WNDI 2k6 Case Neg—US Space Forces 1

Choice Lab – Case Neg for US Space Forces Aff

1. Index

2. Space weapons / colonization coming in SQ

3. Space weapons / colonization not coming in any time soon

4. Aliens / Space diseases

5.-6 Space debris

7. Radiation

8-9. Space not feasible

10. Privatize NASA CP??

WNDI 2k6 Case Neg—US Space Forces 2

Space Weapons are in near future

David, Leonard, Senior Space Writer, Space.com, Space Weapons For Earth Wars,
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_war_020515-1.html, 15 May 2002

Military planners paint a picture of inevitability concerning space weapons. Certain experts foresee a
proliferation of anti-satellites and space mines. Others suggest urgent need for totally secure, jam-proof
satellite links along with a squadron of quick-reaction space bombers. Perhaps more "out there", but openly
discussed by military space strategists, are orbiting laser and particle beam weapons that focus killer rays of
energy to zap satellites, enemy warheads in flight, or even blast targets on Earth. Then there are the thunder
rods. Tossed down from orbit, these long and slender kinetic-energy devices use their own mass and very
high velocity to create a destructive effect. Lastly, for those looking for a celestial "big whopper" of a
weapon, how about using natural meteoroids? Good-sized fireballs of metal could be sent to Earth, aimed
at targets of choice. These impactors leave a nice crater. Better yet, they leave no radioactive debris.

Space Colonization is in the not so distant future

Simmie, Scott, Reporter, The Toronto Star, Scientists problem-solve to colonize space,
http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/document?_m=8fc9e85511465a80639fbbb19a23b5f9&_docnum=2&wc
hp=dGLbVlz-zSkVA&_md5=fa20c65b7bfa1af6f190f8cfc247e106, June 19, 2006

Last week, one of the world's most renowned astrophysicists outlined precisely that scenario. Speaking in
Hong Kong, Stephen Hawking said, "It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the
survival of the species." Within 24 hours, his comments had prompted more than 2,000 responses on
www.thestar.com - with people split fairly evenly on whether this was a good or bad idea. Some were
skeptical. While there are no immediate plans (nor is there the technology) to "colonize" some distant
planet in the way Hawking described, some of the stepping stones for a long-term presence on the surface
of the moon and beyond are the subject of serious scientific efforts. Just last fall, NASA released a major
report outlining the architecture required for its goal of establishing "a continuous human presence on the
lunar surface to accomplish exploration and science goals ... "The primary purpose of the mission is to
transfer up to four crew members and supplies in a single mission to the outpost site for expeditions lasting
up to six months. Every six months, a new crew will arrive at the outpost, and the crew already stationed
there will return to Earth." The space agency hopes to be able to accomplish this shortly after 2020 - when
the first manned expedition is set to return to the moon. Before this can happen, however, there are massive
technological hurdles to overcome.
WNDI 2k6 Case Neg—US Space Forces 3

We are not ready to explore space

Chad trainer, independent scholar, http://www.philosophynow.org/archive/articles/40trainer.htm,
2003

Russell's third argument against exploring space is that we need "a little more wisdom in the conduct of
affairs on earth before we extend our strident and deadly disputes to other parts." It is true that we have
huge problems here on Earth - war, plague and famine - shouldn't we devote our energies to tackling those
first? Russell seems guilty of a false disjunction here. Substantial progress in the space program is not
necessarily a net setback for our terrestrial prosperity. Space exploration has not only helped this planet but
could well have been predicted to do as much. The amount of money required by NASA, say, amounts to
only a small portion of the U.S. federal budget, and space satellites have had more than military
applications. Many military enterprises do ultimately redound to civilians' economic and social benefit.

Let's take some examples. The Topex/Poseidon satellite has enabled oceanography researchers to observe
major patterns of surface circulation. Satellite radar measurements were able to inform scientists about El
Niño and satellite maps are expected to help us in comprehending the distribution of mineral resources on
the planet's seafloor. Nowadays specialized maps can be used, for example, to "predict crop yields, model
optimal lumber harvests, or chart ever-changing wetlands." Satellites have also helped archaeologists to
detect ancient remains.

US not ready to militarize space

Grant.henninger.com , “a website to help organize and refine my thoughts for a school research paper,”
accessed 7/31/06 @ http://grant.henninger.name/space/

It is clear that the United States military would like to put weapons in space for a myriad of good reasons. It
is also clear that the US public and its Congress have reservations about such weapons systems. Right now,
the balance of the issue goes towards not developing a space weapons system, primarily because the cost
would be great and the utility of such a system is limited to protecting military assets at this point.
However, space commercialization will change the issue in two key ways, it will lessen the cost of space
access and therefore a space weapons system. Space commercialization will also increase the need and
utility of such a system because there will be more commercial interests in space as well as more
Americans living and working there.

US not going to be using space weapons anytime soon

Benjamin Lambeth, accesed 7/31/06 @ http://www.spacedebate.org/evidence/1415 2003

For the time being, the idea of placing offensive weapons in space for use against terrestrial targets remains
contrary to declared national policy, and there is no indication that the nation is anywhere near the
threshold of deciding to weaponize space. Any truly serious steps toward acquiring a space force
application capability will involve a momentous political decision that the nation's leadership has not yet
shown itself ready to make. As the Air Force's former deputy chief of staff for air and space operations,
then Lieutenant General Robert Foglesong, noted, "if the policy decision is made to take our guns into
space, that will be decided by our civilian leadership." Until that threshold is reached, any talk of space
weaponization will remain not only politically moot but needlessly provocative, and military space activity
will remain limited to enhancing terrestrial operations and controlling the ultimate high ground.
WNDI 2k6 Case Neg—US Space Forces 4

There are aliens and they will be predators

Seth Shostak, member of the SETI institute,
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_avp_shostak_040819.html August 19th 2004

That’s unlikely to be typical. We still can’t say what real aliens are like, of course, but science can provide
some useful insights. After all, any biology out there will exist in a landscape of finite resources. Darwinian
competition will be their lot, as well as ours. So you can expect that there will be predators. Predation is an
economic device: carnivores leave it to plants or plant eaters to slowly build up energy-rich molecules from
sunlight or some other source. They then harvest this crop of useful compounds quickly, a tactic that can
power an active life style.

But of course, for an intelligent species with technology capable of interstellar travel, predation is oh-so
Stone Age. Even today, humans (who are a long way from being able to make sporting trips to other star
systems) don’t rely on predation much. We farm our food, and soon we’ll manufacture it. Killing just for
the fun of it, as the Predators do, is no longer considered socially acceptable in most circles. Real Predators,
who must be many thousands of years ahead of us, have presumably moved beyond this.

Diseases exist in space and we will get them

Sneige N University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston 77030.

The involvement by a disease process of the parapharyngeal and retropharyngeal spaces poses significant
diagnostic and therapeutic problems. Neoplasms, the majority histologically benign, comprise the greatest
number of parapharyngeal space lesions. Inflammatory lesions and metastases to lymph nodes are the
preponderant disorders affecting the retropharyngeal space.
WNDI 2k6 Case Neg—US Space Forces 5

Space Debris, caused by space weapons, serious endanger future space missions
Stenger, Richard, CNN, Scientist: Space weapons pose debris threat,
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/05/03/orbit.debris/index.html, 7/31/06, May 3, 2002

The use of weapons in space could leave so much debris in orbit that low-flying satellites could not safely
operate, according to a prominent astrophysicist. But military and other officials dismissed the claim as
overblown. The Pentagon's missile defense program envisions the possibility that powerful lasers or other
weapons in orbit could help protect against enemy missile attacks. Joel Primack of the University of
California, Santa Cruz, contends that such high-tech defenses could transform low-Earth orbits into a
wasteland for decades or longer.
“Even one war in space will [encase] the entire planet in a shell of whizzing debris that will
thereafter make space near the Earth highly hazardous for peaceful as well as military purposes," Primack
wrote in a report presented weeks ago to an international conference on science and spirituality. However,
one of the foremost experts on space junk, Donald Kessler, has mixed thoughts about the issues raised by
Primack. "Everything he says in (his report) has truth in it, but it's exaggerated," the retired NASA scientist
said. "What he is talking about is technically correct, but from a practical or economic standpoint, it is not
likely to happen." Kessler conducted groundbreaking research in the 1970s on the threat of orbital debris to
satellites. His mathematical predictions that collisions would cascade into more and more collisions became
known as the Kessler effect. He was one of the first people to sound the alarm about space junk. In fact,
Kessler and others think there is enough junk now to pose significant risks to spacecraft in low-Earth orbits,
a contention supported by returning space shuttles, which often have dings and window cracks. Other space
dignitaries lend support to Primack, a Stanford University-trained particle physicist who helped develop the
theory that dark matter helps structure the universe. Sydney Van Den Bergh, a physicist with the National
Research Council of Canada, said he raised similar concerns years ago at an international conference on
space law. And in April, astronaut Sally Ride, the first U.S. woman in space, gave a speech in which she
said that anti-satellite weapons would be "disastrous." She said debris created by their use could damage
satellites traveling in low-Earth orbits, a particularly popular zone of real estate between 150 and 400 miles
high that includes the space shuttle, the international space station and reconnaissance satellites.

Space debris is very prevalent today

Hoffman, Russell, radio show host, HIGH TECH TODAY,
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/spacedeb/spacedeb.htm, accessed 7/31/06

Space debris is almost entirely a man-made problem. There are a few pieces of natural space junk orbiting
the earth, but more than 99.9%--is man-made. Within 2000 miles of earth some 7 million pounds of space
junk is orbiting. And nearly 4 million individual pieces -- and, these numbers are a little bit old so the true
figure at this point is probably half again higher than what I've just given you. And these are Government
figures. In fact, about every seven years since about 1965 the amount of space debris in near-earth orbit has
doubled. And you thought that NASA was stupid just because of the Challenger disaster, or the loss of
astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee in a fire! Or Apollo 13. No, the truth is that NASA's worst
nightmare is yet to come.
WNDI 2k6 Case Neg—US Space Forces 6

Space Debris Is Deadly!

Hoffman, Russell, radio show host, HIGH TECH TODAY,

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/spacedeb/spacedeb.htm, 7/31/06

A BB-sized piece of aluminum hurtling around the earth at 22,000 miles per hour has about as much kinetic
energy as a bowling ball does at 60 miles an hour. In other words, if a BB-sized piece of aluminum strikes
the space shuttle from a perpendicular direction, that is, comes in from the side, it will have the same force
as a bowling ball would if dropped on the space shuttle from about 100 feet high. If the BB-sized piece of
aluminum collides head-on with the space shuttle, the effect would be much, much worse.

Debris is a human made Problem

Hoffman, Russell, radio show host, HIGH TECH TODAY,

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/spacedeb/spacedeb.htm, 7/31/06

By weight, or rather by mass, since in outer space things don't exactly have weight but they do have mass
or kinetic energy, most of the space debris in orbit today is spent rocket stages and old satellites. This is
actually the easy stuff. It's big enough to track with radar. But by quantity, which is probably the more
important value, most space debris is the result of less than 200 explosions, many intentional, some
accidental. Two hundred is not very many. That's how fragile outer space in near earth orbit is. When a
5000 pound satellite is exploded in near earth orbit it can create tens of thousands or even millions of pieces
of space debris which will orbit the earth for tens of thousands or even millions of years. Already man-
made space debris is by far the biggest hazard, compared to the natural meteoroid environment. We're
talking 1000 to 1 times more hazardous.
WNDI 2k6 Case Neg—US Space Forces 7

Outer space causes chromosomal radiation damage

Ask the Astronomer, Conducted by Dr. Sten Odenwald These answers have produced over
1,000,000 page requests since 1995

So far as I know, there have been no studies on human reproduction in space. I think the largest problem
would be the simple mechanics of the activity in a weightless state. As for the cellular issues, I don't think
biologists have uncovered any significant mechanical problems with cellular reproduction in other species
of simple orgainsis (ants, ameoba etc) that have been examined in space far. Cells, after all, seem to
function in a near-weightness environment provided by aqueous solutions. One issue that is probably a
severe liability is the radiation environment of space, even inside a spacecraft. These factors are known to
cause chromosomal damage from even short-term exposure.

Radiation damage will cause all cells to die

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc, acceded on 7-31-06 @ http://cache.britannica.com/eb/article-
28866?hook=398966, 2006

By breaking both strands of the DNA molecule, radiation also can break the chromosome fibre and
interfere with the normal segregation of duplicate sets of chromosomes to daughter cells at the time of cell
division, thereby altering the structure and number of chromosomes in the cell. Chromosomal changes of
this kind may cause the affected cell to die when it attempts…

We can’t live in space without space suits

Takeshi Muto, Accessed 7/31/06 @ http://apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp/apollo/spacesuite.htm, 1996 -

2005

We must need special made "Space Suit" to protect mankind from hard temperature change, vacuum,
micrometeoroid in space. On the moon, it becomes 120 degree Celsius (250 Fahrenheit) at daytime, and
-157 degree (-250) at nighttime. And micrometeoroid pours in 102,400km/h(64,000mph), exposed in
harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun. So, we can not live in space for only few seconds without Space
Suits.
WNDI 2k6 Case Neg—US Space Forces 8

We can never live in space

James Donahue, 2002, accessed 7/31/06 @ http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id584.html

If our adventures in space have taught us anything it is this; the human race is chained to the environment
on Earth. Thoughts of escaping our ravaged planet to occupy a sanctuary elsewhere in the universe are not
only impractical, they are probably impossible.

Look at the difficulty we have had just trying to build, maintain and occupy a space platform that is circling
our own planet. The venture by American and Russian space programs has been costly and fraught with
problems.

President Bushs plan to build a permanent (military) base on the Moon and eventually go on to settle Mars
is a pipedream. While American astronauts have been to the Moon and back, everybody was well aware at
the time they did it that the missions were dangerous. The success of each mission depended on our ability
to carry enough oxygen, food, water and other links to the Mother Earth along on those Apollo voyages to
sustain life for the few days it took to make the trip, walk the surface, and then escape back to the sanctity
of home. Science has determined that humans have evolved to live in our own gravitational pull and no
other. When we go into space things happen to us. Even our reproduction capabilities diminish or fail.

Space is way to expensive to ever live in

James Donahue, 2002, accessed 7/31/06 @ http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id584.html

Every astronaut has experienced physical reaction to living with prolonged periods of weightlessness and
the harsh environment associated with being away from the normal gravitational pull as well as the
sunlight, water and air consumed on terra firma. No one knows what unexpected problems prolonged space
travel will bring, if we ever try it.

Former Senator John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth, offered some interesting thoughts on this
subject in a recent story found in the Ohio Beacon Journal. According to writer Bob Dyer, Glenn believes
the plan to go to Mars is too costly for us to consider.
WNDI 2k6 Case Neg—US Space Forces 9

We will be stuck in space because we can only have so much water and food supplies before we run out
and have to go back to get more, it will never work
James Donahue, 2002, accessed 7/31/06 @ http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id584.html

The average temperature on Earth is 57 degrees, while on Mars it is 81 below zero, Fahrenheit. It took us
three days to get to the moon. Estimates are six months to get to Mars. There is no oxygen on Mars. The
atmosphere there is 95 percent carbon dioxide. If the rovers now wandering the barren surfaces of the
planet cant find a trace of it, we may not have water there either.

Just carrying humans in space for six months will require a very large ship so it can hoist fuel to propel the
vessel, provide heat and electric power, food, air and water. Once there, we may have to make an
immediate return or find a way to land, establish a colony, then create fuel, air and water to make the trip
home again.Mars is similar to Earth in only one

Space is not an option

James Donahue, 2002, accessed 7/31/06 @ http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id584.html

He goes on to warn that humans cannot successfully live in space or on other planets, and he warns that the
program outlined by Busy will be extremely costly to taxpayers, will strip the environment, and "further
threaten the security of all human life with offensive and defensive technologies controlled and monitored
from space.

"Space exploration at a time such as this is irresponsible and dangerous," Donahue warns. "Do not be
fooled by the irrational space exploration schemes of engineers, scientists and politicians. . . It is a very bad
idea"These tax dollars could be (better) spent on ecological preservation, human population control,
education and alternative sources of food," Donahue said.
WNDI 2k6 Case Neg—US Space Forces 10

We need to privatize NASA to speed up space travel

Tumlinson rick, the president of the space frontier foundation, http://www.space-

frontier.org/Policies/frontieragenda.html, October 1st 1998

The government should privatize the NASA centers so they can act as true research centers and incubators
for new space industries. The development of commercial and other private sector activities in space will
drive the growth of supporting industries here on Earth, industries that will cluster near space facilities.
There will be a great need for test, training, processing and other specialized capabilities. This is where
another legacy of our first forty years in space can provide a major kick-start to the opening of the frontier.

Designed to spread out political support for the early space program, and sometimes the result of what must
be called pork barrel politics, the vast space center-based infrastructure developed by NASA is filled with
redundancies and inefficiencies. It is dominated by turf grabbing and politics and has bred a culture of
division that inhibits progress. We are too often faced with the specter of this or that politically powerful
space center actually competing with or killing private sector ideas as a means to retain their own power
and funding. The centers should be spun off to partner with local industries and universities wherever
possible, as the cores of future space industrial and research parks, with the successful CalTech/JPL model
as a minimum standard.