9 Generic Culpepper Alternative Energy Disads

8/14/2019 9 Generic Culpepper Alternative Energy Disads

1/73

Alternative Energy DAsDDI 2008Culpepper Generic et al.

Alternative Energy Disads (Solar and Wind)

Alternative Energy Disads (Solar and Wind) ......................................................................................................1

Space Mil 1NC Shell ..............................................................................................................................................3

Space Mil 1NC Shell ..............................................................................................................................................4Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell ..........................................................................................................................5

Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell ..........................................................................................................................6




Solar Space Key To Space Mil ............................................................................................................................10

Heg Scenario .........................................................................................................................................................11

Ext DOD Wants Space Mil ...............................................................................................................................12

Ext Other Nations Will Follow .........................................................................................................................13

Russia Scenario ....................................................................................................................................................14

China Scenario .....................................................................................................................................................15China Scenario .....................................................................................................................................................16

China Scenario Brink ..........................................................................................................................................17

India Scenario .......................................................................................................................................................18

Non U Space Mil ................................................................................................................................................19

Non U Space Mil ................................................................................................................................................20

Non U Space Mil ................................................................................................................................................21

Non U Solar Space ............................................................................................................................................22

No Impact .............................................................................................................................................................23

AFF Solar Power Key To Econ ........................................................................................................................24

Birds Of Prey 1NC ...............................................................................................................................................25

Birds Of Prey 1NC ...............................................................................................................................................26Birds Of Prey Key ................................................................................................................................................27

Birds Of Prey Key ................................................................................................................................................28

Birds Of Prey Key ................................................................................................................................................29

Birds Of Prey Key ................................................................................................................................................30

Birds Of Prey Key ................................................................................................................................................31

Turbines Kill Birds ...............................................................................................................................................32





Turbines Kill Birds ...............................................................................................................................................37Ext Faulty Surveys ............................................................................................................................................38

Ext Faulty Surveys ............................................................................................................................................39

Ecosystems Key ....................................................................................................................................................40

Ecosystems Key ....................................................................................................................................................41

Ecosystems Key ....................................................................................................................................................42

Ecosystems Key ....................................................................................................................................................43

Readiness Shell .....................................................................................................................................................44

Readiness Shell .....................................................................................................................................................45

1


2/73


Readiness Shell .....................................................................................................................................................46

Uniqueness ............................................................................................................................................................47

Link Ext................................................................................................................................................................ 48

Link Ext................................................................................................................................................................ 49

Link Ext................................................................................................................................................................ 50Readiness Brink ...................................................................................................................................................51

Readiness Good ....................................................................................................................................................52

Readiness Good ....................................................................................................................................................53

Earthquake Module .............................................................................................................................................54

Wind -> Earthquakes ..........................................................................................................................................55

Earthquake Detection Key ..................................................................................................................................56

Readiness = Iraq Withdrawal .............................................................................................................................57

Terrorism Module ................................................................................................................................................58

Inefficient disad? ..................................................................................................................................................59

Marine Ecosystems Module ................................................................................................................................60

Marine Ecosystems Module ................................................................................................................................61Climate Change Module ......................................................................................................................................62

Climate Change Module ......................................................................................................................................63

Climate Change Module ......................................................................................................................................64

Wind = Climate Change ......................................................................................................................................65

Wind -> Climate Change .....................................................................................................................................66

Climate Change = Extinction ..............................................................................................................................67

Wind Power Hurts Environment ........................................................................................................................68



Wind Power = FF Use ..........................................................................................................................................71

AFF Answers ........................................................................................................................................................72AFF Answers ........................................................................................................................................................73

2


3/73


Space Mil 1NC Shell

A. UniquenessVarious space and defense agencies recognize the need to provide both

security for energy and humanity in spaceNational Security Space Office, 10/10/07. SpaceBased Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security"http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdfThe magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, toinclude revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basicidea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collectgigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power viadirect connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as lowintensitybroadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solarflux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth todayThis amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmentalstewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSPcapability. NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying this concept (by

comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years continuously pursuing nuclear fusion). Thefirst major effort occurred in the 1970s where scientific feasibility of the concept was established and a reference 5 GW design wasproposed. Unfortunately 1970s architecture and technology levels could not support an economic case for development relative toother lowercost energy alternatives on the market. In 1995-1997 NASA initiated a Fresh Look Study to reexamine the conceptrelative to modern technological capabilities. The report (validated by the National Research Council) indicated that technologyvectors to satisfy SBSP development were converging quickly and provided recommended development focus areas, but for variousreasons that again included the relatively lower cost of other energies, policy makers elected not to pursue a development effort. Thepost-9/11 situation has changed that calculus considerably. Oil prices have jumped from $15/barrel to now $80/barrel in less than adecade. In addition to the emergence of global concerns over climate change, American and allied energy source security is now underthreat from actors that seek to destabilize or control global energy markets as well as increased energy demand competition byemerging global economies . Our National Security Strategy recognizes that many nations are too dependent on foreign oil, oftenimported from unstable portions of the world, and seeks to remedy the problem by accelerating the deployment of clean technologiesto enhance energy security, reduce poverty, and reduce pollution in a way that will ignite an era of global growth through free markets

and free trade. Senior U.S. leaders need solutions with strategic impact that can be delivered in a relevant period of time.

B. LinkA renewed interest in solar development leads to an ambitious new spaceprogramJohn C. Mankins, was with NASA for 25 years, including 10 years with JPL in Pasadena, and 15 years at NASA Headquarters in

Washington "Space-based Solar Power: Inexhaustible Energy From Orbit", Spring 2008. Ad Astra Magazine.http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdfPhotographs of the sky over Beijing on a hot summer daydark with particulates and unburned hydrocarbons dangerous to the youngand the elderlyillustrate that the air pollution crisis that once plagued Los Angeles is not gone, but has only relocated. Similarly,making the energy to run civilization releases enormous volumes of greenhouse gassesover two pounds (one kg) of carbon dioxidefor each kilowatthour (kwh) generated by coal. Global average temperatures and ocean

surface temperatures are rising, along with insurance premiums for coastal areaswhen insurance can be found at all.At the same time, current space missions are narrowly constrained by a lack of energy for launch and use in space. More ambitiousmissions will never be realized without new, reliable, and less-expensive sources of energy. Even more, the potential emergence ofnew space industries such as space tourism and manufacturing in space depend on advances in space power systems just as much asthey do on progress in space transportation. New energy options are needed: sustainable energy for society, clean energy for theclimate, and affordable and abundant energy for use in space. Space solar power is an option that can meet all of these needs.

3


4/73


Space Mil 1NC Shell

Should the US militarize space, India, Russia, Pakistan and Japan are all sure tofollow

Theresa Hitchens, March 08, Scientific American, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=101&sid=4d503dfb-ade2-4b86-867d-9bbbf133d4b7%40sessionmgr104Perhaps of even greater concern is that several other nations, including one of China's regional rivals, India, may feel compelled toseek offensive as well as defensive capabilities in space. The U.S. trade journal Defense News, for instance, quoted unidentifiedIndian defense officials as stating that their country had already begun developing its own kinetic-energy (nonexplosive, hit-to-kill)and laser-based antisatellite weapons. If India goes down that path, its archrival Pakistan will probably follow suit. Like India,Pakistan has a well-developed ballistic missile program, including medium-range missiles that could launch an antisatellite system.Even Japan, the third major Asian power, might join such a space race. In June 2007 the National Diet of Japan began considering abill backed by the current Fukuda government that would permit the development of satellites for "military and national security"purposes. As for Russia, in the wake of the Chinese test President Vladimir Putin reiterated Moscow's stance against theweaponization of space. At the same time, though, he refused to criticize Beijing's actions and blamed the U.S. instead. The Americanefforts to build a missile defense system, Putin charged, and the increasingly aggressive American plans for a military position inspace were prompting China's moves. Yet Russia itself, as a major spacefaring power that has incorporated satellites into its national

security structure, would be hard-pressed to forgo entering an arms race in space. Given the proliferation of spacefaring entities [seebox at left], proponents of a robust space warfare strategy believe that arming the heavens is inevitable and that it would be best forthe U.S. to get there first with firepower. Antisatellite and space-based weapons, they argue, will be necessary not only to defend U.S.military and commercial satellites but also to deny any future adversary the use of space capabilities to enhance the performance of itsforces on the battlefield.

C. Internal Link and ImpactAmassing space weaponry leads to a catastrophic international exchangeGordon Mitchell, Associate Professor and Dir Debate U Pittsburgh, Et al., ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense, July 2001,http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.htmlA buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationale glosses overthe tendency that ' the presence of space weaponswill result in the increased likelihood of their use'.33This drift toward usage isstrengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank Barnaby: when it comes to arming the heavens, 'anti-ballistic missiles and anti-

satellite warfare technologies go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking nature of offense and defense in military space technology stemsfrom the inherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UNConference on Disarmament, explains: 'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use the same capability to targetsomething on land'. 35 To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, suchinterceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's atmosphere. Thedizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-second attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation wouldenhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out of human handsand endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of accidental conflict. Yalesociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial systems such as space weapons, which havemany sophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawless performance. According to Perrow, this interlockingcomplexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. As Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normalaccident" is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36

Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectileswould likely make war itself inevitable, given the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling tocontemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectilereentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage even more than would be done by anuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst DavidLangford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilledpeople'.38 Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack wouldretaliate with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by acomputer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.

4
http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1


5/73


Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell

A. Uniqueness-No solar power now, lack of R&D funding kills widespreadsuccess

Andrew C. Revkin and Matthew L. WaldMonday, International Herald Tribune, "Lack of financing casts shadow on solarpower", July 16, 2007http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/solar.phpSolar power, which has captured the public imagination strongly in Europe, is making big inroads in the United States. Panels thatconvert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around the world - from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers andfarmers' fields, to Wall Street, where stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Governor ArnoldSchwarzenegger's "Million Solar Roofs" initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and fighting global warming.But forall the enthusiasm about harvesting sunlight, some of the most ardent experts and investors in solar technologies say that moving thisenergy source from niche to mainstream - last year it provided less than 0.01 percent of the U.S. electricity supply - is unlikely withoutsignificant technological breakthroughs. And given the current scale of research in private and government laboratories, that is notexpected to happen anytime soon.Indeed, even a quarter century from now, said the U.S. Energy Department official in charge ofrenewable energy, solar power might account for, at best, 2 percent or 3 percent of the energy supply in the United States.In themeantime, coal-burning power plants, the main source of smokestack emissions linked to global warming, are being built around the

world at the rate of more than one a week.Propelled by government incentives in Germany and Japan, as well as a growing number ofAmerican states, sales of photovoltaic silicon panels have soared, helping steadily drop manufacturing costs and leading to widespreadproduct refinements.But Vinod Khosla, a prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneur focused on energy, said the market-drivenimprovements were not happening fast enough to put solar technology beyond much more than a boutique investment."Most of theenvironmental stuff out there now is toys compared to the scale we need to really solve the planet's problems," Khosla said.Scientistslong ago calculated that an hour's worth of the sunlight bathing the planet held far more energy than humans worldwide could use in ayear, and the first practical devices for converting light to electricity were designed more than half a century ago.Yet research on solarpower and methods for storing intermittent energy flows has long received less spending, in the United States and other industrializedcountries, than energy options with more political support.For decades, conventional nuclear power and nuclear fusion receiveddominant shares of government energy-research money.These days, a growing amount of government money in the United States isheaded to the farm-state favorite, biofuels, and to research ways to burn coal while capturing the resulting carbon dioxide, the mainheat-trapping smokestack gas.In this fiscal year, the Energy Department plans to spend $159 million on solar research anddevelopment. It will spend nearly double, $303 million, on nuclear energy research and development, and nearly triple, $427 million,

on coal, as well as $167 million on other fossil fuel research and development.For the moment, the biggest government support forsolar power is coming from the states, not the national government. But there, too, the focus remains on spurring markets, notlaboratory research.The U.S. government is proposing more spending on solar research now, but not enough to set off a largesustained energy quest, many experts say."This is not an arena where private energy companies are likely to make the breakthrough,"said Nathan Lewis, head of a solar-research laboratory at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

B. LinkNew incentives boost solar developments, but kills R&D when they terminateSolar Energies IndustryAssociation, "Senate Fillibuster Once Again Prevents Vote on Solar Tax Credits", 6/17/08.http://seia.org/solarnews.php?id=189SEIA STATEMENT ON H.R. 6049, THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND AND TAX RELIEF ACTStatement by SEIA president Rhone Resch following the Senate's failure to end the filibuster of H.R. 6049, the Energy Independenceand Tax Relief Act, which would extend the solar investment tax credit (ITC) for 8 years. The motion failed 52 - 44 (on a cloture

motion requiring support of 60 Senators). "I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has once again failed to reach a bipartisanconsensus that would allow this important legislation to move forward. Not extending the solar tax credits is an enormous tax increasethat will cost America tens of thousands of jobs. If the Senate is unable to act - and the solar tax credits are allowed to expire - it willresult in the loss of billions of dollars in new investments in solar. "Time is running out. I strongly urge the Senate to reach a bipartisanconsensus and pass this legislation, now."

5


6/73



C. Internal Link: To continue investment, businesses turn to horrificallyunsanitary Chinese factories

Ariana Eunjung Cha Washington Post Sunday, 3/9/08; A01. "Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China".http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595_pf.htmlThe first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened.Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto theground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.This ritual has been goingon almost every day for nine months, Li and other villagers said.In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrialgrowth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in thecentral plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It's a green energy company, producing polysilicondestined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is ahighly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards."The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees willgrow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, aprofessor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University.The situation in Li's village points to the environmentaltrade-offs the world is making as it races to head off a dwindling supply of fossil fuels.Forests are being cleared to grow biofuels like

palm oil, but scientists argue that the disappearance of such huge swaths of forests is contributing to climate change. Hydropowerdams are being constructed to replace coal-fired power plants, but they are submerging whole ecosystems under water.Likewise inChina, the push to get into the solar energy market is having unexpected consequences.With the prices of oil and coal soaring,policymakers around the world are looking at massive solar farms to heat water and generate electricity. For the past four years,however, the world has been suffering from a shortage of polysilicon -- the key component of sunlight-capturing wafers -- driving upprices of solar energy technology and creating a barrier to its adoption.With the price of polysilicon soaring from $20 per kilogram to$300 per kilogram in the past five years, Chinese companies are eager to fill the gap.In China, polysilicon plants are the new dot-coms. Flush with venture capital and with generous grants and low-interest loans from a central government touting its efforts to seekclean energy alternatives, more than 20 Chinese companies are starting polysilicon manufacturing plants. The combined capacity ofthese new factories is estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 tons -- more than double the 40,000 tons produced in the entire world today.ButChinese companies' methods for dealing with waste haven't been perfected.Because of the environmental hazard, polysiliconcompanies in the developed world recycle the compound, putting it back into the production process.But the high investment costs and time, not to mention the enormous energy consumption required for heating the substance to more

than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit for the recycling, have discouraged many factories in China from doing the same. Like LuoyangZhonggui, other solar plants in China have not installed technology to prevent pollutants from getting into the environment or have notbrought those systems fully online, industry sources say. "The recycling technology is of course being thought about, but currently it'sstill not mature," said Shi Jun, a former photovoltaic technology researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.Shi, chief executiveof Pro-EnerTech, a start-up polysilicon research firm in Shanghai, said that there's such a severe shortage of polysilicon that thegovernment is willing to overlook this issue for now."If this happened in the United States, you'd probably be arrested," he said.Anindependent, nationally accredited laboratory analyzed a sample of dirt from the dump site near the Luoyang Zhonggui plant at therequest of The Washington Post. The tests show high concentrations of chlorine and hydrochloric acid, which can result from thebreakdown of silicon tetrachloride and do not exist naturally in soil. "Crops cannot grow on this, and it is not suitable for people tolive nearby," said Li Xiaoping, deputy director of the Shanghai Academy of Environmental Sciences.Wang Hailong, secretary of theboard of directors for Luoyang Zhonggui, said it is "impossible" to think that the company would dump large amounts of waste into aresidential area. "Some of the villagers did not tell the truth," he said.However, Wang said the company does release a "minimalamount of waste" in compliance with all environmental regulations. "We release it in a certain place in a certain way. Before it isreleased, it has gone through strict treatment procedures."Yi Xusheng, the head of monitoring for the Henan Province EnvironmentalProtection Agency, said the factory had passed a review before it opened, but that "it's possible that there are some pollutants in theproduction process" that inspectors were not aware of. Yi said the agency would investigate.In 2005, when residents of Li's village,Shiniu, heard that a new solar energy company would be building a factory nearby, they celebrated.The impoverished farmingcommunity of roughly 2,300, near the eastern end of the Silk Road, had been left behind during China's recent boom. In a countrywhere the average wage in some areas has climbed to $200 a month, many of the village's residents make just $200 a year. They hadhigh hopes their new neighbor would jump-start the local economy and help transform the area into an industrial hub.The LuoyangZhonggui factory grew out of an effort by a national research

6


7/73



institute to improve on a 50-year-old polysilicon refining technology pioneered by Germany's Siemens. Concerned about intellectualproperty issues, Siemens has held off on selling its technology to the Chinese. So the Chinese have tried to create their own.Last year,the Luoyang Zhonggui factory was estimated to have produced less than 300 tons of polysilicon, but it aims to increase that tenfoldthis year -- making it China's largest operating plant. It is a key supplier to Suntech Power Holdings, a solar panel company whosefounder Shi Zhengrong recently topped the list of the richest people in China.Made from the Earth's most abundant substance -- sand-- polysilicon is tricky to manufacture. It requires huge amounts of energy, and even a small misstep in the production can introduceimpurities and ruin an entire batch. The other main challenge is dealing with the waste. For each ton of polysilicon produced, theprocess generates at least four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste.When exposed to humid air, silicon tetrachloride transformsinto acids and poisonous hydrogen chloride gas, which can make people who breathe the air dizzy and can make their chestscontract.While it typically takes companies two years to get a polysilicon factory up and running properly, many Chinese companiesare trying to do it in half that time or less, said Richard Winegarner, president of Sage Concepts, a California-based consulting firm.Asa result, Ren of Hebei Industrial University said, some Chinese plants are stockpiling the hazardous substances in the hopes that theycan figure out a way to dispose of it later: "I know these factories began to store silicon tetrachloride in drums two years ago."Pro-EnerTech's Shi says other companies -- including Luoyang Zhonggui -- are just dumping wherever they can."Theoretically, companiesshould collect it all, process it to get rid of the poisonous stuff, then release it or recycle. Zhonggui currently doesn't have the

technology. Now they are just releasing it directly into the air," said Shi, who recently visited the factory.Shi estimates that Chinesecompanies are saving millions of dollars by not installing pollution recovery.

Further environmental damage will lead to widespread political discontent against the CCP, resulting in

its collapse

Nathan Nankivell, Senior Researcher, Office of the Special Advisor at Joint Task Force Pacific Headquarters, Canada, 10/25/2005."China's Pollution and its Threat to Domestic and Regional Stability". http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=146.There is little disagreement that Chinas environment is a mounting problem for Beijing. The country produces as many sulphuremissions as Tokyo and Los Angeles combined but with only a fraction of the vehicles; China is home to 16 of theworlds 20 most polluted cities; water pollution affects as much as 70 percent of the country; air pollution is blamed for the prematuredeath of some 400,000 Chinese annually; crop returns are steadily decreasing in quantity and quality because of polluted land andwater; and solid waste production is expected to more than double over the next decade, pushing China far ahead of the U.S. as the

largest producer (The Economist, August 19, 2004). While the general accessibility of this information is creating greater awareness,trends indicate that pollution and environmental degradation will worsen. Chinese consumers are expected to purchase hundreds ofmillions of automobiles, adding to air pollution problems. Despite pledges to put the environment first, national planners still aim todouble per capita GDP by 2010 (China Daily, October 20, 2005). Urban populations are expected to continue expanding, leading tothe creation of slums and stressing urban sanitation and delivery systems. Steadily richer Chinese will be able to purchase more goodsand consume more resources. The nation lacks a powerful national body able to coordinate, monitor, and enforce environmentallegislation: the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) is under-staffed, has few resources, and must compete with otherbureaucracies for attention. The devolution of decision-making to local levels has placed environmental stewardship in the hands ofofficials who are more concerned with economic growth than the environment. Finally, the deficiency of capital and the lack of will topromote massive spending on environmental repair necessary to reverse more than two decades of destruction are perhaps mostindicative of the fact that environmental restoration will not occur: estimates on the final cost of environmental repair range into thetens of billions of dollars (Canadian Security Intelligence Services Division; The Economist, October 20, 2005).From the examples above, it is clear that Chinas environmental crisis will only worsen before it gets better. SEPAs impotence,Beijings contradictory policy statements, expanding consumption, and a lack of funds to reverse already serious problems all suggestthat pollution and degradation will most likely worsen in the decades to come. Pollution, Unrest, and Social Mobilization As theimpact of pollution on human health becomes more obvious and widespread, it is leading to greater political mobilization and socialunrest from those citizens who suffer the most. The latest statement from the October 2005 Central Committee meeting in Shanghaiillustrates Beijings increasing concern regarding the correlation between unrest and pollution issues. There were more than 74,000incidents of protest and unrest recorded in China in 2004, up from 58,000 the year before (Asia Times, November 16, 2004). Whilethere are no clear statistics linking this number of protests, riots, and unrest specifically to pollution issues, the fact that pollution wasone of four social problems linked to disharmony

7


8/73



by the Central Committee implies that there is at least the perception of a strong correlation. For the CCP and neighboring states,social unrest must be viewed as a primary security concern for three reasons: it is creating greater political mobilization, it threatens toforge linkages with democracy movements, and demonstrations are proving more difficult to contain. These three factors have thepotential to challenge the CCPs total political control, thus potentially destabilizing a state with a huge military arsenal and a historyof violent, internal conflict that cannot be downplayed or ignored. Protests are uniting a variety of actors throughout localcommunities. Pollution issues are indiscriminate. The effects, though not equally felt by each person within a community, impact richand poor, farmers and businessmen, families and individuals alike. As local communities respond to pollution issues through unitedopposition, it is leaving Beijing with no easy target upon which to blame unrest, and no simple option for how to quell wholecommunities with a common grievance. Moreover, protests serve as a venue for the politically disaffected who are unhappy with thecurrent state of governance, and may be open to considering alternative forms of political rule. Environmental experts like ElizabethEconomy note that protests afford an opportunity for the environmental movement to forge linkages with democracy advocates. Shenotes in her book, The River Runs Black, that several environmentalists argue that change is only possible through greaterdemocratization and notes that the environmental and democracy movements united in Eastern Europe prior to the end of the ColdWar. It is conceivable that in this way, environmentally-motivated protests might help to spread democracy and undermine CCP rule.A further key challenge is trying to contain protests once they begin.

The steady introduction of new media like cell phones, email, and text messaging are preventing Chinas authorities from silencingand hiding unrest. Moreover, the ability to send and receive information ensures that domestic and international observers will bemade aware of unrest, making it far more difficult for local authorities to employ state-sanctioned force. The security ramifications ofgreater social unrest cannot be overlooked. Linkages between environmental and democracy advocates potentially challenge thePartys monolithic control of power. In the past, similar challenges by Falun Gong and the Tiananmen protestors have been met byforce and detainment. In an extreme situation, such as national water shortages, social unrest could generate widespread, coordinatedaction and political mobilization that would serve as a midwife to anti-CCP political challenges, create divisions within the Party overhow to deal with the environment, or lead to a massive show of force. Any of these outcomes would mark an erosion or alteration tothe CCPs current power dynamic. And while many would treat political change in China, especially the implosion of the Party, as awelcome development, it must be noted that any slippage of the Partys dominance would most likely be accompanied by a period oftransitional violence. Though most violence would be directed toward dissident Chinese, a ripple effect would be felt in neighboringstates through immigration, impediments to trade, and an increased military presence along the Chinese border. All of these situationswould alter security assumptions in the region. Other Security Concerns While unrest presents the most obvious example of a security

threat related to pollution, several other key concerns are worth noting. The cost of environmental destruction could, for example,begin to reverse the blistering rate of economic growth in China that is the foundation of CCP legitimacy. Estimates maintain that 7percent annual growth is required to preserve social stability. Yet the costs of pollution are already taxing the economy between 8 and12 percent of GDP per year [1]. As environmental problems mount, this percentage will increase, in turn reducing annual growth. As aresult, the CCP could be seriously challenged to legitimize its continued control if economic growth stagnates. Nationalists insurrounding states could use pollution as a rallying point to muster support for anti-Chinese causes. For example, attacks on Chinasenvironmental management for its impact on surrounding states like Japan, could be used to argue against further investment in thecountry or be highlighted during territorial disputes in the East China Sea to agitate anti-Chinese sentiment. While nationalism doesnot imply conflict, it could reduce patterns of cooperation in the region and hopes for balanced and effective multilateral institutionsand dialogues.

8


9/73



D. Impact-CCP collapse causes global nuclear warSan Renxing,. The Epoch Times "The CCP's Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War. Hundreds of millions of deaths

proposed", 8/5/05. http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.htmlWhat, then, is the gist of this wild, last-ditch gamble? To put it in a few words: A cornered beast is fighting desperately to survive in abattle with humanity. If you dont believe me, read some passages directly from the speeches.We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack [on the US], the Chinese peoplewill be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the U.S. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliationfrom the U.S., China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we needto be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. Whatever the case may be, we can only move forwardfearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nations future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices wehave to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forevergone! In any event, we, the CCP, will never step down from the stage of history! Wed rather have the whole world, or even the entireglobe, share life and death with us than step down from the stage of history!!! Isnt there a nuclear bondage theory? It means that sincethe nuclear weapons have bound the security of the entire world, all will die together if death is inevitable. In my view, there is anotherkind of bondage, and that is, the fate our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the CCP, are finished, China will be

finished, and the world will be finished. It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path thatwill secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths.But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, wed have to pick the latter, as, for us, itis more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. That is because, after all, we are Chinese andmembers of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Partys life has always been above all else! Since the Partys life is aboveall else, it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend itslife. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eighthundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its everycell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches.

9


10/73


Solar Space Key To Space Mil

The military is ready and willing to pursue space militarizationthey need onlya fresh interest in solar space capabilities

JOSEPH D. Rouge, SES Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07. "SpaceBased Solar Power As an Opportunityfor Strategic Security" http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdfPreventing resource conflicts in the face of increasing global populations and demands in the 21st century is a high priority for theDepartment of Defense. All solution options to these challenges should be explored, including opportunities from space. In March2007, the National Security Space Offices Advanced Concepts Office presented the idea of spacebased solar power (SBSP) as apotential grand opportunity to address not only energy security, but environmental, economic, intellectual, and space security as well.First proposed in the late 1960s, the concept was last explored in the NASAs 1997 Fresh Look Study. In the decade since this laststudy, advances in technology and new challenges to security have warranted a current exploration of the strategic implications ofSBSP. For these reasons, my office sponsored a nocost Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study of SBSP during the Spring andSummer of 2007. Unlike traditional contracted architecture studies, the attached report was compiled through an innovative andcollaborative approach that relied heavily upon voluntary internet discussions by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal,and business experts around the world. I applaud the high quality of work accomplished by the team leaders and all participants whocontributed in the last six months. I encourage them to continue their work in earnest as they move beyond this interim report and seek

to answer the question of whether SBSP can be developed and deployed within the first half of this century to provide affordable,clean, safe, reliable, sustainable and expandable energy for mankind. This interim assessment contains significant initial findings andrecommendations that should provide pause and consideration for national and international policy makers, business leaders, andcitizens alike. It appears that technological challenges are closing rapidly and the business case for creating SBSP is improving witheach passing year. Still absent, however, is an appropriate catalyst to stimulate the various interested parties toward actuallydeveloping a SBSP capability. I encourage all to read this report and consider the opportunities that SBSP presents as part of a nationaand international debate for action on how best to preserve security for all.

10


11/73


Heg Scenario

Even if a new balance of power was struck after space militarization, it wouldbe inevitably unstable and without US primacy

Theresa Hitchens, March 08, Scientific American, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=101&sid=4d503dfb-ade2-4b86-867d-9bbbf133d4b7%40sessionmgr104Yet any arms race in space would almost inevitably destabilize the balance of power and thereby multiply the risks of global conflict.In such headlong competition--whether in space or elsewhere--equilibrium among the adversaries would be virtually impossible tomaintain. Even if the major powers did achieve stability, that reality would still provide no guarantee that both sides would perceive itto be so. The moment one side saw itself to be slipping behind the other, the first side would be strongly tempted to launch apreemptive strike, before things got even worse. Ironically, the same would hold for the side that perceived itself to have gained anadvantage. Again, there would be strong temptation to strike first, before the adversary could catch up. Finally, a space weapons racewould ratchet up the chances that a mere technological mistake could trigger a battle. After all, in the distant void, reliablydistinguishing an intentional act from an accidental one would be highly problematic.

US hegemony is key to preventing proliferation and global nuclear war.ZalmayKhalilzad, 1995, Director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program @ RAND and current US Ambassador to Iraq, "Losingthe Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," The Washington Quarterly, Spring, p. Lexis) Under the thirdoption, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity forthe indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end initself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the globalenvironment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second,such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation,threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise ofanother hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendantdangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or amultipolar balance of power system.

11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad


12/73


Ext DOD Wants Space Mil

The DOD is in favor of translating solar power into weapons capabilitiesThe National Space Security Office Space-Based Solar Power Study Group, Spring, 2008.

"Strategic importance: Solar power from space can help keep the peace on Earth" Ad Astra Magazine.http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdfThe 21st century is shaping up to be one of potential environment- and resource-driven conflict, and as the United States ultimateguarantor of national security, the Department of Defense (DoD) is keenly aware of this future scenario. History teaches us that theapplication of sufficient energy and imagination to almost any problem ultimately leads to solutionsfor a better future. Ensuring abundant long-term energy security then becomes a fundamental pursuit of all societies. Compared toEarth, the resources of space are infinite. In the Age of Exploration, Europe looked beyond the horizons of her surrounding oceans tosolve a growing resource problem for a growing population. A similar time distance problem separates human society today from thespace resources needed to prevent its collapse and deliver the resources needed to support its ever-increasing levels of scale andcomplexity. While space already delivers ubiquitous telecommunication, global positioning, and surveillance commodities, theseintangibles are higher-order services and not true life-sustaining resources. The first true resource delivered from space may very wellbe nearly limitless clean energy. Enter the four-decade-old concept of space solar power (SSP). Originally invented in 1968 by Dr.Peter Glaser of Arthur D. Little, and last validated in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NRC),

SSP is a simple concept analogous to the hydroelectric dam as an energy-collection device. The traditional SSP architecture utilizesvery large (kilometer-scale) photovoltaic arrays in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) to convert a continuous stream of intense solarradiation into carbon-neutral electrical energy, which is then transmitted 24/7 through night and weather via microwave beams tocollectionrectennas on Earths surface. In honor of its inventor, these space solar power satellites are sometimes fondly called, Glasers. Totalcalculated end-to-end system efficiency for base-load power approaches 10 percent- -remarkably high for any known natural orartificial energy production scheme. Variations on the basic concept include using solar dynamic versus photovoltaic collectionsystems, optical wavelength versus microwave power transmission, lunar versus orbital basing, and low-Earth orbit versus GEOarchitectures. Despite their differences, all systems share a common philosophy with the hydroelectric power model: invest in a high-capital infrastructure expense up front to then enable decades of clean, reliable, low-maintenance and low unit-cost energy collection,free from the volatile fuel expenses and vulnerabilities of conventional energy systems. So why do we not have SSP satellites in orbittoday when the NRC validated the concept as scientifically sound and on a healthy path toward technical feasibility as recently as fiveyears ago? Over the course of 40 years the answer has always centered around the business case in the face of less-expensivecompeting conventional terrestrial energy sources. But that calculus is about to change. The very real risks of climate change, energynationalism and scarcity, unconstrained technology explosion, and potential resource conflicts weigh heavily on the futurist minds ofthe action officers of the Air Force Future Concepts and Transformations Office and National Security Space Office (NSSO) Theseofficers are charged with visualizing the world 25-or-more years from now, and informing and guiding Air Force and space strategydevelopment. For a military that is fundamentally dependent on high-energy capabilities to protect its nation and the internationalcommons for the good of all humanity, not only are the strategic risks associated with energy scarcity that lie ahead great, but so tooare the operational and tactical vulnerabilities for the finest war-fighting and peacekeeping machine humans have ever known. It wasfrom within this Air Force policy incubator and the NSSO that the spark to reexamine SSP as a strategic, operational, and tacticalenergy solution was struck. Beginning in the 1970s through 2001, the SSP was examined on multiple previous occasions by theDepartment of Energy (DOE) and NASA, but failed to find a champion in large part because SSP fell between organizational gaps(DOE does energy but not space, and NASA does space, not energy). On the other hand, because of its unique mission, DoD is thefirst government agency that will have to deal with the harsh realities of a coming energy peak. Self-developed, complex modernweapon systems spend two decades in pre-production and another five in operation a 70-year life cycle that clearly places any newplatforms (and our entire war-fighting doctrine) squarely on the backside of peak oil, and permanently in a hangar unless DoD can

reinvent itself to remain relevant in an energy-scarce world. Therefore, DoD is in a position of greatest need for examining allalternate energy options. On a more tactical level, the very real high cost in dollars and lives lost to deliver large quantities of fuel andenergy supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has informed the military that energy logisticsis a reality that begs for aparadigm change.

12


13/73


Ext Other Nations Will Follow

Should the US militarize space, India, Russia, Pakistan and Japan are all sure tofollow

Theresa Hitchens, March 08, Scientific American, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=101&sid=4d503dfb-ade2-4b86-867d-9bbbf133d4b7%40sessionmgr104Perhaps of even greater concern is that several other nations, including one of China's regional rivals, India, may feel compelled toseek offensive as well as defensive capabilities in space. The U.S. trade journal Defense News, for instance, quoted unidentifiedIndian defense officials as stating that their country had already begun developing its own kinetic-energy (nonexplosive, hit-to-kill)and laser-based antisatellite weapons. If India goes down that path, its archrival Pakistan will probably follow suit. Like India,Pakistan has a well-developed ballistic missile program, including medium-range missiles that could launch an antisatellite system.Even Japan, the third major Asian power, might join such a space race. In June 2007 the National Diet of Japan began considering abill backed by the current Fukuda government that would permit the development of satellites for "military and national security"purposes. As for Russia, in the wake of the Chinese test President Vladimir Putin reiterated Moscow's stance against theweaponization of space. At the same time, though, he refused to criticize Beijing's actions and blamed the U.S. instead. The Americanefforts to build a missile defense system, Putin charged, and the increasingly aggressive American plans for a military position inspace were prompting China's moves. Yet Russia itself, as a major spacefaring power that has incorporated satellites into its national

security structure, would be hard-pressed to forgo entering an arms race in space. Given the proliferation of spacefaring entities [seebox at left], proponents of a robust space warfare strategy believe that arming the heavens is inevitable and that it would be best forthe U.S. to get there first with firepower. Antisatellite and space-based weapons, they argue, will be necessary not only to defend U.S.military and commercial satellites but also to deny any future adversary the use of space capabilities to enhance the performance of itsforces on the battlefield.

Other nations will follow suit if the US militarizesKarl Grossman, Professor of Journalism at State University of New York, 01,http://www.epsusa.org/publications/newsletter/april2001/grossman.htmSome 163 nations supported the resolution titled Prevention of An Arms Race In Outer Space. It recognized the common interest ofall mankind in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes and reiterated that the use of space shall be for peacefulpurpose . . . carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries. The measure stated that the prevention of an arms race inouter space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security. The United States, backed by Israel and Micronesia,

abstained. Canada and China have been leaders at the United Nations in challenging the U.S. space military plans and seeking tostrengthen the Outer Space Treaty by banning all weapons in space (the treaty currently prohibits nuclear weapons and weapons ofmass destruction). Marc Vidricaire, counselor with the Canadian delegation to the United Nations, in a speech last October 19 stated:It has been suggested that our proposal is not relevant because the assessment on which it rests is either premature or alarmist. In ourview, it is neither. Moreover, he continued, it is clear that technology can be developed to place weapons in outer space, and no statecan expect to maintain a monopoly on such knowledge or such capabilities for all time. If one state actively pursues theweaponization of space, we can be sure others will follow.

13


14/73


Russia Scenario

Any weapon put in space by the US will be immediately followed by war withRussia

James Oberg, 22-year veteran of NASA Mission Control, 10/9/07, Weaponization of space: whos to blame?,http://thespacereview.com/article/976/1In Moscow, Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin, commander of the Russian Space Troops, has warned that US plans to baseweapons in space might lead to war. Western news media accounts report these statements straight, as if there really were such plansto do what the Russians complain about (station weapons in space for space-to-space combat), instead of only studies and teststhekinds of activities that were they to occur in Russia or China, wouldnt even be known to exist. We dont want to fight in space,Popovkin told his audience, but on the other hand, well not allow any other country to play the master in outer space. Theconsequences of positioning strike forces in orbit will be too serious. And he wrote himself a blank check for a future free hand: Ifany country will place a weapon in space, then our response will be the same, he added, to the approving echo of press coveragearound the world.

US/Russian nuclear war causes extinction its categorically different than

other impactsNickBostrom, PhD Philosophy Oxford University, "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios", Journal of

Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, March 2002, http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.htmlThe unique challenge of existential risks Risks in this sixth category are a recent phenomenon. This is part of the reason why it isuseful to distinguish them from other risks. We have not evolved mechanisms, either biologically or culturally, for managing suchrisks. Our intuitions and coping strategies have been shaped by our long experience with risks such as dangerous animals, hostileindividuals or tribes, poisonous foods, automobile accidents, Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World WarI, World War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. These types of disasters have occurred many times and ourcultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But tragic as such events are to thepeople immediately affected, in the big picture of things from the perspective of humankind as a whole even the worst of thesecatastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life. They haven't significantly affected the total amount of humansuffering or happiness or determined the long-term fate of our species. With the exception of a species-destroying comet or asteroidimpact (an extremely rare occurrence), there were probably no significant existential risks in human history until the mid-twentiethcentury, and certainly none that it was within our power to do something about. The first manmade existential risk was the inauguraldetonation of an atomic bomb. At the time, there was some concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by"igniting" the atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies as an existential riskthat was present at the time. For there to be a risk, given the knowledge and understanding available, it suffices that there is somesubjective probability of an adverse outcome, even if it later turns out that objectively there was no chance of something badhappening. If we don't know whether something is objectively risky or not, then it is risky in the subjective sense. The subjective senseis of course what we must base our decisions on.[2] At any given time we must use our best current subjective estimate of what theobjective risk factors are.[3] A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. Anall-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enoughto qualify as global and terminal . There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that anuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia andthe US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a riskthat other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and

Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind's potential permanently. Such a warmight however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddonand comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.

14
http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html#_ftn2http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html#_ftn3http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html#_ftn4http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html#_ftn4http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html#_ftn4http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html#_ftn4http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html#_ftn2http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html#_ftn3http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html#_ftn4


15/73


China Scenario

Space militarization would lead to dangerous precarious US-Sino relations,assuring mutual destruction

William C. Marteland Toshi Yoshihara, Professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College in Rhode Island andDoctoral candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, 03, Washington Quarterly,http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v026/26.4martel.htmlStrategists in the United States and in China are clearly monitoring the other's developments in space. How the United States judgesChinese intentions and capabilities will determine Washington's response; of course, the reverse is equally true. As each side eyes theother, the potential for mutual misperceptions can have serious and destabilizing consequences in the long term. In particular, bothcountries' exaggerated views of each other could lead unnecessarily to competitive action-reaction cycles. [End Page 26] What exactlydoes such an action-reaction cycle mean? What would a bilateral space race look like? Hypothetically, in the next 10 years, somecritical sectors of China's economy and military could become increasingly vulnerable to disruptions in space. During this sameperiod, Sino-U.S. relations may not improve appreciably, and the Taiwan question could remain unresolved. If Washington andBeijing could increasingly hold each other's space infrastructure hostage by threatening to use military options in times of crisis, thenpotentially risky paths to preemption could emerge in the policy planning processes in both capitals. In preparing for a majorcontingency in the Taiwan Strait, both the United States and China might be compelled to plan for a disabling, blinding attack on the

other's space systems before the onset of hostilities. The most troubling dimension to this scenario is that some elements of preemption(already evident in U.S. global doctrine) could become a permanent feature of U.S. and Chinese strategies in space. Indeed, Chinesestrategic writings today suggest that the leadership in Beijing believes that preemption is the rational way to prevent future U.S.military intervention. If leaders in Beijing and Washington were to position themselves to preempt each other, then the two sideswould enter an era of mutual hostility, one that might include destabilizing, hair-trigger defense postures in space where both sidesstand ready to launch a first strike on a moment's notice. One scenario involves the use of weapons, such as lasers or jammers, whichseek to blind sensors on imaging satellites or disable satellites that provide warning of missile launches. Imagine, for example,Washington's reaction if China disabled U.S. missile warning satellites or vice versa.In that case, Sino-U.S. relations would be highlyvulnerable to the misinterpretations and miscalculations that could lead to a conflict in space. Although attacks against space assetswould likely be a precursor or a complement to a broader crisis or conflict, and although conflicts in the space theater may notgenerate many casualties or massive physical destruction, the economic costs of conflict in space alone for both sides, and for theinternational community, would be extraordinary given that many states depend on satellites for their economic well-being.

15


16/73


China Scenario

That leads to global nuclear war and the end of civilizationChing Cheong,The Straits Times2k, No one gains in war over Taiwan,

THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washingtonwere to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict onsuch a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war . Beijing hasalready told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attackingChina as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extentSingapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powerselsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order.With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's politicallandscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities betweenIndia and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US warlead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against theChinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from militarydefeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications onfuture US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which

could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latteracquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The USestimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to gofor the nuclear option . A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use"principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies,told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided bythat principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weaponsmandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass,we would see the destruction of civilisation.

16


17/73


China Scenario Brink

Tensions between the US and China have been rising ever since the satelliteincident

The Economist, 1/17/08, Dangerous driving in the heavens,http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10533956A year ago, the Americans fumed when China tested a missile by shooting up one of its own weather satellites. One thing that madethe test look anti-social was that it created the worst-ever cloud of man-made debris in the heavens. Ever since, other satellites havehad to be moved periodically to avoid the shrapnel. And bumping into things is not just a matter of collecting scratches. At orbitalspeeds, colliding with an object the size of a pebble can ruin the day of a multi-billion dollar spacecraft. There was, however, a secondreason for America's anger over the Chinese test. America is space's pre-eminent military power. Or, more exactly, given that Americahas held back from putting weapons in space, it has used space to preserve and extend the pre-eminent military power it enjoys onearth. By using a missile to blow apart one of their own satellites, the Chinese showed that they could if they chose blow apart the spyand navigation satellites on which America's armed forces (and grateful drivers everywhere using GPS systems) depend. Indeed, theChinese test may have been intended to send precisely this warning. Given the dangers of a clash in space, and the degree to which themilitary and civilian uses of space have blurred together (see article), why have the big powers so far failed to negotiate either arms-control agreements or simple rules of the road, as they have on earth? In the case of arms control, the explanation is that America is

suspicious. Russia and China have offered to negotiate a treaty banning space weapons. The Americans are not sure whether that isfeasible.

17


18/73


India Scenario

India would use space technology to preemptively avert an attack from itsnuclear neighbors

Monotapash Mukherjee, Political Writer, 1/29/08, The Global Politician, http://www.globalpolitician.com/24048-indiaPost nuclear situation, India is being visited by a pre-nuclear weaponization dilemmato be or not to be a space-weapons state. Theterritorial warfare is not a thing of the past yet, but once again the shadow of space weaponization is looming large.Post-Cold War theUS became the sole superpower of the globe. The threat of "star wars" subsided for the time being. But new geo-political urgenciesunnerved the US and it began to be concerned by the specter of "space Pearl Harbor".America was visibly unsettled by the emergenceof the "Axis of Evil" which constituted Iraq, Iran, North Korea with more states to join it. Iraq was bombed and its ruler hanged (ofcourse, illegally and unethically). But Iran and North Korea proved to be invincible. The USA became concerned about their nuclearICBMs hitting the US heartland and revived the "Star War" as National Missile Defence System. Again the rapid rise of China as aneconomic and military superpower unnerved the US strategic community. A Chinese General once threatened the US with rainingnuclear bombs if it sided with Taiwan in any future confrontation with China. Furthermore the Russian rise as a Phoenix as thechallenger of the US complicated the US predicament. The USA's proposed deployment of the missile defense components in Polandand Czech Republic angered the resurgent Russia so much that it declared its sophisticated system would jeopardize the missiledefense system. All this became more complicated when China conducted an A-Sat test by destroying one of its ageing weather

satellite by throwing a ballistic missile.All these factors pushed the US towards space weaponization and space utilisation to influencewarfare on earth. The domino effect of space weaponisation has not left India untouched. China's A-Sat test threatened Indian securitytoo, particularly its space assets.First of all, let us count upon us why India should use it for military means. India is surrounded bytwo declared and symbiotic nuclear powers and a nascent nuclear power. There is a visible co-ordination in the field of missilestechnology among these countries. So India must build an effective missile defence system to counter any threat from these countries.A missile defence system without any military satellite network has no efficacy. Secondly, for reconnaissance of the ground-based andtroop movement of the enemy, for tapping communication, jamming the enemy network and destroying enemy satellites, India mustprepare for space applications. Thirdly, to monitor the launch of enemy ballistic missiles, thermal imaging satellites are a must.Fourthly, in modern network-centric system, all the three servicesarmy, navy, air-forceshould be integrated by linking all theradars and sensors to the satellite system for early warning and control system.

INERT IMPACT

18


19/73


Non U Space Mil

Indian military officials confirm that space militarization is certain for thecountry

Gavin Rabinowitz, Associated Press, 7/17/08, Indian army wants military space program,http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jImmb7wnVKkZLN4SCz6tj-huEEhAD91BUR780India said that it needs a military space program to defend its satellites from threats like China's newly revealed ability to shoot downtargets in orbit.The comments by India's army chief raise the possibility of a regional race that could accelerate the militarization ofspace and heighten tensions between the Asian giants, who have been enjoying their warmest ties in decades.India urgently needs to"optimize space applications for military purposes," Gen. Deepak Kapoor said Monday at a conference in New Delhi on using spacefor military purposes.He noted that "the Chinese space program is expanding at an exponentially rapid pace in both offensive anddefensive content." His remarks were first reported by The Indian Express newspaper and confirmed by the Defense Ministry'sspokesman on Tuesday.China destroyed one of its own defunct weather satellites with a ballistic missile in January, becoming the thirdcountry, after Russia and the U.S., to shoot down an object in orbit.In February the United States shot down a satellite that it saidposed a threat as it fell to Earth. Kapoor did not mention that, singling out China in a statement analysts said was designed to send aclear message to Beijing."In an unsubtle way this is related to China," said Ashok Mehta, a retired Indian army general and leadingstrategic analyst.Kapoor said that while militarization of space by India was at "a comparatively nascent stage," there was an urgent

need for a military space command for "persistent surveillance and rapid response."Army spokesman Lt. Col. Anil Kumar Mathursaid, "We are not talking about deploying weapons, but about self-defense." Neither man elaborated on their remarks.The Indianmilitary does not have its own dedicated spy satellites and uses civilian ones to gather imagery and other intelligence. India has anadvanced civilian space program and frequently launches both types of satellites for other countries, including an Israeli spy satellitein January.Other Indian generals speaking at the conference said a military space race was almost certain."With time we will getsucked into a military race to protect our space assets and inevitably there will be a military contest in space," the Indian Expressnewspaper quoted Lt. Gen. H.S. Lidder as saying."In a life-and-death scenario, space will provide the advantage," said Lidder, whoheads the military department that deals with space technology.

19


20/73


Non U Space Mil

The US already has military satellites in orbit, and China is fast investingenough money to become the next space superpower, yet scientists believe

this competition breeds good relationsMarc Kaufman, The Washington Post, 7-13-08, Space race goes global and the U.S. is lagging,http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/news/nation/story/80c5c31eaae902b3862574840013a0d8?OpenDocumentSpace, like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting and commercializing"the final frontier" is slipping away, many experts believe.Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields and owns half the military satellites orbiting Earth experts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other nations areexpanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace."We spent many tens of billions of dollars during theApollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth," said NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who saidhis agency's budget is down 20 percent in inflation-adjusted terms since 1992."We've been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40years and have not chosen to invest at a level that would preserve that commanding lead."In a recent in-depth study of internationalspace competitiveness, the technology consulting firm Futron of Bethesda, Md., found that the globalizing of space is unfolding morebroadly and quickly than most Americans realize. "Systemic and competitive forces threaten U.S. space leadership," companypresident Joseph Fuller Jr. concluded.Six separate nations and the European Space Agency are now capable of sending sophisticated

satellites and spacecraft into orbit and more are on the way. New rockets, satellites and spacecraft are being planned to carryChinese, Russian, European and Indian astronauts to the moon, to turn Israel into a center for launching minuscule "nanosatellites,"and to allow Japan and the Europeans to explore the solar system and beyond with unmanned probes as sophisticated asNASA's.While the United States has been making incremental progress in space, its global rivals have been taking the giant steps thatonce defined NASA: Following China's lead, India has announced ambitious plans for a manned space program, and in Novemberthe European Union will probably approve a proposal to collaborate on a manned space effort with Russia. Russia will soon launchrockets from a base in South America under an agreement with the European company Arianespace, whose main launch facility is inKourou, French Guiana. Japan and China both have satellites circling the moon, and India and Russia are working on lunar orbiters.NASA will launch a lunar reconnaissance mission this year, but many analysts believe the Chinese will be the first to return astronautsto the moon. The United States is largely out of the business of launching satellites for other nations, something the Russians,Indians, Chinese and Arianespace do regularly. Their clients include Nigeria, Singapore, Brazil, Israel and others. The 17-nationEuropean Space Agency and China are also cooperating on commercial ventures, including a rival to the U.S. space-based GlobalPositioning System. South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil have plans to quickly develop their space programs and possibly become low-

cost satellite laun

Documents

9 Generic Culpepper Alternative Energy Disads