space is indeed overlooked in national grand geopolitical strategies by many in national leadership, space is used as a tool for foreign policy and relations more often than not. In fact, I will say that the US space program has become less of an effort for the advancement of US space power and exploration, and is used more as a foreign policy tool to shape the strategic environment to what President Obama referred to in his National Security Strategy as The World We Seek. Using space to shape the strategic environment is not a bad thing in and of itself. What concerns me with this form of shaping is that we appear to have changed the definition of American leadership as a nation away from the traditional sense of the word. Some seem to want to base our future national foundations in space using the important international collaboration piece as the starting point. Traditional national leadership would start by advancing United States space power capabilities and strategies first, then proceed toward shaping the international environment through allied cooperation efforts. The United States goal should be leadership through spacefaring capabilities, in all sectors. Achieving and maintaining such leadership through capability will allow for increased space security and opportunities for

all and for America to lead the international space community by both technological and political example. The world has recognized America as the leaders in space because it demonstrated technological advancement by the Apollo lunar landings, our deep space exploration probes to the outer planets, and deploying national security space missions. We did not become the recognized leaders in astronautics and space technology because we decided to fund billions into research programs with no firm budgetary commitment or attainable goals. We did it because we made a national level decision to do each of them, stuck with it, and achieved exceptional things in manned and unmanned spaceflight. We have allowed ourselves to drift from this traditional strategic definition of leadership in space exploration, rapidly becoming participants in spaceflight rather than the leader of the global space community. One example is shutting down the space shuttle program without a viable domestic spacecraft chosen and funded to commence operations upon retirement of the fleet. We are paying millions to rely on Russia to ferry our astronauts to an International Space Station that US taxpayers paid the lions share of the cost of construction. Why would we, as United States citizens and space advocates, settle for this? The current debate on commercial crew and cargo as the stopgap between shuttle and whatever comes next could and hopefully will provide some new and exciting solutions to this particular issue. However, we need to made a decision sooner rather than later. Finally, one other issue that concerns me is the view of the world hegemony or superiority as dirty words. Some seem to view these words used in policy statements or speeches as a direct threat. In my view, each nation (should they desire) should have freedom of access to space for the purpose of advancing their security, prestige and wealth through exploration like we do. However, to maintain leadership in the space environment, space superiority is a worthy and necessary byproduct of the traditional leadership model. If your nation is the leader in space, it would pursue and maintain superiority in their mission sets and capabilities. In my opinion, space superiority does not imply a wall of orbital weapons preventing other nations from access to space, nor does it preclude international cooperation among friendly nations. Rather, it indicates a desire as a country to achieve its goals for national security, prestige, and economic prosperity for its people, and to be known as the best in the world with regards to space technology and astronautics. I can assure you that many other nations with aggressive space programs, like ours traditionally has been, desire the same prestige of being the best at some, if not all, parts of the space pie. Space has been characterized recently as congested, contested, and competitive; the quest for excellence is just one part of international space competition that, in my view, is a good and healthy thing. As other nations pursue excellence in space, we should take our responsibilities seriously, both from a national capability standpoint, and as country who desires expanded international engagement in space. If America wants to retain its true leadership in space, it must approach its space programs as the advancement of its national security, prestige and wealth by maintaining its edge in spaceflight capabilities and use those demonstrated talents to advance international prestige and influence in the space community. These energies and influence can be channeled to create the international space coalitions of the future that many desire and benefit mankind as well as America. Leadership will require sound, long-range exploration strategies with national and international political will behind it. American leadership in space is not a choice. It is a requirement if we are to truly lead the world into space with programs and objectives worthy of a great nation.

2.Affirmative plan solves for boosting US economy Kosmas 09 suzanne M. Kosmas (born February 25, 1944) is the former U.S. Representative for Florida's 24th congressional district,
serving from 2009 until 2011. She is a member of the Democratic Party. She previously served in the Florida House of Representatives. The district consists of several portions of the Orlando-Daytona Beach area as well as portions of the Space Coast region

One of the keys to job growth and economic recovery is to fully fund NASA so that we can restore funding to science programs, repair hurricane damage and minimize our space-flight gap by extending the shuttle program and accelerating Constellation. Kennedy Space Center is an economic engine for the 24th District as well as the entire state, employing tens of thousands of Floridians. But like many others, KSC and surrounding local businesses are feeling the economic strain. In order to ensure a robust Space Coast economy, we must do all that we can to protect the highly skilled work force at KSC and the small businesses that support the center's operations. Last week, details of the economic recovery package were made public. The initial plan calls for $600 million for NASA's science and aeronautics programs, as well as funding to repair some of the damage caused by natural disasters in 2008. While I applaud this much-needed infusion of funds, I believe it does not go far enough, especially in light of funding shortfalls caused by flat budgets in recent years. That is why I sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House leadership urging an additional $2 billion in the economic stimulus for NASA's exploration systems and space operations. We would be remiss to leave out funding for human space exploration from this recovery package. If the goal of this legislation is to stimulate our economy, support science, and maintain and create highly skilled jobs, there is no better place to dedicate resources than to our human spaceflight program. Small businesses in nearly every state supply NASA programs, employing more than half a million Americans and contributing nearly $100 billion to our economy in 2004 alone. The reach of the space economy is broad, and its contributions are vital to enhancing our nation's economy and technological leadership. Increasing funding for NASA in the recovery package will allow for the extension of our shuttle program and the acceleration of the Constellation program while providing an immediate and longterm economic boost to the 24th District, as well as the rest of Florida and communities across our nation. Minimizing the spaceflight gap will ensure that taxpayer dollars, which would otherwise go to foreign countries to ferry our cargo and astronauts to space, will stay in the United States and drive our economy. In addition, the benefits of NASA's space operations go beyond pure economics. Technologies developed for human spaceflight improve the quality of life for all our citizens and lead to discoveries that enable us to address important issues facing our nation, including developing alternative energy, improving health care, strengthening commerce and communications, and studying and understanding climate change.

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