Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeAsteroid Mining Affirmative Wave 1

[REM=rare-earth metals]

Asteroid Mining Affirmative Wave 1..............................................................................................1FYI- Types of asteroid mining.........................................................................................................3Asteroid Mining 1AC...................................................................................................................... 4***Inherency***............................................................................................................................ 13Inherency- Rare earth metal shortage.........................................................................................14***Advantages***.......................................................................................................................... 15Resource Wars- Conflicts coming.................................................................................................16Resource Wars- General...............................................................................................................17Resource Wars Impacts- Nuclear war..........................................................................................21Resource Wars Impacts- Energy wars..........................................................................................22Resource Wars Impacts- Disease.................................................................................................23Resource Wars- REM shortage causes wars................................................................................24China- Chinese rare-earth monopoly............................................................................................25China- US-China dispute now.......................................................................................................27China Impacts- US-China nuclear war.........................................................................................30China Impacts- Resource Wars....................................................................................................31China Impacts- Trade...................................................................................................................32China Impacts- Trade War............................................................................................................33China Impacts- US-Sino Relations................................................................................................35China Impacts- EU-China Dispute................................................................................................36China Impacts- AT: No China war................................................................................................37Military Superiority- Rare-earth key............................................................................................38Military Superiority- Chinese chokehold......................................................................................39Military Superiority- General Impacts..........................................................................................40Military Superiority- Proliferation................................................................................................42Military Superiority- Nuclear Primacy.........................................................................................43Military Superiority- Nuclear primacy solves war.......................................................................45Military Superiority- US-China War.............................................................................................46Military Superiority- Deterrence..................................................................................................47F-22- Rare-earth metals key.........................................................................................................48F-22- Key to military dominance..................................................................................................49***Solvency***.............................................................................................................................. 51Solvency- General......................................................................................................................... 52Solvency- Tech exists................................................................................................................... 55Solvency- Funding........................................................................................................................ 57Solvency- Feasible........................................................................................................................ 58Solvency- Technology and Robots................................................................................................60Solvency- Rare elements..............................................................................................................62Solvency- Clean tech.................................................................................................................... 63Solvency- Warming....................................................................................................................... 65Solvency- Environment.................................................................................................................66Solvency- Hegemony.................................................................................................................... 67***Add-Ons***............................................................................................................................... 70Warming and Middle East Add-On...............................................................................................71Terrorism Add-On......................................................................................................................... 72Environment Add-On.................................................................................................................... 73Economy Add-On.......................................................................................................................... 74Alternative Energy Add-On...........................................................................................................75Tech Innovation Add-On...............................................................................................................76

1

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeAsteroid Deflection Add-On..........................................................................................................77***Case Blocks***......................................................................................................................... 78AT: Plenty of REM on Earth.........................................................................................................79AT: US production solves.............................................................................................................80AT: Domestic mining solves..........................................................................................................81AT: Can’t land on the asteroid......................................................................................................82AT: Can’t detect asteroids............................................................................................................83***Topicality Answers***..............................................................................................................84Topicality- Exploration................................................................................................................. 85***Disadvantage Answers***........................................................................................................86Politics Answers- Plan popular.....................................................................................................87Politics Answers- Pentagon link turn............................................................................................88Economy DA Answers...................................................................................................................89Spending DA Answers.................................................................................................................. 90Spending DA Answers- Plan profitable.........................................................................................92Platinum DA Answers...................................................................................................................93Platinum DA Answers- Prices low.................................................................................................94Platinum DA Answers- AT: South African economy.....................................................................95Space Weaponization DA Answers...............................................................................................96Asteroid Collision DA Answers.....................................................................................................97***Counterplan Answers***..........................................................................................................98Recycling CP Answers.................................................................................................................. 99Private Actor CP......................................................................................................................... 100Mountain Pass Mine CP Answers...............................................................................................103Mine the Moon Answers.............................................................................................................104Seabed Mining CP Answers........................................................................................................105Colonize Mars CP Answers.........................................................................................................106International CP Answers...........................................................................................................107International Cooperation CP Answers......................................................................................108***Kritik Answers***................................................................................................................... 109General K Answers..................................................................................................................... 110

2

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeFYI- Types of asteroid mining

Orfano ’10 [Finn, engineer, “Asteroid Mining - Can it be Done?” http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/58284.aspx]

Strip mining and tunneling are two alternative mining techniques that can be employed in asteroid mining. Strip mining involves scraping minerals off the surface of an asteroid; this technique is best used in situations where the required ore is evenly distributed across a wide area. Tunneling, on the other hand, involves digging into a vein of mineral deposits. Irrespective of the mining technique being employed, special equipment will be needed to counter weightlessness. Mining personnel will require special grapples to anchor themselves to the ground. Since mined substances will tend to float off the asteroid’s surface a large canopy will be needed for catching all that flying debris.

3

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeAsteroid Mining 1AC

Contention 1 is Inherency:

Funding for asteroid mining is insufficientSpeigel 3-25-11 [Lee, staff writer for AOL News, “NASA Plans 2025 Manned Mission to Asteroid,” http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/25/nasa-plans-2025-manned-mission-to-asteroid/]

First, asteroid materials can provide scientists with clues about how the solar system was created and, in turn, help us learn how life started on Earth. Asteroids may also become valuable sources of metals, minerals, gases and even water that can be used as future resources. Sending robots vs. humans to an asteroid would certainly be less risky and expensive, but experts need to address the question of whether robots can perform all of the intricate tasks that astronauts would be better trained for. And, of course, as with any scientific and enormous technological endeavor,

there's the cost factor. "Despite national advisory council recommendations, congressional mandates and the newly recognized needs for both

exploration and planetary defense, there is no new funding and, thus, no administrator who wants to get stuck with the bill," said Richard Binzel, a planetary science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The issue is sorely in need of an adult sense of responsibility."

Plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase funding for asteroid mining technology and operations.

Advantage 1 is Resource Wars:

A global rare-earth shortage is imminent- the Chinese monopoly makes the market volatileConnexion Energy 6-8-11 [Connexion Energy Solutions are electrical and energy-based business service providers, “Rare Earth Metals: The Electrical Industry`s Newest `Issue`,” http://www.environmental-expert.com/news/rare-earth-metals-the-electrical-industry-s-newest-issue-242193] It seems that every year there’s a supply / demand issue our industry is faced with. Last year was the infamous ‘ballast shortage’ due to the world wide

electronic component shortage. This year we may be seeing a new issue rearing its ugly head; the shortage of 'rare earth' metals. Rare earth metals are a group of 17 elements that are used in a wide range of products we use every day, including iPhones, hard drives, hybrid cars and wind turbines. If you're a business person and currently not interested in hybrid cars or wind turbines - you might be interested in fluorescent lamps. A major manufacturer of compact fluorescent lamps has recently announced a 15 percent price increase due to the 'increase phosphors used in fluorescent lamps. This year the cost of phosphor has gone up nearly 900% and continues to rise'. These phosphors are a byproduct of our rare earth minerals. China has become a leading producer of rare earth metals - which leads us to today's situation, where China now produces an enormous 97 percent of the world's rare earth supply. As you may have guessed, having a single source for the world's need may lead to problems if something happened to that source. Well, that is exactly what is happening. What follows here is an article written by Joe Salimando addressing China's control of the rare earth market and its impact on our industry.

Empirically, even the perception of a rare-element shortage causes global freakoutParthemore ’11 [Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,” http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf]

The defense industrial base in the modern era differs greatly from any previous time. Often, actual scarcity is not required for problems to arise, as concerns about future scarcities often drive countries to

4

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativebehave as if shortages are occurring. The National Academies recently reported, “The risk of supply interruption arguably has increased or, at the very least, has become different from the more traditional threats associated with the more familiar ideas of war and conflict.” 14 During World War I and World War II, for example, governments counted on domestic steel production – and even civilian willingness to contribute scrap materials for reuse and recycling – for tanks and other equipment. In contrast, modern warfare relies on globalized and privatized supply chains rather than a primarily domestic (and often government-run) network.

Vulnerability to mineral supply disruptions is likewise far broader and more complicated than it was in previous eras. Policymakers should also consider minerals that play uniquely important roles in the American

economy. Rare earths, for example, are important in petroleum refining, which today enables the smooth functioning of the economy. Looking to the longer term, much concern is turning toward minerals that may see booming demand as the economy develops a greater reliance on energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, such as the lithium used in advanced batteries and hybrid and electric vehicles. These minerals will directly affect U.S. economic competitiveness, and plans for improving economic growth and job development. This vulnerability is not a new concern. Since the early 1900s, U.S. defense analysts and national policymakers have worried about U.S. vulnerabilities to supply disruptions of the minerals critical to manufacturing defense systems, from tanks and munitions to communications equipment. These concerns were generally heightened in wartime. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo and related oil crises of the 1970s further brought into question the assumption that the United States could depend on imports, as it became apparent that

broader global conditions and political decisions by other countries could dramatically hinder the U.S. ability to openly purchase sufficient commodities at affordable costs. This conclusion was reinforced when supply disruptions and threats of disruptions by apartheid-era South Africa, the hostile Soviet Union and its satellites led to a wave of congressional hearings, government reports and independent analysis of the conditions contributing to U.S. vulnerability.

Resource wars are the greatest threat of extinction- population growth patterns guarantee crisis escalationKolankiewicz ‘10 [Leon, environmental scientist and national natural resources planner, masters in environmental planning from U of British Columbia, worked with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Dept of Environmental Conservation, U Wash, U New Mexico; Policy Brief #10-1, "From Big to Bigger How Mass Immigration and Population Growth Have Exacerbated America's Ecological Footprint." Progressives for Immigration Reform, http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/2010/03/05/from-big-to-bigger-how-mass-immigration-and-population-growth-have-exacerbated-americas-ecological-footprint/]

As of early 2010, the United States has a rapidly growing population of 308 million.33 In the 1990s, U.S. population expanded by nearly 33 million, the largest single decade of growth in American history since the decennial national censuses began in 1790. The 1990s exceeded even the peak decade of

the Baby Boom, the 1950s by nearly five million (Figure 7). The 2001-2010 decade now drawing to a close will approach this record increment . Far from coasting to a stop or cessation in growth, U.S. population remains stubbornly and persistently high, and is literally growing with no end in sight. At current growth rates, every year more than three million net new residents are added to the U.S. population.34 The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2050, the population of the United States will have grown to 439 million. This is an increase of 131 million, or 43 percent, over our current population of 308 million. In 2050, if the Census Bureau’s current projections come to pass, the U.S. population would still be adding 3.45 million residents a year (more than today, though the annual growth rate will have declined

somewhat), and there would be 5.7 million births compared to 4.3 million annual births today.35 Yet it is misleading to imply that increased births would be the dominant force behind this massive population growth . That is because many of those births would not occur, or at least would not occur in the United States, were it not for the persistently high levels of net immigration that are assumed by the Census Bureau in these projections. In 2050, the Bureau’s projections assume “net international migration”

(immigration minus emigration) of 2.05 million, an increase from 1.34 million in 2010. This assumption reflects the Bureau’s professional judgment that domestic and international pressures to further increase already high immigration rates will only intensify. If the factors behind demographic change are divided between “net natural increase” (births minus deaths) and “net migration” (immigration minus emigration), then in 2050, 41 percent of the annual increment of 3.45 million would be attributable to net natural increase, and 59 percent would be due to net migration. However, even this

breakdown understates the decisive influence that the level of immigration has in determining America’s demographic future. The full impact of immigration on demographic trends only becomes apparent when the U.S.-born descendents of immigrants are accounted for because, after all, these U.S. births would not have occurred but for the prior acts of migration by eventual parents that made them

possible. When births to immigrants are accounted for, demographers at the Pew

5

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeResearch Center calculated recently that: If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82 percent of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants.36 [emphasis added] Figures 8-10 graphically illustrate the powerful role of immigration policy in shaping current and future U.S. demographic trends. Figure 8 shows U.S. population growth from 1790 to 1970; the steepening curve, one characterized by larger and larger increments over time is a shape characteristic of all phenomena experiencing exponential growth. If, however, the 1970 levels of demographic components (net immigration, fertility or birth rates, and mortality rates) had been maintained over the decades that followed, the growth trajectory would have appeared more like that of the curve in Figure 9, rather than the much steeper curve in Figure 8. At the time of the first celebration of Earth Day in 1970, young environmentalists who had just finished reading Paul Ehrlich’s best-selling 1968 book The Population Bomb and listening to one of Earth Day Founder Senator Gaylord Nelson’s moving speeches believed whole-heartedly in the cause and necessity of U.S. and global population stabilization. They endorsed the view of popular cartoonist Walt Kelly’s character Pogo that, “We have met the enemy and he is us” (a play on words of the famous line by Commodore Perry: “We have met the enemy, and they are ours”). In other words, the more of “us” there are, the more “enemies,” or at least environmental burdens Mother Earth faces. If this generation had been able to realize its vision of slowing and then stopping U.S. population growth and reining in the environmental degradation it caused, the trajectory might have looked something like that of the curve in Figure 9. Growth would have tapered off and America’s population would never have hit 300 million. Instead, because of the rapidly rising wave of immigration unleashed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Americans and their environment are facing the grim, and utterly unsustainable, future of ever-greater demographic pressures represented by Figure 10. What bearing do these “inconvenient truths” have on America’s Ecological Footprint? In a nutshell — everything. Current immigration levels are enlarging the already enormous U.S. Ecological Footprint and ecological deficit. With the U.S. population booming by more than 10 percent a decade, the only way to maintain — much less reduce the current, unacceptable size of our EF is to reduce our per capita consumption every decade by more than 10 percent — not just for one or five decades, but indefinitely, for as long as population growth continues. One doesn’t have to be a physicist or a political scientist to recognize that an achievement of this magnitude would be technically and politically unrealistic, if not impossible. America is already in ecological overshoot, and massive population growth driven by high immigration rates only serves to exacerbate the situation. Figure 11 shows current trends with respect to the Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity of the United States from 1961 through 2006.37 As is evident from the crossing lines in this graph, America’s EF first surpassed its biocapacity in the late 1960s, just prior to the first Earth Day. Since then the gap or ecological deficit has only continued to widen. While the addition of each new American does not necessarily increase our per capita or per person (as opposed to our aggregate) EF — only increased per capita resource consumption and CO2 generation does that, it does directly decrease our per capita biocapacity, and thus increases our ecological deficit.

Population growth does this in two ways. First, given a fixed biocapacity — that is, a land base that is demonstrably finite and

constant, with fixed maximum acreages of potential cropland, grazing land, forestland, and fishing grounds — it is a simple mathematical reality that adding more people who depend on this ecologically productive land base

reduces per capita biocapacity. Second, the more than three million new Americans added every year require space and area in which to live, work, play, shop, and attend school . As open space is converted into the “built-up land” category, some combination of forestland, cropland, and grazing land is inevitably developed. (In the 1950s, Orange County, California, home to Disneyland, was touted by developers as “Smog Free Orange County,” but by the 1990s, after four decades of relentless sprawl development to accommodate Southern California’s multiplying millions, it became known as “Orange Free Smog County”). In this way, our country’s biocapacity is steadily and inexorably diminished by a growing population. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS’s) National Resources Inventory (NRI) estimated that the United States lost 44 million acres of cropland, 12 million acres of pastureland, and 11 million acres of rangeland from 1982 to 1997, for a total loss to our agricultural land base of 67 million acres over this 15-year period.38 (One explanation of the much higher acreage of lost cropland than pastureland and rangeland was that a larger fraction of the cropland acreage was not “lost” per se, but deliberately “retired” from active production into the so-called Conservation Reserve Program or CRP, a program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency. These were lands of marginal quality and high erodibility, lands on which modern, intensive agriculture is unsustainable). All 49 states inventoried lost cropland. Overall cropland losses continued in the next NRI published in 2007.39 The impacts of the loss of this land extend beyond agriculture. The USDA has estimated that each person added to the U.S. population requires slightly more than one acre of land for urbanization and highways.40 Clearly, more land is required as more people are added to our population. A comparison of NRI acreage — 25 million acres of newly developed land over the 1982-1997 period and 67 million acres of agricultural land lost shows that development per se is not responsible for all or even half of agricultural land loss. Arable land is also subject to other natural and manmade phenomena such as soil erosion (from both water and wind), salinization, and waterlogging that can rob its fertility, degrade its productivity and eventually force its retirement or increase its dependency on ever greater quantities of costly inputs like (fossil-fuel derived) nitrogen fertilizers. Arguably, however, much of these losses are due to over-exploitation by intensive agricultural practices needed to constantly raise agricultural productivity (yield per acre) in order to provide ever more food for America’s and the world’s growing populations and meat-rich diets. Thus, the potent combination of relentless development and land degradation from soil erosion and other factors is reducing America’s productive agricultural land base even as the demands on that same land base from a growing population are increasing. If the rates of agricultural land loss that have prevailed in recent years were to continue to 2050, the nation will have lost 53 million of its remaining 377 million acres of cropland, or 14 percent, even as the U.S. population grows by 43 percent from 308 million to 440 million.41 Continuing on to 2100, the discrepancy between booming population numbers and declining cropland acreage widens even further (Figure 12). The Census Bureau’s “middle series” projection (made in the year 2000) is 571 million, more than a doubling of U.S. population in 2000.42 (The “highest serious” projection was 1.2 billion, and actual growth since these projections were made has been between the middle and highest series). If the same rate of cropland loss were to continue, the United States would lose approximately 106 million acres of its remaining 377 million acres of cropland, or nearly 30 percent. Cropland per capita, that is, the acreage of land to grow grains and other crops for each resident, would decline from 1.4 acres in 1997 to 0.47 acres in 2100, a 66 percent reduction. If this occurs, biotechnology will need to work miracles to raise yields per acre in order to maintain the sort of diet Americans have come to expect. These

ominous, divergent trends — an increasing population and declining arable land, have actually led some scientists to think the unthinkable: that one day America may no longer be able to feed itself, let alone boast a food surplus for export to the world. In the 1990s, Cornell University agricultural and food scientists David and Marcia Pimentel and Mario Giampietro of the Istituto Nazionale della Nutrizione in Rome, Italy, argued that by approximately 2025, the United States would most likely cease to be a food exporter, and that food grown in this country would be needed for domestic consumption. These findings suggest that by 2050, the amount of arable land per capita may have dropped to the point that, “the diet of the average American will, of necessity, include more grains, legumes, tubers, fruits and vegetables, and significantly less animal products.”43 While this might, in fact, constitute a healthier diet both for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and for many calorically and cholesterol-challenged Americans, it would also represent a significant loss of dietary choice. As nations get wealthier, they tend to “move up the food chain” in the phrase of the Earth Policy Institute’s Lester Brown, that is they consume higher trophic level, more ecologically demanding and damaging meat and dairy products, but were these predictions to hold true, Americans, for better or worse, would be moving in the opposite direction. From 2005 to 2006, the U.S. per capita ecological deficit widened from 10.9 to 11.3 acres, continuing the long-term trend depicted in Figure 11. Assuming the Census Bureau’s official population projections for 2050 actually do happen, the U.S. population would be 43 percent larger than at present. Even if there were no further increase in the U.S. per capita EF, which is, as can be seen from the 45-year trend in Figure 11, a rather generous assumption, a 43 percent increase in the U.S. population would correspond to a further 43 percent reduction in biocapacity per capita, even without the types of continuing land and resource degradation just discussed above for cropland. The 2006 U.S. biocapacity was 10.9 global acres (ga) per capita. By 2050, if current U.S. demographic trends and projections hold, this will have been reduced to 6.2 ga per capita. If the per capita American EF of consumption were to remain at the 2006 value of 22.3 ga, the ecological deficit in 2050

would increase to 16.1 ga per capita. In essence, if we American “Bigfeet” do not opt for a different demographic path than the one we are treading now, Ecological Footprint analysis indicates unequivocally that we will continue plodding ever deeper into the forbidden zone of Ecological Overshoot, trampling our prospects for a sustainable future.

Incidentally, we would also be trampling the survival prospects for many hundreds of endangered

species with which we share our country. These birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, butterflies, mussels, and other taxa are menaced with extinction by our

aggressive exploitation of nearly every ecological niche, nook, and cranny. In nature, no organism in overshoot remains there for long. Sooner or later, ecosystem and/or population collapse ensues. Are we humans, because of our unique scientific acumen, immune from the laws of nature that dictate the implacable terms of existence to all other species on the planet? Our political, economic, and cultural elites seem to think so, and en masse, we certainly act so. Yet ironically,

many scientists themselves believe otherwise: that all-too-human hubris, unless checked by collective wisdom and self-restraint, will prove to be our undoing, and that civilization as we know it may unravel.44

6

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeEven the signal of the plan solves resource conflict- the plan builds the foundation for lasting peaceCollins and Autino ‘10 [Patrick Collins, expert in the economics of energy supply from space and Adriano Autino, Professor of Life & Environmental Science at Azabu University and Systems Engineer at Andromeda Inc., Italy, “What the growth of a space tourism industry could contribute to employment, economic growth, environmental protection, education, culture and world peace,” Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 1553–1562]

WORLD PEACE AND PRESERVATION OF HUMAN CIVILISATION The major source of social friction, including international friction, has surely always been unequal access to resources. People fight to control the valuable resources on and under the land, and in and under the sea. The natural resources of Earth are limited in quantity, and economically accessible resources even more so. As the population grows, and demand grows for a higher material standard of living, industrial activity grows exponentially. The threat of resources becoming scarce has led to the concept of "Resource Wars". Having begun long ago with wars to control the gold and diamonds of Africa

and South America, and oil in the Middle East, the current phase is at centre stage of world events today [27]. A particular danger of "resource wars" is that, if the general public can be persuaded to support them, they may become impossible to stop as resources become increasingly scarce. Many commentators have noted the similarity of the language of US and UK government advocates of "war on terror" to the language of the novel "1984" which describes a dystopian future of endless, fraudulent war in which citizens are reduced to slaves. Expansion into near-Earth Space is the Only Alternative to Endless "Resource

Wars" As an alternative to the "resource wars" already devastating many countries today, opening access to the unlimited resources of near-Earth space could clearly facilitate world peace and security. This is acknowledged by the U.S. National Space Security Office, which started its 2007 report on the potential of space-based solar power: "Expanding human populations and declining natural resources are potential sources of local and strategic conflict in the 21st Century, and many see energy as the foremost threat to national security" [28]. It ended the report: "Considering the timescales that are involved, and the exponential growth of population and resource pressures within that same strategic period, it is imperative that this work for "drilling up" vs. drilling down for energy security begins immediately" [28]. Although the use of extra-terrestrial resources on a substantial scale

may still be some decades away, it is important to recognise that simply acknowledging its feasibility using known technology is the surest way of ending the threat of resource wars. That is, if it is assumed that the resources available for human use are limited to those on Earth, then it can be argued that resource wars are

inescapable [15, 27]. If, by contrast, it is assumed that the resources of space are economically accessible, this not only eliminates the need for resource wars, it can also preserve the benefits of civilisation which are being eroded today by "resource war-mongers", most notably the governments of the "Anglo-Saxon" countries and their "neo-con" advisers. It is also worth noting that the $1 trillion that these have already committed to the Iraq war is far more than the investment needed to access space resources. Industrial and financial groups which profit from monopolistic control of terrestrial supplies of various natural resources, like those which profit from wars, have an economic interest in protecting their profitable situation. However, these groups' continuing profits are justified neither by capitalism nor by democracy: they could be preserved only by maintaining the pretence that use of space resources is not feasible, and by preventing

the development of low-cost space travel. Once the feasibility of low-cost space travel is understood, "resource wars" are clearly idiotic as well as tragic. A visiting extra-terrestrial would be pityingly amused at the foolish antics of homo sapiens using long-range rockets to fight each other over dwindling terrestrial resources - rather than using the same rockets to travel in space and have all the resources they need!

China will cut off tons of rare earth exports by 2012- this independently threatens extinctionAdams ‘10 [Mike Adams, Editor of NaturalNews, January 26, 2010, “Global supply of rare earth elements could be wiped out by 2012,” online: http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_rare_earth_elements_mining.html]

It's the bubble you've probably never heard of: The rare earth bubble. And it's due to pop in 2012, potentially devastating the industries of western nations that depend on these rare elements. What

industries are those? The automobile industry uses tens of thousands of tons of rare earth elements each year, and advanced military technology depends on these elements, too. Lots of "green" technologies depend on them, including wind turbines, low-energy light bulbs and hybrid car batteries. In fact, much of western civilization depends on rare earth elements such as terbium, lanthanum and neodymium. So what's the

problem with these rare elements? 97 percent of the world's supply comes from mines in China, and China is prepared to simply stop exporting these strategic elements to the rest of the world by 2012. If that

7

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativehappens, the western world will be crippled by the collapse of available rare earth elements. Manufacturing of everything from computers and electronics to farm machinery will grind to a halt. Electronics will disappear from the shelves and prices for manufactured goods that depend on these rare elements will skyrocket. These 17 rare

earth elements (REE) -- all of which are metals -- are strategic resources upon which entire nations are built. In many ways, they are similar to rubber -- a resource so valuable and important to the world that many experts call it the "fourth most important natural resource in the world," right after water, steel and oil. Without rubber, you couldn't drive your car to work or water your lawn.

Many medical technologies would cease to work and virtually all commercial construction would grind to a halt. Many of the strategic battles fought in World War II were fought, in fact, over control of rubber, most of which now comes through Singapore and its surrounding regions (Malaysia and Indonesia). Global shortage of Rare Earth Elements

coming... Now, by threatening to cut off the world's supply of rare earth elements, China appears to be attempting to monopolize this extremely important strategic resource. According to information received by The Independent, by 2012 China may cease all exports of rare earth elements, reserving them for its own

economic expansion. An article in that paper quotes REE expert Jack Lifton as saying, "A real crunch is coming. In America, Britain and elsewhere we have not yet woken up to the fact that there is an urgent need to secure the supply of rare earths from sources outside China." And yet virtually no one has heard of this problem! People are familiar with peak oil, global warming, ocean acidification, the national debt and the depletion of fossil water, but

very few are aware of the looming crisis in rare metals... upon which much of western civilization rests.

Chinese REM dominance causes a trade war with the USBloomberg News ’10 [Pentagon Loses Control of Bombs to China Metal Monopoly By Peter Robison and Gopal Ratnam - Sep 29, 2010 3:49 PM PT. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-29/pentagon-losing-control-of-afghanistan-bombs-to-china-s-neodymium-monopoly.html]

“The Pentagon has been incredibly negligent,” said Peter Leitner, who was a senior strategic trade adviser at the Defense Department from 1986 to 2007. “There are plenty of early warning signs that China will use its leverage over these materials as a weapon.” China may already be flexing its muscles amid a diplomatic spat with its East Asian neighbor Japan. China last week imposed a “de facto” ban on exports to Japan of the metals used in liquid crystal displays and laptop computers, Japanese Economy Minister Banri Kaieda said Sept. 28. That followed Japan’s detention of a Chinese fishing boat captain whose ship collided with two Japanese Coast Guard vessels. Japan later released the man. No such ban exists, China’s Ministry of Commerce spokesman Chen Rongkai said. New Factor “What it does, clearly, is bring a new factor into the consideration of supply of critical materials,” said Dudley Kingsnorth, director of Industrial Minerals Co.

of Australia, a forecaster in Perth. The U.S. Congress’s investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, in April warned of “vulnerabilities” for the military because of the lack of domestic rare-earth supplies. The House of Representatives Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing in October, the same month a Pentagon report on how to secure future supplies of the metals is due. “The department has long recognized that rare-earth elements are important raw material inputs for many defense systems and that many companies in our base have expressed concern regarding the future availability of the refined products of these elements,” Brett Lambert, director of the Pentagon’s Office of Industrial Policy, said. While two rare-earth projects are scheduled to ramp up production by the end of 2012 -- one owned by Molycorp Inc. in California and another by Lynas Corp. in Australia -- the GAO says it may take 15 years to rebuild a U.S. manufacturing supply chain. China makes virtually all the metals refined from rare earths, the agency says. The elements are also needed for hybrid-electric cars and wind turbines, one reason supply may fall short of demand in 2014 even with the new mines, according to Kingsnorth of Imcoa. Doggy Day Care Just how far U.S. manufacturing has waned is apparent at a factory in Valparaiso, Indiana, where dogs skitter across a bare concrete shop floor, their nails clicking. This brick plant on Elm Street once made 80 percent of the rare-earth magnets in laser-guided U.S. smart bombs, according to U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana. In 2003, the plant’s owner shifted work to China, costing 230 jobs. Now the plant houses Coco’s Canine Cabana, a doggy day care the current tenants started to supplement sagging income from their machine shop. On most days dogs outnumber the 15 metalworkers, said Kathy DeFries, co-owner of Excel Machine Technologies Inc. “When things got slow for manufacturing, we had this big empty shop floor,” said DeFries, nuzzling a floppy-eared puppy. “It’s a great stress reliever.” Expensive to Mine The rare earths are chemically similar elements, with names such as yttrium and dysprosium. China has the largest share of worldwide reserves, about 36 percent, and the U.S. is second, with 13 percent, the U.S. Geological Survey says. While the elements aren’t rare, they’re less frequently found in profitable concentrations, expensive for Western producers to extract and often laced with radioactive elements. China produced 120,000 tons, or 97 percent, of the world’s 124,000-ton supply last year, according to the GAO. Half of that came from Baotou, said Kingsnorth. The raw elements have many applications. Neodymium is used by Chinese companies including magnet makers, who sell to U.S. suppliers of defense contractors. Export Quotas Export quotas and taxes for overseas buyers that the GAO says can reach 25 percent are pushing up prices of elements even in relatively large supply. For example, the cost of a kilogram of samarium powder, needed for the navigation system of

General Dynamics’ M1A2 Abrams tank, jumped to $34 in early September, from $4.50 in June, according to U.K. researcher Metal Pages Ltd. The U.S. and the European Union consider Chinese restrictions on a range of raw goods part of a strategy to draw in higher-paying manufacturing jobs by making them cheaper to buy inside China. The export taxes violate World Trade Organization rules because China pledged to limit them to 84 product categories when it joined the trade group in 2001, said Terence Stewart, managing partner of Washington law firm Stewart & Stewart. In 2010, China had taxes on 329, he said. The U.S. and the EU filed a WTO complaint over raw materials including bauxite and coke last year. China’s commerce minister, Chen Deming, said Aug. 28 that the policies comply with WTO rules. Some manufacturers in China are lobbying the ministry to back off the latest quotas because a dispute will disrupt the market, said Constantine

Karayannopoulos, chief executive officer of Toronto-based Neo Material Technologies Inc., which has rare-earth production facilities in China. Risk of Trade War “It was very sudden and didn’t give the industry any time to adjust,” he said. “This quota

8

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativeaction could risk a trade war . ” For Western companies, China’s policies are creating the real “unobtanium,” the fictional mineral fought over in James Cameron’s 2009 film “Avatar.” It’s taking as long as 10 weeks to get neodymium magnets, double the previous wait time, said Joe

Schrantz, group supply chain manager at Moog Inc. in East Aurora, New York. He said the company buys hundreds of thousands of magnets a year to make motors for cars, trucks and weapons including Raytheon’s AMRAAM -- or Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile -- and Boeing’s Joint Direct Attack Munition, a tail fin kit for making precision-guided “smart” bombs out of ordinary weapons.

US-China war causes extinctionStrait Times, 2000, 6/25/2000, l/n

THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests,

then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war . Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent,

Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as

opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe’s political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future 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 latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for 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 by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory 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 . There would be no victors in such a war . While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.

REM shortage risks a war between China and JapanLeeb ’10 [Dr. Stephen, recognized authority on the stock market, macroeconomic trends and commodities, especially oil and precious metals, founder of the Leeb Group, which publishes a line of financial newsletters, Head of the Advisory Board of Leor Exploration & Production LLC, “The First Volley in the Resource War,” Sept. 28, http://seekingalpha.com/article/227412-the-first-volley-in-the-resource-war] Most of the world's concentrated rare earth deposits being mined today are located in China. Rare earth mines in North America and other places have either never been developed or have been shut down because they could not compete with China's lower production costs. As you can imagine, Japanese high-tech industries require rare earth elements as raw materials. It's very difficult to produce electronics, especially those involving magnets or batteries – such as the Toyota Prius hybrid car –without them. With China supplying 97% of the world's rare earth elements, Japan cannot

afford to lose trade relations with China. So it's no surprise that, following the threat of an embargo, Japan released the fishing boat captain. We think the incident is the first skirmish in what may be a protracted period of mercantilist activities – if not an all-out war for resources. The reason Japan and China both insist asserting sovereignty over the particular stretch of the East China Sea is that the area is rich in undersea natural gas deposits – another vital resource. Of course these days, demand for virtually every natural resource used by industrial societies is close to exceeding what's available. Even iron ore supplies are being stretched thin by the massive construction efforts taking place in the developing world, and especially China. Of course, just mining and processing iron into steel requires large amounts of energy and other resources, which are consequently suffering from supply constraints as well. The squeeze is even greater for copper, which is

9

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativeless plentiful than iron but just as essential for construction and energy transmission. In order to secure the resources they need in coming years, nations around the world are likely to undergo a New Age of Mercantilism in which they try to hoard their natural resources so they can continue to produce more valuable exports. (And this is where investors who have secured a stake in resources will reap handsome rewards.)

That goes nuclearLim ‘05 [Robyn Lim, 1/6/2005. Professor of International Relations at Nanzan University in Japan. “Geostrategic Trends in Asia,” http://www.icasinc.org/2005/2005l/2005lrxl.html]

For example, the hubris on display in Beijing may lead Russia and Japan to sink their differences in order to align against a "rising" China that threatens them both. It would not be

the first time Russia and Japan have resolved their differences, the precedent having been set in the period from 1907 to 1916. Indeed, recent visits by senior Japanese army officers to the Russian Far East would have any old geopolitiker sniffing the breeze. As noted, the history of Whales 3: Elephants 0 stands as a warning of the difficulties that China faces in managing its "peaceful" rise. It is all starting to look redolent of what happened in Germany early last century when an arrogant and foolish young Kaiser sacked that great helmsman Bismarck. Wanting too much too soon, the Kaiser soon provoked

the formation of the very coalition of the flanking powers (France and Russia) that Bismarck had laboured so hard to prevent. That soon led into a disastrous war. Currently, those advising Deng's successors are said to be studying this history. But are they learning the right lessons? If not, it will be a familiar story of greed, hubris and miscalculation leading to war. And this time with nuclear weapons as part of the equation.

Advantage 2 is Military Superiority:

US military dominance hinges on stable supplies of rare-earth elements- we’re on the brink of losing our edgeHsu 4-14-11 [Jeremy, Innovation News Daily senior writer, “U.S. Military Supply of Rare Earth Elements Not Secure,” http://www.technewsdaily.com/us-military-supply-of-rare-earth-elements-not-secure-0430/]

U.S. military technologies such as guided bombs and night vision rely heavily upon rare earth elements supplied by China, and rebuilding an independent U.S. supply chain to wean the country off that foreign dependency could take up to 15 years, according to a new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Both "light" and "heavy" rare earth elements represent a family of minerals found in commercial products ranging from TV displays to cell phones, as well as green technologies such as hybrid electric motors and wind turbines. For example, the rare earth element neodymium is very magnetic and is used in everything from computer hard drives to wind turbines and Toyota's Prius hybrid car. The GAO report – a draft of which was obtained by TechNewsDaily – was meant to look at national security risks that could arise from

dependency upon rare earth elements. "Defense systems will likely continue to depend on rare earth materials, based on their life cycles and lack of effective substitutes," the GAO reported. New rare earth mines in the U.S., Australia, Canada and South Africa won't start up until at least 2014, based on industry estimates. The GAO report listed rare earth deposits in states that include

California, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Missouri and Utah. But looking beyond the GAO report reveals that many U.S. deposits lack the "heavy" rare earth elements critical for much of today's technological innovations. Another cause for concern: Chinese corporations have also begun investing in mining companies that hold certain U.S. deposits. The U.S. once supplied most of the global supply of rare earth elements, and also manufactured rare earth products such as the neodymium magnets. But rare earth processing has largely shifted to China since the 1990s. Even if the U.S. resumes mining its rare earth deposits and begins converting rare earth ore into oxides, it lacks the facilities for converting rare earth oxides into refined metals. China has set quotas limiting rare earth exports and added on export taxes, despite supplying as much as 97 percent of the world's rare earth oxides. It even warned in an official plan for 2009-2015 that its own industrial demand might force it to stop exporting entirely.

Military dominance is critical to prevent rival lashout and global warSpencer ’00 [Jack, Research Fellow at Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, “The Facts About Military Readiness”, Heritage Foundation, September 15th,

10

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativehttp://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2000/09/BG1394-The-Facts-About-Military-Readiness]

America's national security requirements dictate that the armed forces must be prepared to defeat groups of adversaries in a given war. America, as the sole remaining superpower, has many enemies. Because attacking America or its interests alone would surely end in defeat for a single nation, these enemies are likely to form alliances. Therefore, basing readiness on American military superiority over any single nation has little saliency. The evidence indicates that the U.S. armed forces are not ready to support America's national security requirements. Moreover, regarding the broader capability to defeat groups of enemies, military readiness has been declining. The National Security Strategy, the U.S. official statement of national security objectives,3 concludes that the United States "must have the capability to deter and, if deterrence fails, defeat large-scale, cross-border aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time frames."4 According to some of the military's highest-ranking officials, however, the United States cannot achieve this goal. Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Jones, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson, and Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan have all expressed serious concerns about their respective services' ability to carry out a two major theater war strategy.5 Recently retired Generals Anthony Zinni of the U.S. Marine

Corps and George Joulwan of the U.S. Army have even questioned America's ability to conduct one major theater war the size of the 1991 Gulf War.6 Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially

hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace.

Multiple global threats make military readiness crucial- otherwise terrorism, proliferation and economic turmoil are inevitable Morrissey ’10 [Michael, Lieutenant Colonel, Commander of 5th Battalion, 5th Air Defense Artillery, “Restoring balance through reintegration”, Fires, January 1st, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Restoring+balance+through+reintegration.-a0222548266]

The current war is the longest the U.S. has conducted with an all-volunteer force. Conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan continue as the president recently announced the decision

to send an additional 34,000 troops to Afghanistan. Beyond Iraq, Afghanistan, well-known threats from global terrorism, China and North Korea, there are also insidious dangers to the U.S. that threaten to destabilize the security of national interests in ways that would require substantial U.S. military involvement beyond the current commitment. They include unconventional threats; political extremism, toxic anti-American populism, nuclear proliferation and expanding political and economic vulnerability.

Terrorism causes extinctionSid-Ahmed ‘04 [Mohamad, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm, 26 August - 1 September 2004]

What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds . This could lead to a third world war , from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Proliferation causes global nuclear warKissinger ‘09 [Henry, Our Nuclear Nightmare: As nations like Iran and North Korea seek to develop atomic weapons, the chances of a calamity are rising dramatically. Here's how to lower them. NEWSWEEK, Feb 7, 2009 http://www.newsweek.com/id/183673/page/1

But the end of the Cold War produced a paradoxical result. The threat of nuclear war between the superpowers has essentially disappeared. But the spread of technology—especially the technology to produce peaceful

11

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativenuclear energy—has vastly increased the feasibility of acquiring a nuclear-weapons capability. The sharpening of ideological dividing lines and the persistence of unresolved regional conflicts have magnified the incentives to acquire nuclear weapons, especially by rogue states or non-state actors. The calculations of mutual insecurity that produced restraint during the Cold War do not apply with anything like the same degree to the new entrants in the nuclear field, and even less so to the non-state actors. Proliferation of nuclear weapons has become an overarching strategic problem for the contemporary world. Any further spread of nuclear weapons multiplies the possibilities of nuclear confrontation; it magnifies the danger of diversion, deliberate or unauthorized. And if the development of weapons of mass destruction spreads into Iran and continues in North Korea—in the face of all ongoing negotiations—the incentives for other countries to follow the same path could become overwhelming. How will publics react if they suffer or even observe casualties in the tens of thousands from a nuclear attack? Will they not ask two questions: What could we have done to prevent this? What shall we do now so that it can never happen again?

Decline of US primacy causes multiple nuclear warsZalmay Khalilzad, 2011 (former US ambassador to the United Nations, National Review, “The Economy and National Security.” February 8, 2011. Online. Accessed May 4, 2011 at http://www.nationalreview.com /articles/259024/economy-and- national-security-zalmay-khalilzad?page=1)

We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is

not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars.

Contention 3 is Solvency:

Increased funding for asteroid mining solves rare element shortages and technological barriersForgan and Elvis 3-29-11 [Duncan H. Forgan and Martin Elvis, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh & Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “Extrasolar Asteroid Mining as Forensic Evidence for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.5369v1.pdf]

Planets have finite natural resources. This truism has become painfully apparent to mankind in recent decades, through examples such as shrinking biodiversity and the increasing challenges facing engineers and geoscientists attempting to extract fossil fuels from the Earth. All life acts as consumers at some level, but the level of consumption is typically regulated through population control and other pressures introduced by the ecosystem . Advances in technology have allowed humans to circumvent these controls,

with the effect that humans have vastly increased their population, placing strains on local resources. There has also been a continued increase per capita in consumption of precious metals for technologies such as computers, mobile phones and the infrastructures which enable them to function. The proposed green technologies of the future, such as hydrogen fuel cells and CO2 scrubbers, will only enhance this need for already rare resources (Elshkaki & Van Der Voet,

2006; Schuiling & Krijgsman, 2006). Such resources can be found in the asteroids. Meteoritic analysis (Kargel, 1994), suggests that large quantities of gold, platinum and other precious metals exist in the asteroids of the Solar System, as well as large amounts of other elements such as iron, nickel,

magnesium and silicon. He concludes that successful operations at modest mining rates could increase the total production rate of some materials by a factor of 10. By applying simple empirical models (where market value

scales as the square root of production rate), approximate threefold decreases in price can also be expected, over timescales of a few decades. Indeed, if the supply of precious metals such as platinum is to continue to meet technological demands,

12

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativeasteroid mining may become essential within the coming century (Elshkaki & Van Der Voet, 2006). Besides these industrially driven arguments, SETI scientists are driven by the possibility of detecting extraterrestrial intelligence by evidence of their activities in the Outer Solar System and the asteroids (Papagiannis, 1978, 1995). Developing asteroid mining technology for commercial reasons will

certainly assist the implementation of studies of this nature. Humans have not begun asteroid mining primarily for reasons of political economy. While the resources still exist in affordable quantities on Earth, governments lack a good short-term economic case to attempt dangerous missions at high cost to bring back what would initially be modest quantities of raw materials. As

Hickman (1999) observes, asteroid miners should not expect immediate investment from private investors either. While the potential return from successful, properly matured asteroid mining missions is very large, the level of capital required up front for any large-scale space project is also very large - Schmitt (1997) optimistically estimates a sum of around $15bn for general commercial space enterprise (assuming fusion technologies based on lunar 3 He become profitable, and not considering the problems presented by the current financial landscape). Further to this, the maturation time period (before profits can be generated) is too long, i.e. greater than 5 years. Other large-scale space projects (such as Martian colonisation) are equally unappealing for investors looking for returns on their investments within a decade - Hickman (1999) gives a simplified example which shows that if Mars can be terraformed in less than a thousand years, even a modest rate of interest on an initial loan requires Martian real estate to be extremely expensive. While there might not be a good short-term economic case for governments to fund TAM missions, there are

long-term economic and political motivations (see Gerlach 2005 for a thorough review). If the initial high capital barrier can be overcome, and profits can be generated, then manufacturing future technologies will become much cheaper as the precious metals become less precious. The expertise gained by designing and undertaking TAM missions can then be brought to bear on other challenges in space exploration. Given the hazards involved in TAM for atmosphere-breathing species, it is reasonable to assume that much of the process will become automated and autonomous, ushering in a new era of robotics with advanced decision-making and goal-seeking software (which has obvious implications for post-biological evolution). With a large surplus of raw materials and a skilled robotic workforce, large, permanent space habitats can be constructed, for example in geostationary orbit. This may allow the construction of the long-considered “space elevator” (cf Aravind 2007), greatly reducing the cost of space-travel in general. With much cheaper space exploration, the financial risks are reduced for other large-scale space projects, facilitating capital investment and Man’s continued development into a space-faring species.

New federal legislation is key to demonstrate resolve and build cooperation- the plan independently gets asteroid mining on trackInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

The first activity is an investigation into the current legal framework to identify the challenges that apply to asteroid mining. Gaining wide acceptance for legitimate asteroid mining using current space law would be the easiest, most desirable goal. This activity will conclude with the identification of key areas that require new legislation to allow asteroid mining activities. For example, the current legal framework sufficiently covers registration of an asteroid placed into Low Earth Orbit and liability concerns. Conversely,

appropriation will be problematic without new legislation clarifying the way ahead.

Following this investigation, the development of new legislation is required. This legislation shall be in place before a private entity invests significantly in an asteroid mining mission. Given the expected complexity of drafting new legislation and the number of state stakeholders, this process could take many years. While other preparatory activities towards a successful asteroid mining mission can occur concurrently,

financing may not be forthcoming from a commercial entity based on hopes that new legislation will exist at a future date. Another alternative is that a private entity chooses to conduct asteroid mining prior to completion of

the legislative framework. In this instance, the private entity must accept greater risks in the venture to avoid delaying asteroid mining activities. The new legislation will clarify existing space law to allow asteroid mining activities for the benefit of humankind. Specifically, the new legislation will cover the elements of jurisdiction, appropriation, liability, and distribution. A description of these elements follows. In addition, this section makes recommendation for a starting point aimed at minimizing development time of legislation.

Earth-based US mining operations won’t solve the crisis- permit disputes will hinder domestic operationsMontgomery 6-27-11 [Michael, contributor for Resource Investing News, “The Rare Earth Debate Continues in Congress,” http://resourceinvestingnews.com/18381-the-rare-earth-debate-continues-in-congress.html] The policy directives of the bills call upon the government to assess critical metal resources in the United States, while forecasting supply chain trends. Senator Murkowski’s bill, ‘S.1113: Critical Mineral Policy Act of 2011,’ requires that the government “identifies and quantifies known critical mineral resources, using all available public and private information… provides a

13

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativequantitative and qualitative assessment of undiscovered critical mineral resources throughout the United States.” The main obstacle to mining firms in the US is a long and complex permitting process that often takes ten years to accomplish. The ability of the mining companies to react to shifts in the commodity cycle and demands from new technology is hampered by the permitting process. Murkowski’s bill addresses the need to change permitting regulations, ”to encourage Federal agencies to facilitate the availability, development, and environmentally responsible production of domestic resources to meet national critical minerals needs; to minimize duplication, needless paperwork, and delays in the administration of applicable laws (including regulations) and

the issuance of permits.” The permitting process often puts US mining projects at a serious disadvantage. “If commodity cycles are historically 20 years in duration, the 10 years it takes to obtain permits leaves U.S. mining still in the starting blocks with the race half way over,” stated Hal Quinn, CEO of the National Mining Association.

14

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmative***Inherency***

15

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeInherency- Rare earth metal shortage

Our timeframe is short- the next few years are key to stabilize rare earth metal demandsGlobe Metals and Mining 6-1-11 [Mining resource company, “Rare Earth Market and Price Update,” http://www.globemetalsandmining.com.au/uploads/files/exchange_releases/2011/REE%20Price%20an%20Market%20Update%20-%20June%202011.pdf] Demand for rare earths is expected to grow by 60% between 2011 and 2015, driven by increasing demand in applications such as hybrid cars, consumer electronics and wind turbines (Ernst & Young, May 2011). The key rare earths that there are likely to be a shortfall of are dysprosium, terbium and europium

(HREOs) and neodymium and praseodymium (LREOs). It is forecast also that China itself is likely to encounter supply deficits in some REOs in the period up to 2015, and may also seek to secure additional sources of raw material supply.

Prices of REEs are rising severely due to international shortages and Chinese restrictions of the marketJha 6/21 (Dilip Kumar Jha. Business Standard. “Rare earth prices surge on supply concerns” http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/rare-earth-prices-surgesupply-concerns/439831/, 21 June 2011, JGR)

Prices of heavy rare earth elements (REE) used in products like energy-saving light bulbs, plasma TVs, and smart phones, have more than doubled in the last two weeks following fears of supply restrictions by China, the world’s largest producer of rare earths. Data collated

by the Canada-based industry publication Industrial Mineral showed the price of europium oxide has risen a staggering 142 per cent during the last fortnight from $1,260-$1,300 a kg to $3,400 a kg. The sudden spurt in price of europium oxide is likely to affect manufacturers of these consumer

durables. Another rare earth element, dysprosium oxide, used in magnets, lasers and nuclear reactors, has also risen from $700-$740

a kg to $1,470 a kg — up by almost 100 per cent. REE prices have been rising steadily since last year, but the sudden rate rise in the last few weeks is

attracting widespread attention. Analysts attribute the price rise to the China’s policy to bring the country’s mining assets under government control. Trade sources say China, which supplies 95 per cent of 17 key rare earth elements, has clamped on mining and cut export quotas, boosting prices and sparking concerns among overseas users like Japan. Industry sources fear that the government may further reduce export quotas that would result in higher prices. For the Indian consumer, the price of end products is likely to increase significantly in the coming days. Since, the impact on these segments is yet to be assessed, the quantum of price rise may be evaluated later, said an analyst. Heavy rare earths are largely mined in the southern Chinese province of Jiangxi where the local government has tightened environmental norms and indicated a crackdown on historically widespread illegal mining. As a consequence, supply of these raw materials is likely to be hampered in the coming months. In February, China’s land ministry prohibited non-government entities from exploring or mining for rare earths in an area covering 11 mining zones near the southern city of Ganzhou in Jiangxi province. Such restrictions may apply to other mining areas and the ministry may identify parts of these regions as its strategic reserves. China

produced 118,900 tonnes of rare-earths last year, over 30 per cent higher than its planned quota. REE supply outside China, coupled with a forecast of a 48 per cent increase in world REE demand to 185,000 tons in 2015 and shortages of dysprosium and neodymium , have contributed to the rapid price increases. REE production and consumption have been around for the last few decades, but

there are two primary factors that have changed the supply-demand dynamic of the mineral market sector over the last few years. Demand for REE is increasing in applications that are less esoteric than 20 years ago. And China, which is the world’s main

commercially developed REE source of supply, is reducing exports and increasing its consumption of REE, Industrial Minerals Editor Mike O’Driscoll said in an email response.

China is potentially going to stop exporting REEs by 2012Mike Adams, 1/26/10, (“Global supply of rare earth elements could be wiped out by 2012”, http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_rare_earth_elements_mining.html) It's the bubble you've probably never heard of: The rare earth bubble. And it's due to pop in 2012, potentially devastating the industries of western nations that depend on these rare elements. What industries are those? The automobile industry uses tens of thousands of tons of rare earth elements each year, and advanced military technology depends on these elements, too. Lots of "green" technologies depend on them, including wind turbines, low-energy light bulbs and hybrid car batteries. In fact, much of western civilization depends on rare earth elements such as terbium, lanthanum and neodymium. So what's the problem with these rare elements? 97 percent of the world's supply comes from mines in China, and China is prepared to simply stop exporting these strategic elements to the rest of the world by 2012. If that happens, the western world will be crippled by the collapse of available rare earth elements. Manufacturing of everything from computers and electronics to

16

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativefarm machinery will grind to a halt. Electronics will disappear from the shelves and prices for manufactured goods that depend on these rare elements will skyrocket.

17

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmative***Advantages***

18

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeResource Wars- Conflicts coming

Resource wars are looming in the status quo- space travel is the only way to solveCollins and Autino ‘10 [Patrick Collins, expert in the economics of energy supply from space and Adriano Autino, Professor of Life & Environmental Science at Azabu University and Systems Engineer at Andromeda Inc., Italy, “What the growth of a space tourism industry could contribute to employment, economic growth, environmental protection, education, culture and world peace,” Acta Astronautica 66 (2010) 1553–1562]

As discussed above, the claim that resources are running out can be used to justify wars which may never end: present-day rhetoric about "the long war" or "100 years war" in Iraq are current examples. If political leaders do not change their viewpoint, the recent aggression by the rich, "Anglo-Saxon"

countries and their cutting back of traditional civil liberties are ominous for the future. However, this "hellish" vision of endless war is based on an assumption about a single number – the future cost of travel to orbit – about which a different assumption leads to a literally "heavenly" vision of peace and ever-rising living standards for everyone forever. If this cost stays above 10,000 Euros/kg, where it has been unchanged for nearly 50 years, the prospects for humanity are bleak. But if humans make the necessary effort, and use the tiny amount of resources needed to develop

passenger space vehicles, then this cost will fall to 100 Euros/kg, the use of extra-terrestrial resources will become economic, and arguments for resource wars will evaporate entirely. This is not a decision for the

far future or the 22nd Century. It has to be made very soon if humans are to have a reasonable future. The main reason why this step has not been taken yet seems to be lack of understanding by investors and policy-makers of the myriad opportunities that space travel will create. Now that the potential to catch up half a century’s delay in the growth of space travel is becoming understood, continuing to spend 20 billion Euro equivalents/year on government space activities while continuing to invest nothing in developing

passenger space travel would be a gross failure of economic policy, and strongly contrary to the economic and social interests of the public. As this policy error is corrected, and investment in profitable space projects grows rapidly in coming years, we can look forward to a growing world-wide boom. Viewed as a whole, humans' industrial growth has been seriously underperforming for decades, due to the failure to exploit these immensely promising fields of activity. The tens of thousands of unemployed space engineers in Russia, America and Europe alone are a huge waste. The millions of disappointed young people who have been taught that they cannot travel in space are another enormous wasted resource. The potential manpower in rapidly developing India and

China is clearly vast. Correcting this error, even after such a costly delay, is going to ameliorate many problems in the world today. We do not know for certain when the above scenario will be realised. However, it could

have such enormous value that considerable expenditure is justified in order to study its feasibility in detail. At the very least, vigorous investment by both private and public sectors in a range of different sub-orbital passenger vehicle projects and related businesses is highly desirable. Fortunately, the ambitious and rapid investment by the Indian and Chinese governments in growing space capabilities may finally jolt the space industries of Russia, America, Europe and even Japan out of their long economic stagnation, and induce them to apply their accumulated know-how to economically valuable activities – notably supplying widely popular travel services to the general public.

19

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeResource Wars- General

Resource-based tensions in China are likely to ignite conflict and draw in the US.Curran 6/27 (Enda Curran quoting the Lowy Institute, an international think tank based in Sydney. Wall Street Journal. “Australian Think Tank Warns Of China War Threat At Sea” http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110627-714166.html, 27 June 2011, JGR)

SYDNEY (Dow Jones)--There are growing risks of war in Asia's seas stemming from a clash with China as governments in the region

bristle over territorial waters rich with oil and gas reserves , Australian think tank The Lowy Institute said in a report Tuesday.

Much of the tension is based in the South and East China seas, with the former claimed in whole or part by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia. On Monday, Beijing said it had reached a deal over its dispute with Vietnam, though Vietnamese officials didn't comment on the announcement. If a war did erupt it could quickly draw in the U.S. and other powers and spread across the wider Indo- Pacific region, the Lowy report warned. The U.S. navy is active in Asia's seas and is scheduled to hold naval exercises with both the Vietnam and

the Philippines, having recently conducted exercises with Australia. Pressure on resources , sovereignty disputes, nationalism and tensions between the U.S. and Chinese militaries are at the core of the troubled outlook, according to the Lowy report which was based on consultations with security experts and practitioners in China, Japan, the U.S. and India.

A race to attain REMs from politically unstable southern Africa will provoke resource wars, possibly setting the scene for the next Great War.Burgess 6/03 (Dr Stephen Burgess farmed commercially in Zimbabwe's Masvingo Province and ceded land during the government's agrarian reforms. He left Zimbabwe in 2001 and works for the Air War College in the United States. Just International. “Analysis: The new USA-China scramble for Southern Africa” http://www.just-international.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4523:analysis-the-new-usa-china-scramble-for-southern-africa&catid=45:recent-articles&Itemid=123, 3 June 2011, JGR)

Windhoek - Southern Africa has become the battle ground for a new scramble for resources , with the U nited S tates seeking to muscle out Chinese influence so as to secure strategic minerals - mainly for its military . More frightening is the possibility of the US military itself becoming involved in securing these strategic minerals within the next 20 years. According to a study by Dr Stephen Burgess,

a Zimbabwean-born associate professor at the US Air War College, Washington may have to enlist the services of the [ DOD] Department of Defence, the [ NSA] National Security Agency and the Africa Command ( AFRICOM ) to secure Southern Africa's resources . His

study, titled 'Sustainability of Strategic Minerals in Southern Africa and Potential Conflicts and Partnerships', says the US should move quickly to secure Southern Africa's uranium, manganese, platinum, chrome, cobalt and rare earth minerals for America's industrial needs and for its military as well as maintenance of weapons systems. The study focuses on resource accessibility in the DRC, Namibia,

South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe and draws parallels with the 1880s scramble for Africa. To triumph in this new scramble, Burgess notes, 'all instruments of (US) power' must be deployed . Burgess visited all these countries – except Zimbabwe – and makes recommendations on how the US can muscle out China. He interviewed mining sector experts, government officials and journalists as part of his research. There were also consultations with American institutions such as the Defence National Stock Pile Centre, the Defence Logistics Agency and the Marine Corps Command. A note in the study indicates that it has nothing to do with the US Air War College, raising the possibility that Burgess was working as a consultant for Washington. 'Southern Africa contains strategic minerals, which the USA and its allies require for industrial purposes and that militaries need for production and sustainment of weapons systems. 'The principal sustainability challenge in SADC for the USA and its allies is uncertain access to strategic minerals. 'The cause of this challenge is increasing global demand and supply shortages caused by inadequate infrastructure, politicization of the

mining industry and China's aggressive and sometimes monopolistic behaviour in pursuit of minerals. 'The challenge is most acute in two

Southern African countries - South Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) – and also growing in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Namibia. 'Of particular concern is possible future conflict between the U nited S tates, which needs strategic minerals for national defence and other purposes, and China, which needs an increasing amount of resources to fuel its accelerating industrialization. 'There is

a rising scramble for and struggle over resources in Africa, especially in petroleum and mining economies. 'In particular, the US government is concerned about access to 'defence critical resources'. This requires increased levels of engagement with the African countries concerned, using all the instruments of American power and working with American and Western mining companies, as well as engagement with China and Chinese companies. 'In the future, a 'worst-case' scenario might see the United States having to use coercive diplomacy in the not-too-distant future (perhaps in 10-20 years) in order to regain access to vital resources. 'The onset of 'resource wars' has been predicted by a number of scholars and experts. Given the rising level of Chinese demand for resources , the probability of conflict is likely to rise . 'The new scramble for African mineral resources (and petroleum) is most similar to the 19th century European scramble for African minerals and land that contributed to interstate conflict, especially the First World War .' The ever-strengthening Sino-Africa ties are a major headache for the US and Washington must move quickly or else conflict will become unavoidable . 'The United States produces a range of materials from strategic minerals, including warships, aircraft, and high tech devices and components. 'Thus far, the United States and its allies have relied on free market forces in Southern Africa and elsewhere. 'However, US and allied industries may not always have access in the future and may have to reduce output or even close. 'For example, a worrisome problem has been Chinese control of production of more than 90 percent of rare earth minerals. 'Recently, Chinese companies withheld them from Japan over the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands dispute and threatening to withhold them from the United States

20

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativeover arms sales to Taiwan. 'The minerals are the ingredients in key components in communications devices, satellites, and electric fuel cells and batteries that US industry and the military require .' Burgess says liberation movements (ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe,

ANC in South Africa and SWAPO in Namibia) are politicizing the mining sector to the detriment of free marketeering and this will pose a serious challenge to the US. Issues of black economic empowerment and nationalization of mining feature prominently. 'The free market and government taxation of mining profits have tended to provide optimal conditions for states and industry and [ to] maintain a steady flow of minerals to meet demand . 'However politicization has occurred in the form of nationalisation of the mining industry and the intervention of black empowerment companies which have tended to disrupt the market and flow of minerals . '

The global resource market is growing more and more dangerously unstable. Resource conflicts over valuable minerals around the world may cause nations to lash out irrationally with enormous consequences.Heinberg 11 (Richard Heinberg is a Senior Fellow-in-Residence at Post Carbon Institute. OilPrice. “Resource Wars: Geopolitics in a World of Dwindling Energy Supplies.” http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/International/Resource-Wars-Geopolitics-in-a-World-of-Dwindling-Energy-Supplies.html, 20 June 2011, JGR)

As nations compete for currency advantages, they are also eyeing the world’s diminishing resources—fossil fuels, minerals, agricultural land, and water. Resource wars have been fought since the dawn of history, but today the competition is entering a new phase . Nations need increasing amounts of energy and materials to produce economic growth, but—as we have seen—the costs of supplying new increments of energy and materials are increasing . In many cases all that remains are lower-quality resources that have high extraction costs. In some instances, securing access to these resources requires military expenditures as well. Meanwhile th e struggle for the control of resources is re-aligning political power balances throughout the world . The U.S., as the world’s superpower, has the most to lose from a reshuffling of alliances and resource flows . The nation’s leaders continue to play the game of geopolitics by 20th century rules: They are still obsessed with the Carter Doctrine and focused on petroleum as the world’s foremost resource prize (a situation largely necessitated by the country’s continuing overwhelming dependence on oil imports, due in turn to a series of short-sighted political decisions stretching back at least to the 1970s). The ongoing war in Afghanistan exemplifies U.S. inertia: Most experts agree that there is little to be gained from the conflict, but withdrawal of forces is politically unfeasible. The United States maintains a globe-spanning network of over 800 military bases that formerly represented tokens of security to regimes throughout the world —but that now increasingly only provoke resentment among the locals . This enormous military machine requires a vast supply system originating with American weapons manufacturers that in turn depend on a prodigious and ever-expanding torrent of funds from the Treasury. Indeed, the nation’s budget deficit largely stems from its trillion-dollar-per-year, first-priority commitment to continue growing its military-industrial complex . Yet despite the country’s gargantuan expenditures on high-tech weaponry , its armed forces appear to be stretched to their limits , fielding around 200,000 troops and even larger numbers of support personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, where supply chains are both vulnerable and expensive to maintain . In short, the United States remains an enormously powerful nation militarily, with thousands of nuclear weapons in addition to its unparalleled conventional forces, yet it suffers from declining strategic flexibility . The European Union, traditionally allied with the U.S., is increasingly mapping its priorities independently [of the US ] —partly because of increased energy dependence on Russia, and partly because of economic rivalries and currency conflicts with America. Germany’s economy is one of the few to have emerged from the 2008 crisis relatively unscathed, but the country is faced with the problem of having to bail out more and more of its neighbors. The ongoing European serial sovereign debt crisis could eventually undermine the German economy and throw into doubt the long-term soundness of the euro and the E.U. itself . The U.K. is a mere shadow of its former imperial self, with unsustainable levels of debt, declining military budgets, and falling oil production. Its foreign policy is still largely dictated in Washington, though many Britons are increasingly unhappy with this state of affairs. China is the rising power of the 21st century, according to many geopolitical pundits, with a surging military and lots of cash with which to buy access to resources (oil, coal, minerals, and farmland) around the planet. Yet while it is building an imperial-class navy that could eventually threaten America’s, Beijing suffers (as we have already seen) from domestic political and economic weaknesses that could make its turn at the center of the world stage a brief one. Japan, with the world’s third-largest national economy, is wary of China and increasingly uncertain of its protector, the U.S. The country is tentatively rebuilding its military so as to be able to defend its interests independently . Disputes with China over oil and gas deposits in the East China Sea are likely to worsen, as Japan has almost no domestic fossil fuel resources and needs secure access to supplies. Russia is a resource powerhouse but is also politically corrupt and remains economically crippled . With a residual military force at the ready, it vies with China and the U.S. for control of Caspian and Central Asian energy and mineral wealth through alliances with former Soviet states. It tends to strike tentative deals with China to counter American interests, but ultimately Beijing may be as much of a rival as Washington. Moscow uses its gas exports as a bargaining chip for influence in Europe. Meanwhile, little of the income from the country’s resource riches benefits the populace. The Russian people’s advantage in all this may be that they have recently been through one political-economic collapse and will therefore be relatively well-prepared to navigate

21

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativeanother. Even as countries like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua reject American foreign policy , the U.S. continues to exert enormous influence on resource-rich Latin America via North American-based corporations, which in some cases wield overwhelming influence over entire national economies. However, China is now actively contracting for access to energy and mineral resources throughout this region , which is resulting in a gradual shift in economic spheres of interest. Africa is a site of fast-growing U.S. investment in oil and other mineral extraction projects (as evidenced by the establishment in 2009 of Africom, a military strategic command center on par with Centcom, Eucom, Northcom, Pacom, and Southcom), but is also a target of Chinese and European resource acquisition efforts. Proxy conflicts there between and among these powers may intensify in the years ahead —in most instances, to the sad detriment of African peoples. The Middle East maintains vast oil wealth (though reserves have been substantially overestimated due to rivalries inside OPEC), but is characterized by extreme economic inequality, high population growth rates, political instability, and the need for importation of non-energy resources (including food and water). The revolutions and protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen in early 2011 were interpreted by many observers as indicating the inability of the common people in Middle Eastern regimes to tolerate sharply rising food, water, and energy prices in the context of autocratic political regimes. As economic conditions worsen , many more nations —including ones outside the Middle East—could become destabilized ; the ultimate consequences are unknowable at this point, but could well be enormous . Like China, Saudi Arabia is buying farmland in Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. Nations like Iraq and Iran need advanced technology with which to maintain an oil industry that is moving from easy plays to oilfields that are smaller, harder to access, and more expensive to produce, and both Chinese and U.S. companies stand ready to supply it. The deep oceans and the Arctic will be areas of growing resource interest, as long as the world’s wealthier nations are still capable of mounting increasingly expensive efforts to compete for and extract strategic materials in these extreme environments. However, both military maneuvering and engineering-mining efforts will see diminishing returns as costs rise and payoffs diminish. Unfortunately, rising costs and flagging returns from resource conflicts will not guarantee world peace. History suggests that as nations become more desperate to maintain their relative positions of strength and advantage, they may lash out in ways that serve no rational purpose . Again, no crisis is imminent as long as cool heads prevail. But the world system is losing stability . Current economic and geopolitical conditions would appear to support a forecast not for increasing economic growth, democracy, and peace, but for more political volatility, and for greater government military mobilization justified under the banner of security .

The rise of developing countries in the global economy and resource competition will kill international cooperation on major issues. Resource conflicts pose the greatest threat to Co-op, which is key to solving environmental disaster.Dadush and Shaw 6/23 (Uri Dadush is senior associate and director in Carnegie’s International Economics Program. William Shaw is a visiting scholar in Carnegie’s International Economics Program. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Growing Economies, Rising Problems” http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2011/06/23/gr owing-economies-rising-problems/2rt, 23 June 2011, JGR)

The rise of developing countries is transforming the global economy . Whereas for the bulk of the world’s population economic stagnation has been the rule over millennia, today’s economic growth is unprecedented . More countries – and people – are achieving rapid income growth than

ever before, and developing countries are rising in the ranks of the world’s largest economies . The rise of the emerging economic powers will reshape the world economy . GDP projections for the G20 nations – based on anticipated labor force growth, rates of investment and the speed of technological change – indicate that the global economy will more than triple in size by 2050. China, the United States and India – in that order – will emerge as the largest economies, and six of the seven largest economies will be drawn from today’s developing countries. More than 600 million people will emerge from poverty in the G20 alone, and an economically influential global middle and rich class will rise

around the world, more than half located in developing countries. Though developing countries will come to dominate the global economy , they will remain relatively poor . By 2050, China’s per capita income will be only 37 percent of the US level , and India’s just 11 percent, at market exchange rates. This dissociation between economic wealth and size will complicate the ability to reach international economic agreements , as relatively poor countries with growing influence are likely to have different perspectives on many issues from advanced countries . International institutions will need to adapt to reflect the emerging power relationships or gradually become marginalized. The recent promotion of the G20 over the G8 is just one signal that the power shift has already begun. But this rapid progress is far from assured . The rise of the developing world will generate severe threats – from awakening the geopolitical tensions associated with great power transitions to increasing the risk of financial crisis and protectionist backlash . Higher living standards have already increased carbon emissions and heightened the potential for environmental disaster . And the rise of developing countries has made global cooperation to cope with all these issues more difficult . Copenhagen offers a good example . Meanwhile, the multilateral frameworks to facilitate it appear incapable of handling present challenges, not to mention the bigger ones to come . As a result, the rise of developing countries will have profound implications for four main channels of globalization – trade, finance, migration and the global commons . Developing countries will dominate global trade. Their share of global exports will rise from 30 percent today to 70 percent in 2050. Developed countries will become relatively less important as markets, developing countries will become the most important markets for developed countries, and trade among developing countries will grow. The comparative advantages among developing countries will shift, with Africa potentially taking the place of countries like China and India in low-wage manufactures. For example, other African countries will join Mauritius and South Africa as sources of manufactured exports. The rise of developing countries will also present far-reaching opportunities in international finance: As their incomes rise, firms and individuals there will take advantage of international markets, while

22

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativeinvestors in advanced countries pounce on the opportunities their growth affords. However, the institutions and policy frameworks underpinning financial stability in developing countries are even less adequate than those of advanced countries, and developing countries are intrinsically more subject to volatility . Therefore, more than in trade, the rising weight of developing countries in finance will increase the potential for extremely costly systemic crises . The pressures for increased migration will also build as 2050 approaches, particularly as populations in rich countries age and those in poorer countries especially in Africa, remain relatively young. But while barriers to global trade have largely fallen over the past 50 years, barriers to immigration have progressively increased during that time. In economic terms, this is perverse, as the gains from international migration surpass the gains from trade. Conflicts surrounding the global commons – resources owned by no one but exploited by many – provide the most dramatic examples of the challenges that the rise of developing countries will pose for international cooperation. Depletion of fish stock in the oceans is a glaring example. These issues—from limiting climate change to maintaining air quality and avoiding the exhaustion of ocean resources—require cooperation within and among countries. But such cooperation is becoming more challenging. The rapid growth and large populations of developing countries mean they are more active in exploiting resources , but their incomes, technological capabilities, political structures and social values differ greatly from those in advanced countries. Though Sub-Saharan Africa has seen some progress lately, its low income means that it is a less influential driver than developing countries in Asia and South America. Many obstacles – from low savings rates to low productivity growth or weak governance – could hinder sustained progress. At the same time, the rise of emerging economies will increase demand for Africa’s commodity exports and facilitate the diversification to manufactures. Whether Sub-Saharan African countries, home to about 900 million people, nearly half of whom live in absolute poverty, can take advantage of these new market opportunities – will be enormously important in human terms – even if Africa’s development does not critically affect the global economic shift toward developing countries. Two principles , then,

should guide efforts to achieve continued global growth and mitigate the serious risks presented by the rise of developing countries. First, for better or for worse, the management of these historic forces will remain in the hands of sovereign nations – particularly the largest economies. Thus, global agreements – to limit climate change , expand the gains from migration, and avert financial crises, for example – will require the birth of a global conscience , that is, increased awareness within countries and their polities of how their fates are inextricably linked to global developments. Second, current frameworks for international cooperation, which have contributed to economic progress since World War II , are no longer adequate to deal with the challenges to come . Global, consensus-based agreements – for example , current attempts to achieve the Doha trade round and restrain climate change – will either fail entirely or produce a lowest-common-denominator, and thus inadequate, result . The issues are too complex and the potential divergences too large for all countries to agree on everything, particularly as diversity among the major players increases . Instead, progress in global cooperation will require agreements among a critical mass of players on specific issues, with provisions to later include a broader group.

23

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeResource Wars Impacts- Nuclear war

Resource wars cause global nuclear holocaustLendman ’07 (Stephen Lendman is a renowned author and Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization. Rense.com. “Resource Wars - Can We Survive Them?” http://www.rense.com/general76/-resrouce.htm, July 2007, JGR)

With the world's energy supplies finite , the US heavily dependent on imports, and "peak oil" near or approaching , "security" for America means assuring a sustainable supply of what we can't do without. It includes waging wars to get it, protect it, and defend the maritime trade routes over which it travels. That means energy's partnered with predatory New World Order globalization, militarism, wars, ecological recklessness, and now an extremist US administration willing to risk Armageddon for world dominance. Central to its plan is first controlling essential resources everywhere , at any cost , starting with oil and where most of it

is located in the Middle East and Central Asia. The New "Great Game" and Perils From It The new "Great Game's" begun, but this time the stakes are greater than ever as explained above . The old one lasted nearly 100 years pitting the British empire against Tsarist Russia when the issue

wasn't oil. This time, it's the US with help from Israel, Britain, the West, and satellite states like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan challenging Russia and China with today's weapons and technology on both sides making earlier ones look like toys . At stake is more than oil . It's planet earth with survival of all life on it issue number one twice over. Resources and wars for them means militarism is increasing , peace declining , and the planet's ability to sustain life front and center, if anyone's paying attention.

They'd better be because beyond the point of no return, there's no second chance the way Einstein explained after the atom was split. His famous quote on future wars was : "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Under a worst case scenario, it's more dire than that. T here may be nothing left but resilient beetles and bacteria in the wake of a nuclear holocaust meaning even a new stone age is way in the future, if at all. The threat is real and once nearly happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962. We later learned a miracle saved us at the 40th anniversary October, 2002 summit meeting in Havana attended by the US and Russia along with host country Cuba. For the first time, we were told how close we came to nuclear Armageddon. Devastation was avoided only because Soviet submarine captain Vasily Arkhipov countermanded his order to fire nuclear-tipped torpedos when Russian submarines were attacked by US destroyers near Kennedy's "quarantine" line. Had he done it, only our imagination can speculate what might have followed and whether planet earth, or at least a big part of it, would have survived.

24

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeResource Wars Impacts- Energy wars

Energy wars will go nuclearMatthews ‘09 [Owen, writer for The Mail news service, “The coldest war: Russia and U.S. face off over Arctic resources”]

The year is 2020, and, from the Middle East to Nigeria, the world is convulsed by a series of conflicts over dwindling energy supplies. The last untapped reserves of oil and gas lie in the most extreme environment on the planet - the North Pole - where an estimated bonanza of 100 billion barrels are buried deep beneath the Arctic seabed. The ownership of this hostile no-man's-land is contested by Russia, Denmark, Norway, the U.S and Canada. And, in an increasingly desperate battle for resources, each begins to back up its claim with force. Soon, the iceberg-strewn waters of the Arctic are patrolled by fleets of warships, jostling for position in a game of brinkmanship. Russia's Northern Fleet, headed by the colossal but ageing guided missile cruiser Pyotr Velikiy (Peter The Great), and the U.S. Second Fleet, sailing out of Norfolk, Virginia, are armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles - and controlled by leaders who are increasingly willing to use them. For now, such a scenario is pure fiction. But it may not be for long. Only recently, respected British think-tank Jane's Review warned that a polar war could be a reality within 12 years. And the Russians are already taking the race for the North Pole's oil wealth deadly seriously. Indeed, the Kremlin will spend tens of millions upgrading Russia's Northern Fleet over the next eight years. And its Atomic Energy Agency has already begun building a fleet of floating nuclear power stations to power undersea drilling for the Arctic's vast oil and gas reserves. A prototype is under construction at the SevMash shipyard in Severodvinsk. The prospect of an undersea Klondike near the North Pole, powered by floating nuclear plants, has environmentalists deeply worried - not least because Russia has such a dismal record on nuclear safety and the disposal of radioactive waste.

25

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeResource Wars Impacts- Disease

Resource wars result in millions of refugees and high likelihood of pandemics.Cairns ’09 (John Cairns, Jr. is a professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Virginia Tech. “Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat.” http://www.johncairns.net/Papers/2%20Blood%20Toil%20Tears.pdf, 2009, JGR)

In a turbulent world, much can go wrong; however, the probability of disasters can be markedly reduced if a global consensus determines to give nuclear war, pandemic diseases, and more climate tipping points a priority status. In an era of increasing resource scarcity, nations will be tempted to use military force to acquire resources necessary to continue a cornucopian lifestyle. This approach will deprive other nations of resources and increase the probability of resource wars. Wars are already producing millions of refugees who will diminish the per capita resources of the nation to which they flee. If the refugees spread widely through the “host” country, they will inevitability increase the probability of transmitting diseases. If they accumulate in refugee camps without potable water, sanitary facilities, housing, food, and medical assistance, disease transmission will be rampant. Such camps could also become epicenters from which pandemic diseases spread globally. Nuclear wars will almost certainly decrease Earth’s carrying capacity for humans, both regionally and

globally. Health care systems and medical systems that are already strained might well collapse completely with quite foreseeable consequences. Even if nuclear war, pandemic diseases, and climate change tipping points are avoided, sustainable use of the planet will not be possible if the human population is not first substantially reduced and then stabilized well within Earth’s carrying capacity. Resource wars, starvation, disease, and substantial ecological overshoot provide persuasive evidence that humankind is not even close to achieving sustainable use o f t h e p l a n e t . N u c l e a r w a r s , p a n d e m i c di s e a s e s , and exc e s s ive gr e enhous e ga s emissions (i.e., beyond Earth’s assimilative capacity) make achieving sustainability ever more difficult.

Diseases risk extinction: The Scotsman, 9/11/1995 (“The mega death,” Lexis)

Bullets and bombs may be the weapons of the present, but plagues, viruses and killer microbes are the arsenal of the future. Together with the sarin gas which it released on the Tokyo underground in April, the Japanese Ohm cult had

stockpiled a lethal bacterium which it chose not to unleash. Crippling continents by using killer infectious diseases is no far- fetched idea of sci-fi novels. But the scientists' inability to distinguish between naturally emerging and synthetic disease outbreaks means whole areas could be laid waste before anyone realised what was happening, warns Laurie

Garrett, author of a ground-breaking book on the burgeoning of infectious disease. All this on top of the fact that new diseases are emerging naturally at an alarming rate - representing a real threat to the survival of the human species - says The Coming Plague. Meticulously researched over the past decade, Garrett's book charts

the history of our age-old battle against the microbes, and concludes that we are beginning to cede the advantage to the disease-carriers. The optimism born out of defeating smallpox in the Sixties was dangerously premature. Everything from overuse of antibiotics to increased promiscuity have helped smooth the path for the microbes ever

since. "The survival of the human species is not a pre- ordained evolutionary programme," warns Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg in The Coming Plague.

26

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeResource Wars- REM shortage causes wars

REM shortages cause resource conflictParthemore ’11 [Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,” http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf]

Geopolitical calculations and domestic political factors can both influence mineral supply availability. In some cases, producers (whether companies or countries) deliberately withhold supplies. Their decisions to do so depend, in part, on their calculation of the economic impact of disrupting supplies, and their ability to control the global market. The 2010 Japan dispute with China over a skirmish in the East China Sea serves as an example. In this case, Chinese officials denied that the country had instituted an official embargo, but Japanese firms continued to report supply disruptions for several weeks. 42 These types of bold geopolitical moves can generate sticky foreign policy problems in addition to the direct effects of supply disruptions.

27

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeChina- Chinese rare-earth monopoly

China has a monopoly on rare-earth elements- makes the market too volatileRobinson 3-4-11 [Michael, award-winning journalist for the Oakland Tribune and author of Overdrawn, the Bailout of American Savings, a critically acclaimed account of the nation’s S&L crisis, “China’s Restrictions Ignite Rare Earth Market,” http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/china%E2%80%99s-restrictions-ignite-rare-earth-market/] China’s recent decision to limit exports of rare earths considered essential for U.S. defense systems has caused a global government backlash and is a driving force behind higher prices for these elements and for the stocks of companies engaged in their exploration. Industry analysts say the cause for this multi-national anxiety is simple. China already controls more than 95 percent of the market for the 17 elements that comprise rare earths. Any move that restricts supply will, by definition, have an impact on global prices for these elements used in guidance systems, chemical detectors and precision guided munitions, among many other defense applications. Concern about China’s restrictions recently reached a fever pitch. The World Trade Organization went so far as to condemn China, saying the world’s most populous nation has no legal right to impose export restrictions on natural resources. That report did not specifically mention the rare earths situation, but the two fields are closely related, analysts say, adding they expect the United States to file a separate complaint regarding rare earths. Officially, China says it will maintain its rare-earth export restrictions, but pledged to “cooperate” more with key trading partners. How that would translate into sales for Japan and the United States remains unclear.

This much is known, however. Saying it needs rare earths to meet its own industrial growth, China slashed export quotas by nearly 70 percent to about 8,000 tons for the second half of 2010. Combined with surging demand for electronics, the move caused rare earth prices to skyrocket. For instance, Reuters reports the value of rare earths for the first 11 months of 2010, the last period for which statistics are available, rose more than 171 percent to $630.5 million. And Bloomberg has reported the price of neodymium used in the Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle has increased more than four-fold to $88.5 a kilogram. China also imposed a 25 percent tariff on neodymium, a two-thirds increase from the previous tariff. Meanwhile, the Pentagon no longer has a domestic rare earth supply. That is a dramatic reversal from the late 1990s, when the U.S. ranked as a global leader in the field.

China is exploiting America’s dependence on REEs.Whittington ‘11 (Mark Whittington staff writer. Yahoo News. “Rare Earth Elements, the Next Great Resource Shortage Crisis” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110621/us_ac/8675483_rare_earth_elements_the_next_great_-resource_shortage_crisis_1, 21 June 2011, JGR)

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has pointed out a dirty little secret when it comes to the drive to build a green energy economy. While certain renewable energy sources cut America's reliance on fossil fuels, it increase s its reliance on rare Earth elements . Rare Earth elements are used to build lithium ion batteries, florescent light bulbs, hydrogen fuel cells and a number of other high tech tools. Rare Earth elements are also a vital component of military systems vital for America's national security. It just so happens that 90 percent of the world's rare earth elements are produced in China . China, knowing this and knowing how increasingly the West is depending on rare Earth elements, has cut back on production of such REEs to artificially inflate their price. In effect, China has set itself up as its own rare earth element cartel, an OPEC style entity able to control their price and availability at will.

China is already reducing exportsLeVine ’10 [Steve, Writer for Foreign Policy, October 19, “Is it a clean energy trade war yet? China cuts off U.S. rare earth supply,” http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/10/19/is_it_a_clean_energy_trade_war_yet_china_cuts_off_rare_earth_shipments_to_the_us]

A few days ago, the United States responded to a United Steelworkers suit by announcing an investigation of China's alleged gargantuan subsidizing of its clean-energy industries -- something regarded by many countries, including China, as a strategic priority. Today we get China's apparent reply: Beijing is cutting off its exports of rare-earth minerals to the United States, according to the New York Times' Keith Bradsher. The 17 rare-earth minerals are crucial to the manufacture of high-tech products such as advanced batteries and flat-screen televisions, and in military equipment such as missiles and jets. China

28

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativemines about 95 percent of the world's rare earths. The news comes the same day that China announced that it is further reducing the export of the minerals to all countries next year. In July, Beijing said it would reduce its rare earth exports by about 40 percent. Next year, it's set to reduce that volume by another 30 percent, according to another report by Bradsher. The issue of rare earth availability has alarmed numerous companies and countries. Japan got cut off Sept. 21 after one of its naval cutters arrested a Chinese fisherman for ramming Japanese patrol boats. Since then, several companies have announced plans to accelerate the re-opening of rare earth mines in Australia, the United States, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan, but bringing such projects to fruition can take years.

The American economy is dependent upon China’s rare earth metals, there is no replacement, and China is likely to withhold most of its REEs.Berry ’09 (Dr. Michael Berry is the former Wheat First Professor of Investments at James Madison University and an Assistant Professor of Business Administration at The University of Virginia. Forbes. “The Rare Earth Metal's Shortage” http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/06/rare-earth-metals-markets-commodities-berry.html, 6 October 2009, JGR)

America has a new dependency and it is not Middle East oil. It is instead several arcane metals known as rare earth elements (REE). I

recently completed a due diligence trip to a new Discovery company of interest. Today I write on my experience with Avalon Rare Metals. Rare earth metals are found almost exclusively in China . China, it seems, is likely to withhold these crucial metals for its own needs. Europium and Yttrium oxides (two of the rare earth elements) sell for USD$450 per kilogram and $15.50 per kg respectively.

China has recently reduced both 2009 export quotas of these rare earth elements by 6.05% and 34% respectively. In general

these metals allow US companies to refine oil and build all sorts of information processing products for the new digital age . According to recent research W. R. Grace , for example, has only a three month supply of these metals. Rare earth elements are critical to the information age . They will be an important piece of a clean and potentially green energy future . They are used in

iPods, Blackberry’s and plasma TVs. They are also important components of the magnets in electric motors sure to be important as electric cars become more plentiful. I will write more on that application in a future article. In most applications there are no substitute metals for rare earth elements.

The US is forced to import 100% of its REEs from China.Berry ’09 (Dr. Michael Berry is the former Wheat First Professor of Investments at James Madison University and an Assistant Professor of Business Administration at The University of Virginia. Forbes. “The Rare Earth Metal's Shortage” http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/06/rare-earth-metals-markets-commodities-berry.html, 6 October 2009, JGR)

Some thirty years ago the great liberator of China's economy, Deng Xiao Peng remarked that China [is] would eventually become the Saudi Arabia of rare earth elements . His vision has proven correct. There are a few rare earth deposits in Canada. Avalon’s Thor

Lake is one and Qwest Uranium is another. There is one known deposit in the US. I recently visited Capital Hill in Washington DC where I found a number of legislators [are] expressing serious concern over the new dependence of the US on China’s rare earth largesse. The Defense Strategic Stockpile lists 24 metals that we must be import (100%). Rare earth elements are almost certainly at the top of this list. It is worrisome that Congress is close to passing a punitive mining law that will seriously impact the exploration for and development of such valuable resources in the US. Few people realize the impact that such a mining law may have on our economy.

29

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeChina- US-China dispute now

China is preventing countries from getting REEs = sparks conflictUPI, 6/23/11, (UPI Journalists, “Rare Mineral Prices Skyrocket”, http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2011/06/23/Rare-earth-minerals-prices-skyrocket/UPI-76601308849756/) BEIJING, June 23 (UPI) -- China has doubled or tripled the prices of some rare earth metals, raising concerns about global supplies of the 17 elements, crucial for green energy and high-tech components. Just in the last three weeks europium oxide, used in the manufacturing of energy-saving light bulbs, plasma TVs and smart phones has nearly tripled in price from about $1,260 a kilogram to $3,400, The Guardian newspaper reports. And dysprosium oxide, used for neodymium-iron-boron magnets found in wind turbines and computer hard drives, has doubled from about $720 a kilogram to $1,470. Already, Beijing cut its export quotas on rare earths

by 72 percent in the second half of last year, reducing them further by 35 percent in the first half of 2011. The latest price hike followed an announcement by the Chinese government that it was closing 35 small mines in Inner Mongolia as part of a clampdown on illegal mining. More closures are expected, fueling fears that there will be more export quotas. China has maintained that it has adopted strict exploration and export regulations after rampant exploration caused heavy environmental pollution. But experts have said that China began stockpiling rare earths in 2010, and the scheme could eventually store up to 200,000 tons of the elements, almost twice the country's annual production. Furthermore, they say China's tactic of restricting supply is a ploy to force Western manufacturers to move production,

along with their technological secrets, to China to gain access to rare earths. While China has about one-third of global rare earth deposits, it produces about 95 percent of the world's supply. China's previous policy of low pricing for the minerals "has killed the rest of the world's ability" to produce rare-earths, said John Kaiser, a mining expert and rare earths specialist in California, the United

Kingdom's Daily Mail newspaper reports. Mines in other countries couldn't have competed price-wise or with China's lax environmental and safety laws. 'If China was the only place in the world that

rare earths existed, there would be a war. There is no immediate crisis, but a looming crisis that needs to be dealt with," Kaiser said. 'It's the long term that manufacturers need to worry about," said Kaiser. "Toyota, for example, does not have a long-term guarantee of supply. If it wants to plan for the future and pump out millions of electric cars, it needs to invest

in a guaranteed supply." But Mike O'Driscoll, editor of Industrial Minerals, said most experts are predicting a crisis point will be reached in 2014 and 2015.

Competition for resources may result in conflict with ChinaStephen Burgess, 6/3/11, Author of ‘South Africas Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (Just International, “Analysis: The New USA-China Scramble for South Africa”, http://www.just-international.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4523:analysis-the-new-usa-china-scramble-for-southern-africa&catid=45:recent-articles&Itemid=123) Southern Africa has become the battle ground for a new scramble for resources, with the United States seeking to muscle out Chinese influence so as to secure strategic minerals - mainly for its military. More frightening is the possibility of the US military itself becoming involved in securing these strategic minerals within the next 20 years. According to a study by Dr Stephen Burgess, a Zimbabwean-born associate professor at the US Air War College, Washington may have to enlist the services of the Department of Defense, the National Security Agency and the Africa Command (AFRICOM) to secure Southern Africa's resources. His study, titled 'Sustainability of Strategic Minerals in Southern Africa and Potential Conflicts and Partnerships', says the US should move quickly to secure Southern Africa's uranium, manganese, platinum, chrome, cobalt and rare earth minerals for America's industrial needs and for its military as well as maintenance of weapons systems. The study focuses on resource accessibility in the DRC, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe and draws parallels with the 1880s scramble for Africa. To triumph in this new scramble, Burgess notes, 'all instruments of (US) power' must be deployed. Burgess visited all these countries – except Zimbabwe – and makes recommendations on how the US can muscle out China. He interviewed mining sector experts, government officials and journalists as part of his research. There were also consultations with American institutions such as the Defense National Stock Pile Centre, the Defense Logistics Agency and the Marine Corps Command. A note in the study indicates that it has nothing to do with the US Air War College, raising the possibility that Burgess was working as a

consultant for Washington. 'Southern Africa contains strategic minerals, which the USA and its allies require for industrial purposes and that militaries need for production and sustainment of weapons systems. 'The principal sustainability challenge in SADC for the USA and its allies is uncertain access to strategic minerals. 'The cause of this challenge is increasing global demand and supply shortages caused by inadequate infrastructure, politicization of the mining industry and China's aggressive and sometimes monopolistic behaviour in pursuit of minerals. 'The challenge is most acute in two Southern African countries - South Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) – and also growing in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Namibia. 'Of particular concern is possible future conflict between the United States, which needs strategic minerals for national defence and other purposes, and China, which needs an increasing amount of resources to fuel its accelerating industrialization. 'There is a rising scramble for and struggle over resources in Africa, especially in petroleum and mining economies. 'In particular, the US government is concerned about access to 'defence critical resources'. This requires increased levels of engagement with the African countries concerned, using all the instruments of American power and working with American and Western mining companies, as well as engagement with China and Chinese

companies. 'In the future, a 'worst-case' scenario might see the United States having to use coercive diplomacy in the not-too-distant future (perhaps in 10-20 years) in order to regain access to vital resources. 'The onset of 'resource wars' has been predicted by a number of scholars and experts. Given the rising level of

Chinese demand for resources, the probability of conflict is likely to rise.

30

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeChina breaking rules of World Trade OrganizationMing Hwa Ting, 06/05/11, (Professor at the University of Adelaide, The Diplomat, “China’s Rare Earth Motives”, http://the-diplomat.com/new-leaders-forum/2011/06/05/chinas-rare-earth-motives/)

China is the dominant producer of rare earth metals, which are increasingly fuelling the global high-tech and green economy. From 2009 to 2010, Chinese mines accounted for 259,000 tonnes out of a total global production of 263,000 tonnes of rare earth oxide. But with this massive production has come ever more restrictive measures to control the export of these commodities. China claims it’s doing so to protect the environment and argues that tighter measures are necessary to ensure rare earth mining industry remains sustainable. However, major consumers of rare earths including Japan, the United States, and EU states counter that recent Chinese actions to reduce exports contravene World Trade Organisation rules on free trade. So, is China merely exercising its legitimate right to protect its environment as its government claims? It seems unlikely, whatever the protestations of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who has tried to re-assure EU leaders that China isn’t using its rare earths monopoly as a geopolitical bargaining chip. As was covered here last September, China suspended rare earth exports to Japan after an incident in the waters off the disputed Senkaku Islands, in which a Chinese fishing vessel captain was detained by the Japan Coast Guard. The Chinese government claimed it didn’t issue any specific directives to suspend exports, and said any suspension was the result of the spontaneous and uncoordinated actions of various producers and exporters. Yet there are strong indications that the Chinese government exercises considerable control over the rare earths industry. Since 2006, the Chinese Commerce Ministry has been reducing export quotas, as well as limiting and cutting the number of firms that are allowed to export rare earths in their raw form. In 2006, 47 Chinese companies had permits to export rare earths, but by 2010, only 22 companies were allowed to do so. Unsurprisingly, as the number of export permits has fallen, so too has the volume of exports. In 2008, combined export quotas for the year totalled 56,000 tonnes, while in 2009 they totalled 50,142 tons, before being dropped again to 30,258 tons for 2010. But although export quotas are by far the most contentious policy measure, a range of other actions have been taken that impact the rare earth industry. For example, export taxes on rare earths were also established in 2007 to compliment export quotas. Originally set at between 15 percent to 25 percent, depending on the oxide or concentrate being exported, the rates on many more rare earth products are expected to be raised by 25 percent in 2011. The Ministry of Land, meanwhile, has also suspended issuing new mining permits, and it remains to be seen if China will issue new mining permits after the moratorium ends on 30 June 2012. Chinese production of rare earths is likely to be further restricted by stringent new environmental standards that will force existing dirty mining companies to cease operations as they are unable to secure the now necessary ISO 9000 certification standard. Yet if environmental considerations were really the main factor behind the imposition of export quotas, this wouldn’t be enough to explain the sudden suspension of exports to Japan last September, nor the current negotiations to supply Taiwan with more rare earth exports. And what of China’s claims of trying to ensure the sustainability of its rare earths? This also isn’t very convincing with China’s rare earths reserves having increased from 43,000,000 tonnes to 55,000,000 tonnes between 1996 and 2010. True, the supply of rare earths, like other natural resources, is finite. But the discovery of new deposits, as well as improvements in technologies allowing the mining of previously inaccessible ores, has increased supply and reserves. The reality is that China’s environmental record is less than stellar, rendering its current insistence on imposing stringent environmental standards on an industry in which it has come to dominate on the basis of lax environmental and labour standards rather convenient. And the problem is that this approach doesn’t just undermine China’s arguments over the validity of its rare earth policy – it also undermines any environmental zeal the Chinese government may really have.

Chinese decrease in exports of REEs creates a domino effect in the marketWall Street Journal, 06/21/11, (“China's Rare-Earth Exports Decline”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303936704576399360134743164.html)

China's exports of rare-earth metals in the first five months of the year fell 8.8% from a year earlier, reflecting the government's

success in tightening control over trade in the strategic ores and compounds. Exports of the metals, which are used in technology applications ranging from music players to missile systems, fell to 23,742 metric tons in the January to May period, customs data supplied by Hong Kong-based Economic Information & Agency showed Tuesday. China controls 95% of global rare-earth output. China's cabinet and Commerce Ministry last month issued another edict further tightening control over the industry by expanding the export quota system and imposing higher taxes on mining the minerals. Beijing also said it would get tough on companies that violate the export quotas. The warnings appeared to have met with some success in May, when exports fell 11% from April to 5,130 tons, valued at $452.3 million. Despite the lower volume, the value of January-May exports more than tripled to $1.6 billion. Prices of rare-earth metals surged last month due to renewed fears of China's crackdown on exports. Key Japanese chemical companies had raised the prices for rare-earth magnets after the Chinese policy move, and data collected by industry publications showed prices of dysprosium oxide, a rare-earth ore, continued to rise, doubling in the past two weeks.

31

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeDependence on Chinese minerals puts the US one step behindPN, 6/10/11, (Political News, “Cantwell: ‘We Can No Longer Afford to Ignore’ Chinese Monopoly on Critical Rare Earth Minerals”, http://politicalnews.me/?id=7817&pg=1&keys=) “America needs to address the growing dependence on Chinese rare earth minerals and other strategic metals,” U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said Thursday at a hearing of the Senate Energy Subcommittee.

Cantwell chaired the hearing to discuss the dependence on Chinese minerals, which threatens to constrict technological advancement and economic growth in America. Rare earth minerals are vital components used in making a broad array of modern technologies, such as batteries and electronics, and in developing clean energy technologies used in electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind turbine generators. Washington state companies – such as Infinia Corporation in Kennewick – depend on a reliable supply of rare earth minerals to develop and manufacture technologies. “[Rare earth minerals] are essential to components of many of the technologies that are part of our modern economy,” said Senator Cantwell, chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy. “However, as last year’s subcommittee hearing established, while America was once self-sufficient in

supplying the materials and finished products used in high-tech manufacturing, today we now are more reliant on imports from other nations.” “The reality is that we can no longer afford to ignore this problem or continue to drift without a national energy strategy; we need predictable policies in this area,” Cantwell continued. “We cannot simply risk having enormous exposure to a supply-chain shortage in the area of

strategic commodities, as we have in the world oil market for decades.” The United States was once the global leader in the production of rare earth minerals. But over the past 25 years, the U.S. has become completely reliant on imports, almost entirely from China, because of China’s lower-cost operations. At the same time, China has overtaken the United States in terms of installed renewable energy capacity.

32

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeChina Impacts- US-China nuclear war

US-China war goes nuclearIvan Eland, 2005 (Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty) May 31, 2005. Accessed August 21, 2010 @ http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1515

At a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, senators of both parties berated the Bush administration’s failure to ratchet up the pressure on China to reduce the value of its currency, the yuan, by branding that nation as

a “currency manipulator.” The lawmakers also complained that the value of Japan’s yen is too high. But such U.S. government interference in overseas commerce is ultimately counterproductive and could lead to a greater risk of conflict with other nations . On foreign currencies, as with many issues, members of Congress respond to the needs of powerful, but narrow, special interests at the expense of the general public, whose power and interests are more diffuse. Influential U.S. industries that sell overseas face competition from Chinese and Japanese exports made cheaper by the yuan and yen, currencies that many economists say are held below market value by their respective governments. Since 1995, the Chinese government has fixed the yuan’s value at 8.28 per dollar. The Japanese central bank, with more subtlety, purchased large quantities of dollars in 2003 to drive up the value of the dollar vis-à-vis the yen. Although Japan quit that practice in March 2004, Japanese officials have threatened to resume it if the yen continues to rise against the dollar. In addition to being disadvantaged in world markets against cheaper Chinese and Japanese products, the artificially low yuan and yen make U.S. exports more expensive in the large home markets of China and Japan. Although U.S. export industries are hurt by the lower yuan and yen, American consumers here at home enjoy cheaper imports from China and Japan. Less is heard about the advantages to consumers of lower foreign currencies because consumers have far fewer lobbyists in Washington than do large export firms. Nonetheless, the world would be a better—and richer—place if the Chinese and Japanese governments avoided trying to influence the value of their currencies and instead allowed them to float in international currency markets. By distorting their own economies, those governments, like members of the U.S. Congress, are supporting prominent export industries at the expense of the common consumer. And while they’re at it, China and Japan could further help their consumers by

more fully opening their markets to U.S. goods and services by easing tariff and non-tariff barriers. That said, the U.S. government should set a better example by avoiding the kind of pressure on the Chinese and Japanese governments (and any other

government using similar practices) that members of Congress are demanding. If those governments want to shoot

themselves in the foot, there is no reason why the United States needs to shoot itself in the head. Setting a precedent for U.S. government interference in overseas commerce could generate further pressure by domestic groups—for

example, domestic industries that compete with imports from China and Japan—to retaliate for Chinese and Japanese currency manipulation by resorting to import barriers against products from those countries. Some senators are already threatening to raise tariffs against Chinese goods unless China raises the value of the yuan. And according to the Financial Times, the Bush administration is privately passing along that threat to the Chinese, warning that the value of the yuan must be raised at least 10 percent to avoid that protectionist anger in Congress. (The 10 percent figure is an example of government bureaucrats inventing an arbitrary number and applying it to complex international currency markets.) Thus, government

interference in the international marketplace can ultimately lead to a trade war among nations. In the 1930s, the Smoot-Hawley legislation that increased tariffs in the United States was followed by retaliation from other nations. Such protectionism deepened the worldwide depression, and that global economic crisis was a contributing factor to the causes of World

War II. The United States has enough tension with a nuclear-armed China over the Taiwan issue and dual military buildups without interjecting a trade war into the mix . In fact, a healthy level of international commerce between the two countries could create a peace lobby in each nation and a greater incentive to avoid military confrontation .

33

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeChina Impacts- Resource Wars

Chinese rare-earth dominance causes resource warsSchwartz ‘10 [Ariel, "The new resource wars: what if china stops exporting rare elements?" Sept. 23, fastcompany]

Earlier this week, China halted all shipments of rare earth metals to Japan after the country detained a Chinese fishing trawler captain on a boat in contested water. This was a political act designed to strongarm Japan into releasing the captain (he is still in custody). And it sets a scary precedent--China mines 93% of all rare earth metals. What happens if China stops exporting rare earth metals altogether? We're becoming more and more reliant on rare earth metals, a collection of 17 chemical elements found in the Earth's crust. The metals actually aren't that rare, but they're only found in high concentrations in a few sites in China, the U.S., and Australia. Even if

China doesn't halt exports, demand for rare earth metals is on track to outstrip supply by 40,000 metric tons per year in the next few years. A lack of supply could mean high prices for some of the technology that we value most, including electric car motors, wind turbines, solar panels (they're found in the glass), lithium-ion batteries, lasers, and optical-fiber communication systems. As it stands, the U.S. looks to Japan to manufacture most components containing rare earth metals. But that may change soon. According to the New York Times, the House of Representatives is scheduled to review a bill this week that could subsidize America's rare earth industry, which is centered around a mine in Mountain Pass, California. The rare earth mine--one of the largest in the world--has been closed since 2002 due to lack of demand, but Molycorp Minerals is now trying to raise the $500 million needed to reopen the site. Even if the site reopens, the U.S. and Europe will still probably rely on Asia for much of their rare earth needs--

China has been mining large quantities of rare earth metals for decades, and has more experience using them for industrial applications. The next resource war, then, may be over the materials used in the clean energy technologies that were supposed to help us transition away from reliance on unstable regimes.

34

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeChina Impacts- Trade

A trade war between the US & China threatens the entire international trading system and a hot war:

Droke 10 (Clif, Editor – Momentum Strategies Report, “America and the Next Major War’, Green Faucet, 3-29, http://www.greenfaucet.com/technical-analysis/america-and-the-next-major-war/79314)

It's evident that as much as China's internal markets are developing, that nation is still heavily reliant on the U.S., whether it wants to formally admit it or not. For this reason, a trade war between the two nations would prove catastrophic and one can see how a trade war between these two economic titans could easily escalate into something far more destructive. Touching on this issue in his latest book, "The Ascent of

Money," author Niall Ferguson asks, "Could anything trigger another breakdown of globalization like the one that happened in 1914 [leading to World War I]? The obvious answer is a deterioration of political relations between the United States and China, whether over trade, Taiwan, Tibet or some other as yet subliminal issue." He further comments, "Scholars of international relations would no doubt identify the systemic origins of the war in the breakdown of free trade, the competition for natural resources or the clash of civilizations....Some may even be tempted to say that the surge of commodity prices in the period from 2003 until 2008 reflected some unconscious market anticipation of the coming conflict."

35

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeChina Impacts- Trade War

US-China war collapses trade, the global economy, and triggers a US-China hot war: Droke 10 (Clif, Editor – Momentum Strategies Report, “America and the Next Major War’, Green Faucet, 3-29, http://www.greenfaucet.com/technical-analysis/america-and-the-next-major-war/79314)

In the current phase of relative peace and stability we now enjoy, many are questioning when the next major war may occur and speculation is rampant as to major participants involved. Our concern here is strictly of a financial nature, however, and a discussion of the geopolitical and military variables involved in the escalation of war is beyond

the scope of this commentary. But what we can divine from financial history is that "hot" wars in a military sense often emerge from trade wars . As we shall see, the elements for what could prove to be a trade war of epic proportions are already in place and the key figures are easily identifiable . Last Wednesday the lead headline in the Wall Street Journal stated, "Business Sours on China." It seems, according to WSJ, that Beijing is "reassessing China's long-standing emphasis on opening its economy to foreign business....and tilting toward promoting dominant state companies." Then there is Internet search giant Google's threat to pull out of China over concerns of censorship of its Internet search results in that country. The trouble started a few weeks ago Google announced that it no longer supports China's censoring of searches that take place on the Google platform. China has defended its extensive censorship after Google threatened to withdraw from the country. Additionally, the Obama Administration announced that it backs Google's decision to protest China's censorship efforts. In a Reuters report, Obama responded to a question as to whether the issue would cloud U.S.-China relations by saying that the human rights would not be "carved out" for certain countries. This marks at least the second time this year that the White House has taken a stand against China (the first conflict occurring over tire imports). Adding yet further fuel to the

controversy, the U.S. Treasury Department is expected to issue a report in April that may formally label China as a "currency manipulator," according to the latest issue of Barron's. This would do nothing to ease tensions between the two nations and would probably lead one step closer to a trade war between China and the U.S. Then there was last week's Wall Street Journal report concerning authorities in a wealthy province near Shanghai criticizing the quality of luxury clothing brands from the West, including Hermes, Tommy Hilfiger and Versace. This represents quite a change from years past when the long-standing complaint from the U.S. over the inferior quality of Chinese made merchandise. On Monday the WSJ ran an article under the headline, "American Firms Feel Shut Out In China." The paper observed that so far there's little evidence that American companies are pulling out of China but adds a growing number of multinational firms are "starting to rethink their strategy." According to a poll conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, 38% of U.S. companies reported feeling unwelcome in China compared to 26% in 2009 and 23% in 2008. As if to add insult to injury, the high profile trial of four Rio Tinto executives in China is another example of the tables being turned on the West. The executives are by Chinese authorities of stealing trade secrets and taking bribes. There's a touch of irony to this charge considering that much of China's technology was stolen from Western manufacturing firms which set up shop in that country. It seems China is flexing its economic and political muscle against the West in a show of bravado. Yet one can't help thinking that this is exactly the sort of arrogance that typically precedes a major downfall. As the Bible states, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." In his book, "Jubilee on Wall Street," author David Knox Barker devotes a chapter to how trade wars tend to be common occurrences in the long wave economic cycle of developed nations. Barker explains his belief that the industrial nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China will play a major role in pulling the world of the long wave deflationary decline as their domestic economies begin to develop and grow. "The are and will demand more foreign goods produced in the United States and other markets," he writes. Barker believes this will help the U.S. rebalance from an over weighted consumption-oriented economy to a

high-end producer economy. Barker adds a caveat, however: if protectionist policies are allowed to gain force in Washington, trade wars will almost certainly erupt and. If this happens, says Barker, "all bets are off." He adds, "The impact on global trade of increased protectionism and trade wars would be catastrophic , and what could prove to be a mild long wave [economic] winter season this time around could plunge into a global depression." Barker also observes that the storm clouds of trade wars are already forming on the horizon as we have moved

further into the long wave economic "winter season." Writes Barker, "If trade wars are allowed to get under way in

these final years of a long wave winter, this decline will be far deeper and darker than necessary, just as the Great Depression was far deeper and lengthier than it should have been, due to growing

international trade isolationism. He further cautions that protectionism in Washington will certainly bring retaliation from the nations that bear the brunt of punitive U.S. trade policies . He observes that the reaction from one nation against the protectionist policies of another is typically far worse than the original action. He cites as an example the restriction by the U.S. of $55 million worth

of cotton blouses from China in the 1980s. China retaliated by cancelling $500 million worth of orders for American rain. "As one nation blocks trade, the nation that is hurt will surely retaliate and the entire world will suffer , " writes Barker.

The impact is nuclear World War 3ICFI ’10 [Oct 2, "The rising danger of a US-China trade war," International Congerence on the Fourth International, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/oct2010/pers-o02.shtml]

36

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeThese arguments are premised on the assumption that US pressure will compel China to back down. But despite high economic growth, the Chinese regime is deeply concerned about economic and social instability. Responding to the US legislation, Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu warned: “Promoting protectionism against China on the basis of the exchange rate will severely damage China-US trade and economic ties and will have a negative impact on the two economies and the world economy .” Pointing to Beijing’s underlying fears, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao told US business leaders last week: “If the renminbi [yuan] appreciates by 20 percent to 40 percent according to the requests of the US government, we do not know how many Chinese companies will go bankrupt and how many Chinese workers will be laid off and how many rural workers will go back to their homes. There will be major turbulence in the Chinese society.”

Confronting social upheavals, China is likely to retaliate. The consequences of escalating global trade conflict are well known. Writing in the Washington Post on Monday, Robert Samuelson openly advocated trade war as the means of ensuring continued US economic supremacy. “No one familiar with the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 should relish the prospect of a trade war with China, but that seems to be where America is headed and is probably where it should be headed,” he wrote. “Although the Smoot-Hawley tariff did not cause the Great Depression, it contributed to its severity by provoking widespread retaliation. Confronting China’s export subsidies risks a similar tit-for-tat cycle at a time when the global economic recovery is weak. This is a risk, unfortunately, America needs to take.” Samuelson criticised China for “never having genuinely accepted the basic rules governing the world economy” and for wanting “a trading system subordinated

to its needs”. But the US, of course, is seeking to retain its own dominant position and to fashion the trading system to suit its economic needs. As Beijing has pointed out, the latest US legislation threatening to penalise China over its currency is inconsistent with WTO rules. Samuelson’s article overturns a basic economic tenet of post-war American liberalism: that there should never be a return to the beggar-thy-neighbour policies ushered in by the Smoot-Hawley Act. However, the post-war institutions designed to prevent a reoccurrence, in particular the 1944 Bretton Woods monetary system, rested on America’s overwhelming economic pre-eminence and have long since collapsed. Amid the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, the push for trade penalties returns. In concluding, Samuelson argued that trade war represented a lesser evil compared to accepting Chinese ascendancy. “The collision is between two concepts of the world order,” he declared. “As the old order’s main

architect and guardian, the United States faces a dreadful choice: resist Chinese ambitions and risk a trade war in which everyone loses, or do nothing and let China remake the trading system. The first would be dangerous; the second, potentially disastrous.” Samuelson should perhaps have entitled his article, “A modest proposal for world war”. The passage of the Smoot-Hawley Act led to a barrage of retaliatory trade tariffs by other countries, a catastrophic slump in world trade, which fell by 40 percent between 1929 and 1933, and the emergence of antagonistic currency blocs. The corollary of trade war was rearmament, and escalating rivalry and conflicts in Asia and Europe that culminated in the eruption of World War II in 1939.

37

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeChina Impacts- US-Sino Relations

US-China Relations solve extinctionWenzhong, 04 (Zhou Wenzhong, PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2-7-04. “Vigorously Pushing Forward the Constructive and Cooperative Relationship Between China and the United States,” http://china-japan21.org/eng/zxxx/t64286.htm)

China's development needs a peaceful international environment, particularly in its periphery. We will continue to play a constructive role in global and regional affairs and sincerely look forward to amicable coexistence and friendly cooperation with all other countries, the United States included. We will continue to push for good-neighborliness, friendship and partnership and dedicate ourselves to peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Thus

China's development will also mean stronger prospect of peace in the Asia-Pacific region and the world at large. China and the US should , and can, work together for peace, stability and prosperity in the region . Given the highly complementary nature of the two economies, China's reform, opening up and rising economic size have opened broad horizon for sustained China-US trade and economic cooperation. By deepening our commercial partnership, which has already delivered tangible benefits to the two peoples, we can do still more and also make greater contribution to global economic stability

and prosperity. Terrorism, cross-boundary crime, proliferation of advanced weapons, and spread of deadly diseases pose a common threat to mankind. China and the US have extensive shared stake and common responsibility for meeting these challenges, maintaining world peace and security and addressing other major issues bearing on human survival and development . China is ready to keep up

its coordination and cooperation in these areas with the US and the rest of the international community.

38

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeChina Impacts- EU-China Dispute

Chinese control of rare earth elements are leading to skirmishes with the EUEarth Times ‘10 [“EU to pressure China, Africa over access to rare earth metals,” April 29, http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/321164,eu-to-pressure-china-africa-over-access-to-rare-earth-metals.html] The European Union is to put pressure on China and African nations over access to rare earth metals on which several key industries depend, the EU's commissioner for industry, Antonio

Tajani, said Wednesday. China's export restrictions on rare metals such as tungsten, lanthanum, cerium,

neodymium, europium and yttrium - key for the manufacture of mobile phones, fibre optics, x-ray machines and lasers - has caused a spike in prices, causing howls of protests from business groups in the EU and in the United States. Tajani, speaking in Brussels, said he would draw up a "communication before the end of the year," looking at ways for the EU to address the problem. Officials close to the Italian commissioner explained that the document would firstly list all the "sensitive" raw materials that European industry is having trouble resourcing. The European Commission would also pledge to work with China on easing its exports quotas, stressing that the restrictions are in breach of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. At the same time, it would aim to boost cooperation with African nations with a view to gain a foothold on the extraction of rare metals held in their territory, currently dominated by Chinese companies. Tajani said the issue would be raised at a EU-African Union summit planned in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in June. The commission strategy would also look at ways to boost recycling of rare materials within the EU, in particular by looking at whether current environmental legislation can be interpreted "in a more flexible way," officials added. Access to rare earth metals was likely to de discussed during commission president Jose Manuel Barroso's visit to China, starting on Wednesday and continuing until Saturday, commission sources said.

The issue could also come up in the agenda of an EU summit in June at the request of France, where the government adopted on Tuesday an action plan to secure the supply of strategic rare earth metals, the same sources indicated.

39

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeChina Impacts- AT: No China war

It’s not just rhetoric- there is a real risk anger at China will result in substantive trade actions against China:

Eswar Prasad, 9/29/2010 (teaches trade policy @ Cornell University, Marketplace, "The House's bill against foreign currency manipulation ", http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/09/29/pmthe-houses-bill-against-foreign-currency-manipulation/)

RYSSDAL: For all that we are talking about currency now in this country, and we have been for a number of months -- at least in

Congress -- is this all going to go away after the election? Does politics explain the popularity? PRASAD: Right now in the U.S., there is a very combustible mix not only of leading up to election season and we have very

vulnerable Congressmen. But in addition to that, the jobs picture is very weak, the trade deficit in the U.S. is beginning to rise again -- and China counts for about half of that so far this year. So it is a volatile mix and that I think is what is being reflected in what is typically overheated rhetoric now getting translated into more substantive actions directed at China.

US-China trade relations are pushed to the brinkJournal of Commerce Online ’10 [September 24, 2010, p. WP]

After more than a decade of manufacturing outsourcing by Western companies and slow but steady economic reform by Beijing, China is the United States' second-largest trade partner and appears to be catching up fast to Canada. It's time, then, that the U.S. decides what kind of trade relationship it wants with China. The U.S. and China certainly have a trade relationship, of course, one built on the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods and services that pass between the countries each year. U.S. trade with China totaled $40.6 billion in July and was worth $242.5 billion in the first seven months of 2010, according to U.S. Census

statistics. But disputes over government subsidies and currency controls reaching a crescendo this fall are reminders that the trade relationship has been built in fits and starts over the years, without much design, and it's showing signs of stress. U.S. companies are calling on the government to fix those stresses, but the truth is, any steps the White House takes in the wide range of disputes now under scrutiny can only have a small impact on the enormous flow of trade between the U.S. and China. The biggest of the disputes is over China's currency, which Beijing keeps at an artificially low rate to the U.S. dollar, helping fuel the huge flow of exports across the Pacific from China. There are signs China is moving more rapidly to change its currency policies. A foreign exchange regulatory official was quoted as saying this month that the yuan trades within too narrow a range, signaling there is strong debate in Beijing over loosening currency controls. 'This paper argues that a floating exchange rate need not be feared, but it doesn't advocate a floating exchange rate,' Guan Tao, an official in the state administration of foreign exchange, wrote in an essay reported on by The Wall Street Journal.

40

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeMilitary Superiority- Rare-earth key

Rare-earth elements are critical to effective military operationsDutram ’10 [Eric, Head of Editorial at ETF Database, (Exchange-Traded Fund) “Rare Earth Metal Shortage Could Sink These 3 ETFs,” July 19, http://etfdb.com/2010/rare-earth-metal-shortage-could-sink-these-three-etfs/]

Rare earth metals are highly valued in defense and security applications due to their light weights. ITA tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Select Aerospace & Defense Index, a benchmark that measures the performance of the aerospace and defense sector of the U.S. equity market. A recent report from the U.S. Department of Defense emphasized the value of these metals to the military, noting that rare earth elements form a currently irreplaceable part of devices such as lasers, radar, missile-guidance systems, satellites and aircraft electronics. Moreover, many military systems also rely upon commercial computer hard drives that use rare earth magnets, including the navigation system for the M1A2 Abrams battle tank, and a new hybrid electric drive in the works for the Navy’s DDG-51 destroyers.

Lack of rare-earth metals trades off with US military superiorityHsu 5-12-11 [Jeremy, InnovationNewsDaily Senior Writer, “U.S. Military Vulnerable to Global Mineral Supply Disruptions,” http://www.innovationnewsdaily.com/security-dependence-critical-minerals-1981/] High-tech U.S. military hardware such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has a weakness in its dependency upon global supply chains of irreplaceable minerals. Such minerals go into everything from the radar-reflecting materials of stealth helicopters and drones to the guidance systems for Tomahawk cruise missiles. Now the U.S. military needs to look ahead and use war games to plan for possible disruptions to those mineral supply chains, a new report says. Most of the rare earth minerals found in U.S. military systems such as smart bombs, night vision goggles and missile defense systems have come from China. The heat-resistant rhenium metal that goes into the jet engines for the F-35 and F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft

overwhelmingly comes from Chile and Kazakhstan. The U.S. has already experienced past disruptions in these supply chains due to the local politics of countries such as China and Kazakhstan. "The DoD [Department of Defense] needs may only represent five percent of the demand for a mineral, but that doesn't matter if you can't get something at all," said Christine

Parthemore, director of the natural security program for the Center for a New American Security. The U.S. military's enthusiastic use of commercial computers, smartphones and GPS also means that it has less control over the global supply chains behind those technologies. Such supply chains have vulnerabilities to political crises, market conditions or natural disasters, such as the earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan this year. "Dual use of technologies means that DoD needs to care about nondefense economic conditions, because those will impact the supply chains," Parthemore told InnovationNewsDaily.

Military might hinges on rare-earth suppliesHsu 4-14-11 [Jeremy, Innovation News Daily senior writer, “U.S. Military Supply of Rare Earth Elements Not Secure,” http://www.technewsdaily.com/us-military-supply-of-rare-earth-elements-not-secure-0430/]

Military officials did stress how rare earth elements form a currently irreplaceable part of devices such as lasers, radar, missile-guidance systems, satellites and aircraft electronics. And many military systems also rely upon commercial computer hard drives that use rare earth magnets. Even more specific examples of rare earth-driven technologies include the navigation system for the M1A2 Abrams battle tank, and a new hybrid electric drive in the works for the Navy's DDG-51 destroyers. Rare earth elements might eventually become part of the U.S. National Defense Stockpile, according to the GAO report.

41

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeMilitary Superiority- Chinese chokehold

Chinese REM dominance destroys US military suppliesRichardson ‘10 [Michael Richardson, visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South East Asian Studies in Singapore, October 8, 2010, “China’s Chokehold On Rare-Earth Minerals Raises Concerns ,” online: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/chinas-rare-earth-minerals] Yet China could keep its dominant grip on the rare-earths industry for some years. It holds 35 percent of global reserves, but supplies over 95 percent of demand for rare-earth oxides, of which 60 percent is domestic, according to Industrial Minerals Company of Australia, a consultancy. Just as important, Chinese companies, many of them state-controlled, have advanced in their quest to make China the world leader in processing rare-earth metals into finished materials. Success in this quest could give China a decisive advantage not just in civilian industry, including clean energy, but also in military production if Chinese manufacturers were given preferential treatment over foreign competitors. Cerium is the most abundant of the 17 rare earths, all of which have similar chemical properties. A cerium-based coating is non-corrosive and has significant military applications. The Pentagon is due to finish a report soon on the risks of US military dependence on rare earths from China. Their use is widespread in the defense systems of the US, its allies, and other countries that buy its weapons and equipment. In a report to the US Congress in April, the Government Accountability Office said that it had been told by officials and defense industry executives that where rare-earth alloys and other materials were used in military systems, they were “responsible for the functionality of the component and would be difficult to replace without losing performance.” For example, fin actuators in precision-guided bombs are specifically designed around the capabilities of neodymium iron boron rare-earth magnets. The main US battle tank, the M1A2 Abrams, has a reference and navigation system that relies on samarium cobalt magnets from China. An official report last year on the US national defense stockpile said that shortages of four rare earths – lanthanum, cerium, europium and gadolinium – had already caused delays in producing some weapons. It recommended further study to determine the severity of the delays.

42

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeMilitary Superiority- General Impacts

US military might solves terrorism, WMD conflict, the global economy and drug traffickingKorb ’03 [Lawrence, Project Director of Council Policy Initiative, Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, “A New National Security Strategy in an Age of Terrorists, Tyrants, and Weapons of Mass Destruction”, http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/National_Security_CPI.pdf]

U.S. Dominance and Preventive Action. The most serious threats to American security come from the combination of terrorism, rogue states, and WMD. The temptation to try using these weapons against Americans is high for several reasons, including the fact that clearly identifying and punishing an attacker is inherently difficult. We are not going to be able to talk others out of developing these weapons, nor are we likely to be able to build an international coalition to help us get rid of

these weapons. Therefore we must have both the capability and the will to use force against those states and the groups within them that represent the most serious threats to our security and way of life. And we should be prepared to do this essentially with U.S. military power alone, unbound by the need for allies or UN approval. In the longer term, we must undercut our potential adversaries by ensuring the spread of free market democracy throughout the world. Larger trends have

conspired to make the threat posed by radicalism much greater in recent times. Given the rapid dissemination of destructive technologies, sensitive information, and capital flows in today’s globalized world, threats from terrorist networks and rogue states can and will materialize more rapidly than in the past. Moreover, any attacks promise to be much more devastating if and when these actors get their hands on WMD. As the world’s leading military and economic power, the United

States is the most likely target of these terrorists and tyrants. In the face of, and in response to, these imminent dangers, it has not only the duty but also the legal and moral right to launch preemptive attacks, unilaterally if necessary. Common sense

dictates that the government not stand idly by and wait to act until catastrophic attacks are visited upon the American people. The United States has the unrivaled military and economic capability to repel these challenges to our security, but it must display

the will to do so. To be able to carry out a strategy of preventive action, taking preemptive military action when necessary, this country must be a hegemonic power. The United States can protect its security and that of the world in the long run only by maintaining military dominance. Only America can effectively respond to the perils posed by terrorists, regional thugs, weapons proliferators, and drug traffickers. It can do the most to resolve problems created by “failed” states before they fester into major crises. And it alone can ensure that the world’s sea lanes and skies are kept safe and open for free trade. But the array of challenges in its path requires military dominance and cannot be met on the cheap. The ultimate goal of American foreign policy will be to use this power, alone if necessary, to extend free-market democracy around the globe. This is the only way in which the United States can deal with the long-term causes of terrorism. These terrorists come from

countries that suffer from political repression, economic incompetence, and a broad lack of respect for the rule of law. And, contrary to what some believe, democracy and capitalism do not spread inexorably on their own. The United States therefore needs to assume a leadership role in spreading and accelerating the growth of free-market democracies that have been taking hold in the aftermath of the Cold War.

Military dominance solves nuclear warKhalizad ‘95 (Zalmay Khalilzad, Former Prof of Political Science at UC San Diego and Columbia and Former Dir. of the Strategy, Doctrine and Force Structure program for RAND’s Project Air Force, Washington Quarterly, Spring, 1995.)

What might happen to the world if the United States turned inward? Without the United States and the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization (NATO), rather than cooperating with each other, the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East. In Western and Central Europe, Germany --especially since unification -- would be the natural leading power. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia, Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum, stabilizing the region, and precluding its domination by rival powers. Britain and France fear such a development. Given the strength of democracy in Germany and its preoccupation with absorbing the former East Germany, European concerns about Germany appear exaggerated. But it would be a mistake to assume that U.S. withdrawal could not, in the long run, result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. The same is also

true of Japan. Given a U.S. withdrawal from the world, Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. China, Korea, and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. Without U.S. protection, Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -- to balance the growing Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces. This could result in arms races, including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. Given Japanese technological prowess, to say nothing of the plutonium stockpile Japan has acquired in the development of its nuclear power industry, it could obviously become a nuclear weapon state relatively quickly, if it should so decide. It could also build long-

range missiles and carrier task forces. With the shifting balance of power among Japan, China, Russia, and potential new regional powers such as

India, Indonesia, and a united Korea could come significant risks of preventive or proeruptive war. Similarly, European competition for regional dominance could

43

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativelead to major wars in Europe or East Asia. If the United States stayed out of such a war -- an unlikely prospect -- Europe or East Asia could become dominated by a hostile power. Such a development would threaten U.S. interests. A power that achieved such dominance would seek to exclude the United States from the area and threaten its interests-economic and political -- in the region. Besides, with the domination of Europe or East Asia, such a power might seek global hegemony

and the United States would face another global Cold War and the risk of a world war even more catastrophic than the last. In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. Iran and Iraq have, in the past, both sought regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf

Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis might seek to acquire, perhaps by

purchase, their own nuclear weapons. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies. Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oil importing nations. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce the U.S. standard of living. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the United States, perhaps reducing U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in these regions. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary

adjustments might be high. The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and means for their delivery. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. The result would be a much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities; the likelihood of their actual use would increase accordingly. If this happened, the security of every nation in the world, including the United States, would be harmed.

Solves nuclear warMillot ‘94 (Marc Dean Millot, RAND, Washington Quarterly, Summer, 1994.)

The outcome of this refusal to face the emerging reality of regional nuclear adversaries is that the United States is not preparing seriously for the possibility of having to fight

in a regional nuclear war. If it continues down this path, it will be unable to cope with the potential threat of nuclear aggression against its allies. If it cannot assure the security of its allies against this threat, the result is likely to be further proliferation among these allies, highly unstable regional military situations, a severe reduction of the United States' international influence, and a growing probability of regional nuclear wars involving U.S. forces .

44

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeMilitary Superiority- Proliferation

Strong military readiness is key to prevent proliferationMandelbaum ‘05 [Michael, Professor and Director of the American Foreign Policy Program at Johns Hopkins, “The Case for Goliath: How America Acts As the World’s Government in the Twenty-First Century,” p. 46]

By contributing in this way to the global public good of nuclear nonproliferation, the United States functions as governments do within sovereign states. American nuclear guarantees help to secure something that all countries want but would probably not get without the United States. The military deployments and political commitments of the United States

have reduced the demand for nuclear weapons, and the number of nuclear-armed countries, to levels considerably below what they would otherwise have reached. But American policies have not entirely eliminated the demand for these armaments, and so the ongoing effort to restrict their spread must address the supply of them as well.

45

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeMilitary Superiority- Nuclear Primacy

REMs are key to all missile systems and first-strike capabilitiesKennedy ‘10 [J. Kennedy, President of Wings Enterprises, March 2010, “Critical and Strategic Failure of Rare Earth Resources,” online: http://www.smenet.org/rareEarthsProject/TMS-NMAB-paperV-3.pdf]

The national defense issues are equally important. Rare earths are critical components for military jet engines, guided missiles and bombs, electrical countermeasures, anti-missile systems, satellite communication systems and armor, yet the U.S. has no domestic sources. Innovation Drives Industry – Industry Carries the Economy Advances in Materials Science are a result of tireless innovation; innovation seeking improvements in the performance and characteristics of material properties or a change in their form or function. Much of this work must eventually translate into commercial and military applications. Today many advances in material science are achieved through the application of rare earth oxides, elements and alloys. This group of elements, also known as the lanthanide series, represents the only known bridge to the next level of improved performance in the material properties for many metallurgical alloys, electrical conductivity, and instrument sensitivity and in some cases a mechanical or physical change in function. These lanthanides hold unique chemical, magnetic, electrical, luminescence and radioactive shielding characteristics. Combined with other elements they can help maintain or alter physical and structural characteristics under changing conditions. Today, these rare earth elements are essential to every computer hard drive, cell phone, energy efficient light bulb, many automotive pollution control devices and catalysts, hybrid automobiles and most, if not all, military guidance systems and advanced armor. Tomorrow, they will be used in ultra capacity wind turbines, magnetic refrigeration, zero emission automobiles, superconductors, sub-light-speed computer processors, nano-particle technologies for material and metallurgical applications, structurally amorphous metals, next generation military armor and TERFENOL-D Radar. America must lead in these

developments. The entire U.S. defense system is completely interdependent upon REO enhanced technologies for our most advanced weapons guidance systems, advanced armor, secure communications, radar, advanced radar systems, weapons triggering systems and un-manned Drones. REO dependent weapons technologies are predominantly represented in our ‘first strike’ and un-manned capabilities. This national defense issue is not a case of limited exposure for first-strike capabilities. This fir st-strike vulnerability translates into risk exposure in every level of our national defense system, as the system is built around our presumptive technological and first-strike superiority. Yet the DoD has abandon its traditional procurement protocols for “strategic and critical” materials and components for weapons systems in favor of “the principles of free trade vii.

That’s key to nuclear primacyLieber and Press ‘07 [Keir A. Lieber, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, and Daryl G. Press is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth, 2007, “U.S. Nuclear Primacy and the Future of the Chinese Deterrent,” online: http://www.wsichina.org/%5Ccs5_5.pdf]

Furthermore, the United States continues to work to increase the lethality of its nuclear forces, thereby reducing even more the significance of any actual deviations from expected levels of accuracy. For example, the U.S. Navy recently experimented with using Global Positioning System (GPS) signals to provide terminal guidance for Trident II reentry vehicles (which would dramatically improve the warhead’s accuracy) and it is enhancing its Trident II W76 warheads with a new fuze to permit ground-bursts (which will greatly enhance the warhead’s lethality against hardened targets). 28

Achieving GPS-like accuracy with submarine-launched ground-burst warheads would mark a tremendous leap in U.S. counterforce capabilities, providing gains in performance that could substitute for potential inaccuracy in other weapon systems. The point is that our analysis is not sensitive to plausible levels of uncertainty about U.S. accuracy, and will become even less sensitive in the future as U.S. weapons grow even more capable.

Nuclear primacy is key to solve nuclear warsCaves ‘10 [John P. Caves Jr., Senior Research Fellow in the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction at the National Defense University, January 2010, “Avoiding a Crisis of Confidence in the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent,” Strategic Forum, No. 252]

Perceptions of a compromised U.S. nuclear deterrent as described above would have profound policy implications, particularly if they emerge at a time when a nucleararmed great power is pursuing a more aggressive strategy toward U.S. allies and partners in its region in a bid to enhance its regional and global clout. A

46

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativedanger ous period of vulnerability would open for the United States and those nations that depend on U.S. protection while the United States attempted to rectify the problems with its nuclear forces. As it would take more than a decade for the United States to produce new nuclear weapons, ensuing events could preclude a return to anything like the status quo ante. The assertive, nuclear-armed great power, and other major adversaries, could be willing to challenge U.S. interests more directly in the expectation that the United States would be less prepared to threaten or deliver a military response that could lead to direct conflict. They will want to keep the United States from reclaiming its earlier power position. Allies and partners who have relied upon explicit or implicit assurances of U.S. nuclear protection as a foundation of their security could lose faith in those assurances. They could compensate by accommodating U.S. rivals, especially in the short term, or acquiring their own nuclear deterrents, which in most cases could be accomplished only over the mid- to long term. A more nuclear world would likely ensue over a period of years. Important U.S. interests could be compromised or ab andoned, or a major war could occur as adversaries and/or the United States miscalculate new boundaries of deterrence and provocation. At worst, war could lead to state-on-state employment of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) on a scale far more catastrophic than what nuclear-armed terrorists alone could inflict.

47

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeMilitary Superiority- Nuclear primacy solves war

The U.S. will inevitably fight conventional wars against nuclear-armed adversaries---only nuclear primacy prevents escalation to nuclear warLieber and Press ‘09 [Keir A. Lieber, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, and Daryl G. Press, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, November-December 2009, “The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent,” Foreign Affairs, p. 50-51]

This second criticism has merit. Nevertheless, the benefits of maintaining effective counterforce capabilities trump the costs. Strong counterforce capabilities should make adversaries expect that escalating a conventional war will lead to a disarming attack, not a cease-fire. Beyond deterrence, these capabilities will provide a more humane means of protecting allies who are threatened by nuclear attack and give U.S. leaders the ability to pursue regime change if an adversary acts in a truly egregious fashion. Moreover, some danger of escalation is unavoidable because the style of U.S. conventional operations will inevitably blind, rattle, and confuse U.S. adversaries. If the United States has powerful counterforce tools, these may dissuade its enemies from escalating in desperate times, and U.S. leaders would have a much more acceptable option if deterrence fails. The nuclear forces the United States builds today must be able to act as a reliable deterrent, even in much darker times. Many of those who recommend a much smaller U.S. nuclear arsenal—and assign little importance to a nuclear counterforce option—fail to consider the great diffculties of maintaining deterrence during conventional wars. The U.S. nuclear arsenal should retain suffcient counterforce capabilities to make adversaries think very carefully before threatening to use, putting on alert, or actually using a nuclear weapon. Any nuclear arsenal should also give U.S. leaders options they can stomach employing in these high-risk crises. Without credible and effective options for responding to attacks on allies or U.S. forces, the United States will have diffculty deterring such attacks. Unless the United States maintains potent counterforce capabilities, U.S. adversaries may conclude—perhaps correctly—that the United States’ strategic position abroad rests largely on a bluff.

48

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeMilitary Superiority- US-China War

Strong military posture is key to prevent US-China war:Brinkley 6-7-11 [Joel, staff writer for Tribune Media Services, “China’s military buildup is aimed directly at U.S. forces,” http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/07/2934439/chinas-military-buildup-is-aimed.html#ixzz1QhT4cwuA]

In a news release, the United States Pacific Command complains that “a core tension in the U.S.-China military relationship is U.S. frustration over China’s unwillingness to reveal more about its military capability, its budget and its strategy. Some Pentagon officials have questioned whether U.S. openness toward the Chinese makes strategic sense.” Good question. Rep. Randy Forbes, a Virginia Republican who is chairman of the House subcommittee on military readiness, recently wrote an angry letter to the Pentagon, demanding that it quickly produce its annual report on China’s military, due each year by March 1, because “China has made considerable advancements in military capability” which have “enormous implications for U.S. military planning.” And when Gen. Chen Bingde, the Chinese military chief of staff, visited Washington last month, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, angrily objected.

“The Chinese military openly regards the United States as an enemy,” she practically shouted. “There can be no doubt that every scrap of information this expert delegation collects will be used against us.” All the while, military experts are loudly complaining that China is now acquiring its first aircraft carrier and is about to deploy anti-ship ballistic missiles — “carrier killers,” in common military parlance. Prohibited by arms-control treaties, the U.S. has never built one. With all of that, it sounds like these officials fear a war. Some countervailing evidence suggests otherwise. Each year, the United States spends nearly 10 times more on its military than China. Its navy is four times larger and has nearly 4,000 aircraft, while the Chinese navy has a few hundred airplanes, all based on land. But all that is beside the point, argues Daniel Blumenthal, a former senior Pentagon official now with the American Enterprise Institute. “It’s not the right analytical tool,” he told me. If you examine China’s military buildup, he said, “it’s directly meant to destabilize our own military.” As an example, no regional power has aircraft carriers those “carrier-killer” missiles could target — except the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Standing next to Chen at the Pentagon last month, Adm.

Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned, “we cannot wait until we are in a crisis to understand each other.” While the U.S. wants to avert an unnecessary conflict, too many people in Washington also fear that China agrees to military exchanges only for its own perfidious reasons: spying and stealing technology — just as they wanted to get hold of that helicopter tail section in Pakistan. “There’s been a sea change in attitude in Washington,” Blumenthal said. “The Chinese are opaque about what they are doing.” Nonetheless, the U.S. does know, for example, that China has “the most aggressive missile development program in the world.” Even without armed conflict, China is already assaulting us. That cyber attack revealed last week against the Gmail accounts of senior American officials and Chinese dissi- dents is just the latest example. Last month, American and Chinese military bands did manage to put on successful joint concerts in Washington, New York and Philadelphia. This time, no one complained. Given all that has happened, it seems, that’s about as far as we can trust the Chinese.

49

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeMilitary Superiority- Deterrence

Strong commitment to our military ensures that it can maintain its security commitments to allies and deter warsPerry ’06 [William J. Perry, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Former Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisory Group ?The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk,? January, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2006/us-military_nsag-report_01252006.htm]

In the meantime, the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond to other contingencies. The absence of a credible strategic reserve in our ground forces increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to challenge the United States. Since the end of World War II, a core element of U.S. strategy has been maintaining a military capable of deterring and, if necessary, defeating aggression in more than one theater at a time. As a global power with global interests, the United States must be able to deal with challenges to its interests in multiple regions of the world simultaneously. Today, however, the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond outside the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of operations. If the Army were ordered to send significant forces to another crisis today, its only option would be to deploy units at readiness levels far below what operational plans would require – increasing the risk to the men and women being sent into harm’s way and to the success of the mission. As stated rather blandly in one DoD presentation, the Army “continues to accept risk” in its ability to respond to crises on the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere. Although the United States can still deploy air, naval, and other more specialized assets to deter or respond to aggression, the visible overextension of our ground forces has the potential to significantly weaken our ability to deter and respond to some contingencies.

50

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeF-22- Rare-earth metals key

Lack of rare-earth metals trades off with F-22 developmentRare Metals Blog ‘10 [September 25, 2010. China Hold on Metals Worries Washington. http://www.raremetalblog.com/2010/09/china-hold-on-metals-worries-washington-.html]

Rare-earth metals have important military applications because of their magnetic strength, which allows for extraordinary miniaturization of components. The fins that steer precision bombs, for instance, have samarium-cobalt permanent magnet motors. The motors that run the rudder and tail fins on a high-performance fighter aircraft like the Air Force F-22 Raptor are built with lightweight, rare-earth magnets. Neodymium is found in the solid-state lasers used to designate targets. In the newest issue of Joint Force Quarterly, a professional military journal published by National Defense University, Navy Reserve Lt. Cdr. Cindy Hurst, a research analyst in the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., wrote that "China appears to be holding an unlikely trump card" through its dominance in the rare-earth element industry. "The country's grasp on the rare-earth element industry could one day give China a strong technological advantage and increase its military superiority," she wrote. The Department of Defense is completing a study to identify the potential national security risks of rare-earth material dependency. Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said a full report drawing on input from a number of government agencies will be released next month.

51

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeF-22- Key to military dominance

F-22s are key to air superiority- must compete with new Russian fightersHorowitz ’10 [David Joel Horowitz is an American conservative writer and policy advocate. He is a founder and the president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and edits the conservative FrontPage Magazine. http://frontpagemag.com/2010/08/25/robert-gates-a-retrospective/2/?cid=67595]

The available evidence demonstrates at this time that a mature production PAK-FA design has the potential to compete with the F-22A Raptor in VLO performance from key aspects, and will outperform the F-22A Raptor aerodynamically and kinematically. Therefore, from a technological strategy perspective, the PAK-FA renders all legacy US fighter aircraft, and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, strategically irrelevant and non-viable after the PAK-FA achieves IOC in 2015. Detailed strategic analysis indicates that the only viable strategic survival strategy now remaining for the United States is to terminate the Joint Strike Fighter program immediately, redirect freed funding to further

develop the F-22 Raptor, and employ variants of the F-22 aircraft as the primary fighter aircraft for all United States and Allied TACAIR needs. If the United States does not fundamentally change its planning for the future of tactical air power, the advantage held for decades will be soon lost and American air power will become an artefact of history.

F-22 superiority is key to internal link to military dominanceDunn ’10 [JR, “Vanishing American Air Superiority,” American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/vanishing_american_air_superio.html]

The debate over the F-22 Raptor has been carried out at the customary level of simplemindedness we've become used to when Congress handles military questions. Since the early '60s, the favored method of killing a military program has been to come up with an argument easily expressed in a sound bite and stick with it. This time, the sound bite was, "Why do we need two fighter planes, anyway?" The answer is even simpler: We need two fighters because we need two fighters. The historical record clearly reveals this: Every air campaign carried out with two distinct and particularly formulated fighter designs has been a success, and every attempt to do otherwise has resulted in disaster. U.S. Air Force doctrine on fighter procurement is known as the high/low mix. The "high" component consists of a dedicated air-superiority fighter, utilizing the latest aeronautical technology, fitted with state-of the-art electronics, and carrying the most advanced air-to-air weapons. These aircraft have one mission -- to kill enemy airplanes. This is the paramount goal of a fighter force. Without it, nothing else can be accomplished. That being the case, the high-end fighter is the more expensive and complex part of the mix. They are rare assets, to be utilized accordingly. The "low" end is encompassed by the swing-role fighter, more commonly known as the fighter-bomber. Though designed and built with slightly less technical sophistication than the air-superiority models, these aircraft fill a much wider role. They carry out interdiction missions using bombs and rockets, provide ground-support for troops, and at the same time can acquit themselves adequately in the air-to-air role if enemy fighters show up. As such, they can supplement and reinforce the air-superiority aircraft if massive air battles develop. The swing-role fighter is cheaper and more easily and quickly constructed than its haughtier brother, so there tend to be larger numbers of them. The high-low mix was pioneered during WWII. Both the British and the U.S. stumbled onto the concept without quite realizing what they were doing. In the years before the war's outbreak, the British embarked on a crash program to build eight-gun fighters for the defense of the home islands. The premier model was the Supermarine Spitfire, one of the legendary combat aircraft of the 20th century. But the Spitfire was supplemented by the lesser-known but still capable Hawker Hurricane. The Hurricane could take on the primary German fighter, the Messerschmidt Bf -109, only with difficulty, so an ad hoc strategy developed during the Battle of Britain (August 12-September 15, 1940) in which Spitfires attacked the fighter escorts while the Hurricanes hit the slower bombers. This strategy worked well enough to force the Luftwaffe to abandon daylight raids in September 1940, denying Hermann Goering the appellation of "Tamer of Britain." As the war went on and Spitfires appeared in more substantial numbers, the Hurricane took on the fighter-bomber role. A dedicated ground-attack version, the Hurribomber, with increased bomb load and heavy wing cannon, began operating against Rommel's Afrika Korps in 1942. Hurribombers served throughout the war North Africa, Italy, and Burma. The U.S. backed into the high-low mix out of desperation. The frontline fighter in 1943 was the Republic P-47, an excellent aircraft with one major drawback: Its combat radius was limited to 300 miles. That meant that it could not escort bombers to Germany and back, leaving the 8th Air Force's B-17s and B-24s at the mercy of German defenses. By sheer accident, a failing attack plane, the A-35, was mated with the British Merlin engine (the same as used by the Spitfire). The result was a magical airplane -- the P-51 Mustang, a fighter capable of flying deep into Germany and back while at the same time agile enough to outfly most opponents. As the P-51 arrived in large numbers in the U.K. in early 1944, the P-47 was shifted to the fighter-bomber role. Fitted with wing racks for rockets and bombs, the P-47 flew constant escort over Allied tank spearheads as they moved across northwest Europe into the Reich, demolishing organized armored and artillery resistance. At the same time, the Jug, as the pilots called it, could more than hold its own against enemy fighters. Whenever some sorry remnant of the Luftwaffe attacked P-47 wings (as in Operation Bodenplatte, the Luftwaffe's January 1, 1945 last stand), they often got the worst of it. Following the war, the high-low mix was carried on into the jet age. At the outbreak of the Korean War, a superb air-superiority aircraft, the F-86 Sabre, was entering service, while two first-generation fighter jets, the F-80 Shooting Star and the F-84 Thunderjet, covered the fighter-bomber role. As the war settled into an uneasy stalemate in 1951, USAF F-86s established a barcap (barrier combat air patrol) along the Yalu River to prevent communist MiG-15s flown variously by Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean pilots from attacking U.N. forces. Not a single successful incursion was made by communist air forces during the war. In the meantime, F-80s and F-84s continually harassed North Korean and Chinese forces. The high-low mix proved itself in both WWII and Korea. But it was abandoned during the era of specialization, the 1950s. The "century series" fighters were, excepting the F-100 Super Sabre, the pioneer supersonic fighter. The model was quickly superseded by more advanced aircraft, designed for certain specific, limited roles, with no attempt to cover either the air-superiority or fighter-bomber mission. The F-101B, the F-102, and the F-106 were high-speed interceptors, the F-105 a "fighter-bomber" designed to drop nuclear weapons, the F-104 an indescribable and dangerous oddity. Coming into the '60s without a fighter to carry out its basic missions, the USAF was forced to purchase the F-4 Phantom II, developed on behalf of the enemy service, the U.S. Navy. While an excellent aircraft, the F-4 was in many ways the apotheosis of the fighter-bomber, too heavy and lacking the agility to fill the air-superiority role. This was discovered immediately over Vietnam, where American aircraft were hard put to match Soviet-supplied MiGs during the early years of the war. It required a suite of improved air-to-air weapons and a complete overhaul of tactics before U.S. air forces could dominate the skies in their accustomed manner. Much of those novel tactics were the work of Major John Boyd, a vastly talented and wildly eccentric fighter pilot who in later years was to trigger a revolution in military strategy. During the mid-'60s, he was in charge of developing the USAF's new tactical fighter. This effort followed a fiasco involving the General Dynamics F-111, which might be called liberalism's attempt to build a combat aircraft. Though intended as a fighter, the production F-111 was a monster aircraft the size of a medium airliner, and just about as maneuverable. Though the F-111 eventually found its role as a precision bomber, a large hole remained where the USAF's future fighter aircraft was supposed to be. Boyd's job was to fill that hole. At first, it appeared that Boyd would be presiding over F-111: The Sequel. General Dynamics sent him a proposal for a plane weighing no less than 60,000 lbs. Boyd sent it back outlining exactly what he expected: half the weight, powered by engines that hadn't even reached the test stage yet, and with electronics and weapons systems that nobody could quite comprehend. It was a sure formula for failure in other hands, but everything broke the Mad Major's way, with advanced engines and avionics becoming available at just the right moment. The result was the F-15 Eagle. But Boyd was not quite satisfied. He was perfectly aware of the benefits of the high-low mix, and on his own, without permission from anyone, began development of the necessary "low"-end aircraft. Working out the design parameters to match a series of "Energy Maneuverability" curves he had formulated (in large part from reinterpreting the aircraft as a thermodynamic system), Boyd coaxed several aircraft companies to produce prototypes to compete in a flyoff. Unusually, both prototypes were successful. One became the Navy's standard fighter, the F/A-18 Hornet. The other became the F-16 Falcon (though most pilots call it the "Viper"). Together, the F-15 and F-16 stand as the most effective fighter team on record. The F-15 compiled a kill ratio of 105 kills to zero losses. While the F-16's record was only half that, it more than effectively filled the swing role as the primary high-speed attack aircraft in theaters including Serbia and Iraq. Neither aircraft ever suffered a loss in air-to-air combat. It would appear that the high-low thesis is as well established as any military concept ever gets. All the same, we're in the process of dumping it in pursuit of false economy. To the battle cry of "who needs two fighters anyway!"

the U.S. is dropping the high end of the equation -- the F-22 Raptor -- in the mistaken conviction that the low end -- the F-35 Lightning II -- can cover all the bases. The F-22 is the most effective air-superiority weapon ever devised -- the sole current

52

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativeoperational example of the fifth-generation fighter. With its full stealth, supersonic cruise capability, and electronics that make the Starship Enterprise look like a birchbark canoe, it is utterly unmatched as a fighter aircraft. Its kill/loss ratio is estimated at 100 to 1 and is probably much higher. The F-35 is a good little airplane, well-fitted for the swing role. It possesses partial stealthing ("forward stealthing," which prevents an enemy from knowing it's coming), performance matching most operational fighters, and a good electronics suite. It has several minor failings -- among them limited a internal weapons carriage, rendering underwing carriage necessary (thus negating most of its stealth advantages), along with an inability to fire its air-to-air weapons at maximum speed. All the same, when matched against current fighter designs, it would probably come out on top. But the problem is that the F-35 will not be facing current designs. Technical superiority in all fields -- and in the military more than any other -- is the most ephemeral of assets. Even as the F-22 debate winds down, Sukhoi, Russia's premier aircraft company, is preparing to produce its own fifth-generation fighter, the PAK-FA. Fast, stealthy, and with state-of-the-art electronics, the PAK-FA is known as the "Raptor killer." It will probably have even better luck with the F-35. As for China, persistent rumors have been circulating concerning tests of a new fifth-generation fighter. (Interestingly, the Chinese have adapted the high-low mix for their own fighter force even as the U.S. seems about to abandon it.) In a fifth-generation fighter environment, current tactics utilizing long-range detection by AWACS planes, which then hand off interception to individual fighters, will no longer be feasible. You can't play that game with stealth aircraft. We will instead return to the tactics of WWII and Korea, where opposing aircraft elements hunted each other across the wide blue sky and whoever had the best eyesight struck first. In that tactical environment, piloting skill and numbers will make all the difference

53

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmative***Solvency***

54

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSolvency- General

Current approaches are insufficient to solve our resource woes- revitalized focus on asteroid mining is vital to sustainabilitySpace Wealth 2-23-11 [Space research organization and public benefit corporation, “Is Profitable Asteroid Mining A Pragmatic Goal?” http://spacewealth.org/files/Is-P@M-Pragmatic-2011-02-23.pdf]

Economic resources in space are of three types: Location, energy, and matter. Some near Earth locations already support profitable industrial engagements. Low Earth and geosynchronous Earth orbits host hundreds of revenue generating satellites (worldwide industry revenues in 2008: >$140 billion). 19 Beyond Earth’s atmosphere, solar radiation is abundant; it powers most satellites. Orbiting space based solar power systems (SBSP) may be able to deliver huge quantities of clean, sustainable energy to Earth. 20 But to date, nothing from the vast reaches beyond Earth orbit has ever been involved in an economic exchange. To incrementally expand our current off planet economy, the next resource is clear: NearEarth asteroids. To

take this next step, we need our space agencies to make asteroid mining a priority, and demonstrate how it can done. Agencies should support SBSP, but it should not be a top priority for two reasons. First, SBSP already attracts interest from commercial firms and defense related institutions. 21 Second, even if SBSP supplied 99% of the world’s electricity, we’re still just in Earth orbit. We haven’t begun to tap the mineral wealth of the inner solar system. We need out space agencies to reach out—with robots, certainly; perhaps with humans— to find, get hold of, and bring back an economically significant chunk of matter, and sell it on the open market. We need them to prime the pump for economically and ecologically sustainable, post-Earth as a closed system, industrial societies. Our space agencies need to enable a revolutionary transformation in the material culture of our home planet. They need to design and launch positive economic feedback systems that utilize off planet resources. Space agencies need to develop the skills and knowledge required to draw material resources through extraterrestrial supply chains, and put them to use in terrestrial

systems of production. Once learned, space agencies need to transfer these skills and understandings to individuals in industry. Civil space agencies also need to help design, publish, and promote the inner solar system knowledgebases that will prepare today’s students for profitable extraterrestrial careers. 22 We need our civil space agencies to do these things, because we need the metals that are available in asteroid ore to support our technological societies on Earth, so that they may become ecologically sustainable over the decades and centuries to come.

Asteroid mining is cost effective, solves rare earth metal shortages and outweighs the disadsDeere ’10 [Dunca, staff writer for Wired.co.uk, July 15, “Making space exploration pay with asteroid mining,” http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/15/asteroid-mining]

It's not confined just to epic space MMO Eve Online and Mass Effect 2 -- asteroid mining exists as a topic of study in the real world too. At the TEDGlobal 2010 conference in

Oxford, Professor Eric Anderson of Space Adventures talked a little about how space travel could eventually prove profitable -- by mining asteroids. Asteroids happen to be particularly rich in platinum group metals -- ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum. These elements are extremely rare on Earth, and most of the world's known deposits come from sites of asteroid impact. They're so rare that prices for a few grams can be in the thousands of pounds. However, they're also crucial ingredients for electronics. They're very stable, resistant to chemical

attack, and cope with high temperatures, making them perfect for use in circuitry. Asteroids that have already been surveyed have been shown to contain vast amounts of these metals. One average 500-metre-wide asteroid contains hundreds

of billions of pounds-worth of metal -- more than has ever been mined in the course of human history. Near-Earth asteroids are likely first targets for mining, due to the ease of getting to them, and getting the materials back to earth. Increasing the supply of platinum group metals on earth by sending up specialist mining spacecraft could have two benefits. Firstly, it'd allow the cost of electronics production to go down. More raw material should push down the market price. Secondly, it'd offer a motive for space travel beyond "the pursuit of knowledge " . While pursuit of knowledge is a noble goal, it's proved increasing difficult to fund since the days of the space race in the 1960s. Introducing capitalism, corporations and stockholders in that process might seem like an anathema to some space enthusiasts, but it may be necessary to fund the huge amount of space exploration that still needs to be done. In history, great voyages of exploration have rarely been done solely with the goal of furthering knowledge. Columbus discovered America while trying to find a easier, cheaper way of shipping spice from the East to the West, following the fall of Constantinople. The vast expanse of the interior of America was mapped by gold-rushers, seeking their fortune. Similarly, Antarctica was discovered by explorers seeking new sources of seal meat, and much of northern Canada and its lakes were charted by fur traders and those hoping to save time crossing the Pacific from Europe by avoiding having to round Cape Horn in South America. So to those despairing about the recent cutting of space

budgets across the world, invest your savings in asteroid mining. If history is any guide, then once that industry takes off, a whole new frontier will open up for humanity.

55

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeExtra-terrestrial mining is vital to sustaining technological society and advancing the US economyCrandall et al 2/23/11 (William BC Crandall, MBA, is the Founder of Space Wealth. Space Wealth. “Is Profitable Asteroid Mining A Pragmatic Goal?” http://spacewealth.org/files/Is-P@M-Pragmatic-2011-02-23.pdf, 23 February 11, JGR)

Our primate ancestors did not stand up on their hind legs in order to inspire younger generations to study the rarified art of balancing on two feet. They did it to get food and to avoid becoming food. Today we face new hungers, new dangers. It now appears likely that terrestrial sources of certain metals — which are required for ecologically sustainable technological societies — may not be able to satisfy 21st Century global demand . At this historic juncture in space development, the U.S. has a terrific opportunity to re-launch its civil space agency as an economically vital , extraterrestrial branch of the USGS , creating fantastically detailed maps of—and greatly improving our access to—the mineral wealth of the solar system . Rather than ask, “Where should we try to send humans next?” NASA should ask, “What can we do to create economic value, off planet, for the taxpayers who are investing in our efforts?”

We must take advantage of the highly available NEAs and their valuable resources to ensure long term sustainability of the economy and ecosystems. The development of mining technology is key to furthering private industry involvement in spaceCrandall et al 2/23 (William BC Crandall, MBA, is the Founder of Space Wealth. Space Wealth. “Is Profitable Asteroid Mining A Pragmatic Goal?” http://spacewealth.org/files/Is-P@M-Pragmatic-2011-02-23.pdf, 23 February 11, JGR)

Economic resources in space are of three types: Location, energy, and matter. Some nearEarth locations already support profitable industrial engagements. LowEarth and geosynchronousEarth orbits host hundreds of revenuegenerating satellites (worldwide industry revenues in 2008: >$140 billion). 19 Beyond Earth’s atmosphere, solar radiation is abundant; it powers most satellites. Orbiting spacebased solar power systems (SBSP) may be able to deliver huge quantities of clean, sustainable energy to Earth. 20 But to date, nothing from the vast reaches beyond Earth orbit has ever been involved in an economic exchange. To incrementally expand our current offplanet economy, the next resource is clear : NearEarth asteroids. To take

this next step, we need our space agencies to make asteroid mining a priority , and demonstrate how it can done . Agencies should support SBSP, but it should not be a top priority for two reasons. First, SBSP already attracts interest from commercial firms and defenserelated institutions. 21 Second, even if SBSP supplied 99% of the world’s electricity, we’re still just in Earth orbit. We haven’t begun to tap the mineral wealth of the inner solar system. We need our space agencies to reach out—with robots, certainly; perhaps with humans— to find, get hold of, and bring back an economically significant chunk of matter, and sell it on the open market. We need them to prime the pump for economically and ecologically sustainable, post-Earth-as-a-closed-system, industrial societies . Our space agencies need to enable a revolutionary transformation in the material culture of our home planet. They need to design and launch positive economic feedback systems that utilize off-planet resources. Space agencies need to develop the skills and knowledge required to draw material resources through extraterrestrial supply chains, and put them to use in terrestrial systems of production. Once learned, space agencies need to transfer these skills and understandings to individuals in industry . Civil space agencies also need to help design, publish, and promote the innersolarsystem knowledgebases that will prepare today’s students for profitable extraterrestrial careers. 22 We need our civil space agencies to do these things, because we need the metals that are available in asteroid ore to support our technological societies on Earth, so that they may become ecologically sustainable over the decades and centuries to come.

Asteroids are the most logical option for obtaining extremely valuable minerals from space.Crandall et al 2/23/11 (William BC Crandall, MBA, is the Founder of Space Wealth. Space Wealth. “Is Profitable Asteroid Mining A Pragmatic Goal?” http://spacewealth.org/files/Is-P@M-Pragmatic-2011-02-23.pdf, 23 February 11, JGR)

Some of these resources have outstanding value . Space agencies intent on addressing fundamental economic needs should focus on these materials. Platinum, for example, has sold at over $1,700/oz since January. 25 Platinum group metals (PGMs) are great catalysts. Used in automotive catalytic converters, which are required by national governments worldwide, 26 PGM supplies are quite limited. Some models point to terrestrial depletion within decades . 27 Platinum group metals [PGMs] are also critical as catalysts in hydrogen fuel cells, which are key to a possible post-carbon, “hydrogen economy.” 28 In 2008, The National Research Council identified PGMs as the “most critical” metals for U.S. industrial development. 29 Platinum group metals [PGMs] are abundant in certain types of nearEarth asteroids (NEAs). NEAs that are mineralogically similar to one of the most common types of “observed fall” meteorites (Htype, ordinary chondrites) offer PGM concentrations (4.5 ppm) 30 that are comparable to those found in profitable terrestrial mines (36 ppm). 31 Other meteorites suggest that some asteroids may contain much more valuable metal. 32 The PGM value of a 200 m asteroid can exceed $1 billion, or possibly $25 billion. 33 Over 7,500 NEAs have been detected. 34 Close

to a fifth of these are easier to reach than the moon; more than a fifth of those are ≥200 m in diameter: 200+ targets. 35 President Obama requested, and Congress has authorized, a fourfold increase in detection funding ($5.8 m to $20.4 m/year). 36 This could lead to ~10,000 known 200 m NEAs in a decade. 37

56

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeBut detection is just a start. The costs to locate, extract, and process asteroid ore are not well understood. 38 Before significant private capital is put at risk, we need to learn more. In cooperation with other forward looking nations, 39 the U.S. should purchase an option to develop asteroid resources by investing in the knowledge required to mine asteroids. We can then choose to exercise this option if terrestrial PGM supplies do in fact collapse. Asteroids may also be able to supply other metals that are increasingly at risk. 40 There are several candidates: In 2009, the U.S. imported 100% of 19 key industrial metals [including rare earth metals]. 41

NEAs are extremely accessible to mining missions and possess various valuable resources like REEs.Ross ’01 (Shane D. Ross is the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Assistant Professor of Dynamical System. “Near-Earth Asteroid Mining” http://76.75.200.144/settlement/asteroids/NearEarthAsteroidMining(Ross2001).pdf, December 14, 2001, JGR)

Asteroid mining is a concept that involves the extraction of useful materials from asteroids. Due to their accessibility, near-Earth asteroids (those asteroids that pass near the Earth, also known as NEAs) are a particularly accessible subset of the asteroids that provide potentially attractive targets for resources to support space industrialization. Many materials could be extracted and processed from NEAs which are useful for propulsion, construction life support, agriculture, metallurgy, semiconductors, and precious and strategic metals (see Table 1). Volatiles such as hydrogen and methane could be used to produce rocket propellant to transport spacecraft between space habitats, Earth, the Moon, the asteroids, and beyond. Rare-earth metals could be used to manufacture structural materials as well as solar photovoltaic arrays which could be used to power space or lunar habitats. These solar cells could also be used in a constellation of solar power satellites in orbit around the Earth in order to provide electrical power for its inhabitants. Precious metals such as platinum, platinum-group metals (PGMs), and gold are also available.

Mining REEs from asteroids will develop the private space industry and end the threat of resource wars with China.Bova 10 (Ben Bova is the President Emeritus of the National Space Society. Naples Daily News. “Rare earth elements are in the news.” http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/nov/27/ben-bova-nov-28-2010-rare-earth-elements-are-news/, 28 November 2010, JGR) [ps this card turns privates DA]

Rare earth elements are in the news. They have strange names, such as neodymium, scandium, yttrium. Although they’re not really all that rare, they

are messy to dig out of the ground and difficult to refine. Even so, rare earth elements are very useful, being important ingredients in lasers, superconducting magnets, batteries for hybrid automobiles, and the kinds of magnets used in computer hard disc drives. China produces roughly 97 percent of the world’s supply of rare earth elements . A few weeks ago China tightened its exports of these elements to the U nited S tates and Japan , two of the biggest users of them. The Chinese government says it is limiting its exports of rare earths because it wants to improve the environmental conditions of its mines — and, besides, it needs to keep a larger percentage of them for its own growing industries. Japan is looking into the possibilities of opening a rare earth mine in Vietnam, and in the U.S. Molycorp Minerals plans to reopen a mine in California it had closed in 2002 when radioactive waste was discovered leaking from a pipe there. But new facilities would have to be built to refine the ores from these mines [in Japan and the US ] . At present, the only operating refinery for rare earths happens to be — you guessed

it — in China. Cynics believe the Chinese are merely trying to drive up the price of the rare earths. Conspiracy theorists see a plot afoot in Beijing to control a natural resource that is vital for many high-tech industries. Space enthusiasts, though , see an opportunity . The solar system contains millions, perhaps billions, of small chunks of metals and minerals, which are called asteroids. The largest of them, Ceres, is less than 600 miles wide. Most of them are much smaller, tiny chunks of rock left over from the creation of the solar system nearly five billion years ago. Most of the asteroids circle around the Sun between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, roughly four times farther

from the Sun than our own planet Earth. But there are thousands that are much closer to Earth. Some of them actually cross Earth’s orbit. They are called Near Earth Asteroids: NEAs. (Astronomers are not known for poetic nomenclature.) When President Barack Obama scrapped NASA’s plans for returning to the Moon and building permanent bases there, he proposed sending astronauts to one of the NEAs, instead. Now, many of these asteroids happen to be rich in rare earth elements . In fact, most of the rare earth mines on our planet are situated at the sites of ancient asteroid impacts . If we ’re going to send astronauts to an asteroid, why not include a geologist who can bring back some samples of rare earths ? Why not give the mission a purpose beyond merely exploring for the sake of scientific knowledge? Why not begin to exploit the

natural resources that lie among the asteroids? Such an effort could act as an incentive for private industry to move farther into space than merely providing rockets to ferry people and cargo to the International Space Station. It could also show the world — and particularly the Chinese government — that we can move beyond our dependence on their resources (and ploys). Mining rare earths from asteroids would be enormously expensive, at first. But the effort could help to start a transition toward developing space industries . In time,

we could see many industrial operations running in space, using virtually free solar energy, while our world becomes cleaner and greener: a

residential zone, with industry moving off our planet. Would a move in this direction influence the Chinese government to relax its grip on rare-earth exports? There is a precedent for this sort of thing . In the 1980s, when former President Ronald Reagan

57

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativeproposed the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka “Star Wars”) it started a chain of events that led eventually to the fall of the Soviet Union.

We didn’t go ahead with SDI — indeed, we still do not have a credible defense against ballistic missiles. But the possibility that the U.S. might develop missile defenses helped to crack the Soviet Union apart. The possibility of mining rare earths from asteroids might help influence China, too.

58

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSolvency- Tech exists

Asteroid mining technology exists- it’s just a question of economic supportLamb ’10 [Robert, staff writer at Discovery News, “THE ETHICS OF PLANETARY EXPLORATION AND COLONIZATION,” 2-17-10, http://news.discovery.com/space/the-ethics-of-planetary-exploration-and-colonization.html]

Can you put a price tag on an asteroid? Sure you can. We know of roughly 750 S-class asteroids with a diameter of at least 1 kilometer. Many of these pass as near to the Earth as our own moon -- close enough to reach via spacecraft. As a typical asteroid is 10 percent metal, Brother Consolmango estimates that such an asteroid would contain 1 billion metric tons of iron. That's as much as we mine out of the globe every year, a supply worth trillions and trillions of dollars. Subtract the tens of billions it would cost to exploit such a rock, and you still have a serious profit on your hands. But is this ethical? Brother Consolmango asked us to ponder whether such an asteroid harvest would drastically disrupt the economies of resource-exporting nations. What would happen to most of Africa? What would it do to the cost of iron ore? And what about refining and manufacturing? If we spend the money to harvest iron in space, why not outsource the other related processes as well? Imagine a future in which solar-powered robots toil in lunar or orbital factories. "On the one hand, it's great," Brother Consolmango said. "You've now taken all of this dirty industry off the surface of the Earth. On the other hand, you've put a whole lot of people out of work. If you've got a robot doing the mining, why not another robot doing the manufacturing? And now you've just put all of China out of work. What are the ethical implications of this kind of major shift?" Brother Consolmango

also stressed that we have the technology to begin such a shift today; we'd just need the economic and political will to do it. Will our priorities change as Earth-bound resources become more and more scarce?

Asteroid mining technology is already in place- it just needs further supportScience Clarified ’08 [Science and technology magazine sponsored by SoftLayer Technologies, “How Humans Will Mine Asteroids and Comets,” http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Comets-and-Asteroids/How-Humans-Will-Mine-Asteroids-and-Comets.html]

Assuming such commitments do materialize, however, the technical difficulties will be relatively minimal. Indeed, scientists emphasize that humans can reach and mine the asteroids and comets mostly using technology that exists or is presently in development. It is true that this technology will have to be applied on a much vaster scale than people have ever experienced. But it is doable nonetheless. "This isn't Star Wars," say the Minor Planet Center researchers. "The asteroids aren't against us. It's really pretty simple stuff." People have already demonstrated the ability to travel and live in space, and "the engineering factors that go into 'docking' with an asteroid are not difficult." 49

The technology is there- we just need the funding.Space Wealth 10 (Reliable News Source, “Is Profitable Asteroid Mining A Pragmatic Goal?”, 8/23/10, http://www.spacewealth.org/files/Is-P@M-Pragmatic-2010-08-23.pdf, FAK)

Space agencies need to deliver substantive, tangible, near-term benefits. If they do not, it is unlikely that they will generate the support, the knowledge, and the technologies that are required to realize our “ultimate goals” in space . Viable space programs must satisfy “fundamental”

as well as “self-actualization” needs, as Abraham Maslow defined these in his Hierarchy of Needs.10 With competing claims on increasingly limited funds, programs that argue “It’s our nature to explore!”11 may not long survive.

Asteroid mining is feasible- NASA just needs the mula.Sonter 6 (Independent scientific consultant ; “Asteroid Mining: Key to the Space Economy”, 2/9/06, http://www.space.com/2032-asteroid-mining-key-space-economy.html, FAK)

When will we see asteroid mining start? Well, it will only become viable once the human-presence commercial in-orbit economy takes off. Only then will there be a market. And that can only happen after NASA ceases acting as a near-monopolist launch provider and thwarter of competition, and reverts to being a customer instead. A developing in-space economy will build the technical capability to access NEAs, almost automatically.

And regardless of the legal arguments about mineral claims in outer space, once the first resource recovery mission is successful, what's the bets on a surge in interest similar to the dotcom-boom and biotech-boom?

All we need is economic feasibilityISUSS 10 (Qualified Space University; “ASTRA”, 8/27/10, www.space.com/2032-asteroid-mining-key-space-economy.html, FAK)

59

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeCurrently, without reliable cost estimates or analogs, it is premature to definitively value the proposed asteroid project due to all the unknown variables associated with such an early stage of development. Still we can evaluate different parts of the mission architecture and test their economic feasibility . From a business perspective , the mission architecture can be separated into two distinct phases: asteroid surveying and characterization, and launch of the asteroid enterprise, and ongoing operations . The first phase is a critical step in the whole asteroid entity, because it provides the necessary information to decide whether to create the entity or not. Were we to skip this first phase and decide to start the company immediately, we risk an steroid that will not have any minerals. Therefore, this initial asteroid surveying phase can be seen as a real, financial ‘option’ , as it allows us to have the option to start the company or not.

Scientists have found ways to actually conduct the space mining.ASCE 96 (Qualified Engineering Society; “Sample Returns to Enable Asteroid Mining”, http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?100825, FAK)

The ability of a small, solar powered, electrically propelled spacecraft to obtain samples of near earth asteroids and return them to low earth orbit (LEO) was analyzed . Vehicles of up to 10 kW were examined for five cases of varying difficulty. If launched with a Delta II 7925 rocket, more than 600 kg can returned in the best case. No return ability was found in the toughest cases without trajectory tricks. A 5 kw vehicle, which can return 300 kg for several cases, was defined and costed. As a standard vehicle, its cost would be comparable to aeroentry systems which return less than a kilogram. The small electric sample return mission appears feasible, flexible and economical.

Scientists have a plan- It just needs to be implemented.Abundant Planet 10 (Taken from book; “Wealth of Asteroids”, 10/20/10,http://www.abundantplanet.org/WealthOfAsteroids, FAK)

A campaign to realize asteroid mining will need to integrate (a) international space law , including establishment of a property rights regime that is equitable and entrepreneurial, and the enforcement of such a regime through police action ; (b) national politics and policies , including adoption of extraterrestrial resource development as a key priority for national and international space agencies; (c) astronomical research to discover asteroid locations and orbits; (d) asteroid spectroscopy to determine their potentially valuable mineralogical constituents; (e) rocket science and engineering to survey and then rendezvous with one or more asteroids; (f) robotic systems to carry out the mining, processing, and return of metals to Earth ; and (g) entrepreneurial business plans that realistically model market supply and demand for specific minerals and metals, and package their development proposals with sufficient credence and flair to capture the requisite financing.

60

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSolvency- Funding

More government funding is key to asteroid mining- private actors can’t handle the initial investmentsInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

In the 12-year period following a positive economic feasibility study, we must further characterize major asteroids with fly-by missions and space-based remote sensing. The stakeholders should demonstrate spacecraft assembly in LEO by humans, robotic mining systems in a microgravity environment, and in-situ propellant generation (Recommendation VII). With these capabilities, sample return from large NEOs can occur to prove composition and demonstrate rendezvous techniques. In this period, the majority of funding must come from government and incentive based investments (such as the X-Prize model) as the initial ROI of commercial asteroid mining is too long for private sector investment. Stakeholders must resolve appropriation issues in this period, prove the possibility of sterile delivery of materials to Earth and conduct public outreach.

Government funding is crucial for asteroid mining successForgan and Elvis 3-29-11 Duncan H. Forgan and Martin Elvis, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh & Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “Extrasolar Asteroid Mining as Forensic Evidence for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.5369v1.pdf]

With much cheaper space exploration, the financial risks are reduced for other large-scale space projects, facilitating capital investment and [Hu]Man’s continued development into a space-faring species. Governments which invest at early stages in these projects will receive profitable advantages over their competitors, including early access to raw materials, new technologies and highly skilled personnel, each a boost to any nation’s economy. These benefits may not outweigh the current financial disadvantages, but dwindling resources

and rising costs on Earth will gradually improve the prospect of developing TAM missions until they become an obvious choice. Exactly how the initial capital will be raised will be the most important and difficult obstacle - private investors will baulk at the prospect of entirely funding TAM, but as with other large scale projects such as the Panama Canal (which was also faced with technological challenges and capital problems) the action of governments can make all the difference, especially if they can be encouraged into competition with each other (Hickman, 1999).

Asteroid mining technology already exists- the only question is adequate fundingScience Clarified ’08 [Science and technology magazine sponsored by SoftLayer Technologies, “How Humans Will Mine Asteroids and Comets,” http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Comets-and-Asteroids/How-Humans-Will-Mine-Asteroids-and-Comets.html]

Since that time, scientists working for both NASA and private companies have been doing detailed studies of space mining. The general consensus is that most of the technology needed to begin modest mining operations on an asteroid already exists. The main ingredient still missing is the commitment of a large amount of money by a government, corporation, or group of private investors. The experts all agree that it is only a matter of time before humans begin exploiting the tremendous wealth of resources waiting for them in the solar system.

61

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSolvency- Feasible

Asteroid mining is feasible and generates tons of critical resources- really complicated studies proveSanchez and McInnes ’10 [J.P. Sanchez of the Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, University of Strathclyde, UK and C.R. McInnes of the Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, University of Strathclyde “Assessment on the feasibility of future shepherding of asteroid resources,” http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/27784/1/Sanchez_JP_-_strathprints_-_Assessment_on_the_feasibility_of_future_shepherding_of_asteroid_resources_26_Sept_2010.pdf]

The results shown from Fig. 8 to Fig. 10 indicate the feasibility of future asteroid resource utilisation. One can imagine advantageous scenarios for space utilisation from the results on the expected size of the accessible material (Fig. 10). For example, the exploitation of the largest expected object found within a 100 m/s budget, a 24-m asteroid, could supply from 10 7 kg to 4x10 7 kg of asteroid material, depending on composition and density. If this object was a hydrated carbonaceous asteroids a million litres of water could possibly be extracted (considering an asteroid of density 1300 kg/m 3 [15] and 8% [25] of its weight in water). However, if this object was an M-class asteroid (density 5300 kg/m 3 [15]), of order thirty thousand tonnes of metal could potentially be extracted and even a tonne of Platinum Group Metals (PGM) (88% of metal assumed and 35ppm of PGM [25]). The latter resource could easily reach a value of fifty million dollars n Earth’s commodity markets. If the ∆v budget is increased to 1km/s, one 190-m diameter object should be accessible. This corresponds to more than 300 million litres of water or more than 10 million tons of metal and 600 tons of PGMs valued at 30 billion dollars.

Asteroid mining is feasible- it’s only a question of adequate supportInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

Recent advancements in the aerospace and medical fields have made the establishment of a permanent human presence in space more tangible than ever. While adding humans to an asteroid mining mission is a risky, costly, and laborious process, human involvement offers a number of important advantages. Those characteristics that make us uniquely human - flexibility, adaptability, creativity - translate into problem-solving, decision-making, and troubleshooting capabilities. These traits have the potential to dramatically improve the performance and success of a mission. While research and development in the robotic approximation of these characteristics is underway, comparable success has yet to be achieved. For example, complex maintenance and repair of mining equipment or facilities may be better suited to the unparalleled dexterity afforded by a human hand, avoiding the loss of millions of dollars in otherwise unsalvageable assets. However, the true value of human spaceflight lies not only in money. While financial impact is certainly a cornerstone consideration for a commercial venture and is often the dominant metric and motivator in Western (if not all) societies, a human mining mission would also have the added benefit of fulfilling a societal craving: that of our need to explore and to expand our society beyond the limits of Earth. More simply than that, a human presence in so strange a place as space inspires us, and subsequent generations, to achieve even greater technological and scientific heights. To draw upon a simple analogy, cultural institutions like the Eiffel tower, opera houses, or theatres may not be financially utilitarian, but they continue to exist because they help us to fulfill a

greater cultural need (Codignola and Schrogl, 2009). While human missions are more costly, they provide valuable benefits in the areas of cultural inspiration and increased mission performance. In addition to the potential role of humans in long-term space flight, this section discusses the ethical, social and medical aspects of such missions.

Mining is feasible and there are plenty of nearby asteroids to harvestSanchez and McInnes ’10 [J.P. Sanchez of the Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, University of Strathclyde, UK and C.R. McInnes of the Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, University of Strathclyde “Assessment on the feasibility of future shepherding of asteroid resources,” http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/27784/1/Sanchez_JP_-_strathprints_-_Assessment_on_the_feasibility_of_future_shepherding_of_asteroid_resources_26_Sept_2010.pdf]

This paper has shown that the utilisation of asteroid resources may be a viable mean of providing substantial mass in Earth orbit for future space ventures. A statistical population of near Earth asteroids has been used, along with a map of the Keplerian orbital element space from which the Earth can be reached under a given series of impulsive manoeuvres, to

62

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativedetermine an approximate amount of accessible asteroid resources within a given specific transfer energy. The range of energies analysed has shown that there is a reasonable mass of accessible asteroid resources with transfer energies lower than those required to exploit the Moon. Moreover, these resources can be accessed with an incremental level of energy, while lunar resources would require a minimum threshold equal to the Moon’s escape velocity. Exploitation of higher energy transfers may only be justifiable if the required resource is not available on the Moon. The size distribution of objects for near-Earth objects also ensures that the amount of exploitable mass is primarily made up of the largest objects within Earth reach. This guarantees that most of the exploitable mass could be successfully harvested by only a few mining or capture missions. Small objects with a diameter of order tens of meters to a few hundred meters diameter could potentially be the first targets for strategic resources. It is very likely that interesting targets in this range of diameters will be found in orbits such that the energetic requirements to transport their resources to Earth will be very low.

63

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSolvency- Technology and Robots

Further investment in technology solves asteroid miningAAPG ’09 [American Association of Petroleum Geologists Energy Minerals Div. Uranium Committee, “Developing Industrial Minerals, Nuclear Minerals and Commodities of Interest via Off-World Exploration and Mining,” http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2009/80067campbell/ndx_campbell.pdf]

Mining plans and the associated economics of operating in space would involve a new scale of operations never before attempted by humans. Mining, whether on the Moon or selected asteroids,

would likely require new methods and technologies to create pit excavations and to handle materials and equipment in zero gravity. “Controlled” drilling and blasting would be required to break up selected parts of asteroids or hard-rock areas of the Moon into smaller fragments which would settle back into the pit created by the blast, followed by

loading the ore material into crushers, and grinding the ore into smaller fragments suitable for loading into special transport vehicles. These transport vehicles would be built to interlock creating “space trains” which would bring the raw ores back to plants on the asteroids or the Moon for further processing into concentrates. These concentrates then would be smelted to rid the ore of unwanted materials and formed into ingots useful to industry or be sent directly back to Earth ‟ s surface via space elevators or other future transfer methods for further processing.

Increased focus on mining robotics is key to effective operationsSpace Wealth 2-23-11 [Space research organization and public benefit corporation, “Is Profitable Asteroid Mining A Pragmatic Goal?” http://spacewealth.org/files/Is-P@M-Pragmatic-2011-02-23.pdf]

Advanced robotics is the key to profitable asteroid mining. 70 Semiconductor and nanoscale hardware appears likely to sustain the exponential growth of Moore’s Law for decades. 71 Robotic miners can draw on this growing power—if we can get new computational technology off planet and to the target asteroids. 72 Robotic miners face many challenges. They must manage exponential complexity (a byproduct of growing computational

power), survive the environmental rigors of space, and execute the physically demanding work of hardrock mining. They need to be logically robust and physically tough: able to process tonnes of rock while utilizing gigawatts of power. 73 Nontrivial engineering, to be sure. The training required to design, build, program, and operate these robots is also far from trivial, as anyone who has assimilated an

“undergraduate” robotics text can attest. 74 Governments can raise the appeal of such a challenging educational career by making a clear commitment to extraterrestrial resource development. Fundamental robotics R&D can also benefit a wide range of terrestrial industries.

Robots are effective and have long lifespansKew ‘11 [Juliana, Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science, “Methods for Extracting Metals from Asteroids,” http://users.wpi.edu/~jkew/stream/Kew-stream.pdf]

Robots are much more robust and reliable now than they have ever been in the past. Single rovers on the surface of Mars have operated for over six years, drawing power from the sun. When they do cease operation, it is due to power deficits, as opposed to mechanical or programming failure. They can survive the harsh conditions of the planet, but the Martian wind blows dust across the solar panels of the rovers, gradually obscuring them, while winter limits solar exposure (“Rovers set longevity record”, 2010). Nevertheless, robots now routinely function for unprecedented lengths of time, outliving set design parameters.

Enhanced robotics solves asteroid mining

64

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeOrfano ’10 [Finn, engineer, “Asteroid Mining - Can it be Done?” http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/58284.aspx]

In order to ensure long-term profitability of the asteroid mining mission, the mined substance will have to be refined on the asteroid itself. On site refining will help in eliminating impurities, so the substance being sent back will have a greater concentration of ore. The use of robots in place of human miners will further enhance the cost effectiveness of the mining program. On a large sized asteroid, a mining operation could last for a decade or even more. Once an asteroid’s resources have been depleted the mining equipment could be shifted to another asteroid, leaving behind a riddled and scarred chunk of rock – that would continue to loiter around in an aimless orbit for the rest of eternity.

65

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSolvency- Rare elements

Asteroid mining solves the rare-earth shortage- there are more than enough resources to satisfy demandGeere ’10 [Duncan, Senior Staff Writer, Wired.co.uk, “Making space exploration pay with asteroid mining,” July 15, http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/15/asteroid-mining] Asteroids happen to be particularly rich in platinum group metals -- ruthenium, rhodium,

palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum. These elements are extremely rare on Earth, and most of the world's known deposits come from sites of asteroid impact. They're so rare that prices for a few grams can be in the thousands of pounds. However, they're also crucial ingredients for electronics. They're very stable, resistant to chemical attack, and cope with high temperatures, making them perfect for use in

circuitry. Asteroids that have already been surveyed have been shown to contain vast amounts of these metals. One average 500-metre-wide asteroid contains hundreds of billions of pounds-worth of metal -- more than has ever been mined in the course of human history. Near-Earth asteroids are likely first targets for mining, due to the ease of getting to them, and getting the materials back to earth. Increasing the supply of platinum group metals on earth by sending up specialist mining spacecraft could have two benefits. Firstly, it'd allow the cost of electronics production to go down. More raw material should push down the market price.

Asteroid mining solves the precious element shortage many times overBonsor ‘11 [Kevin, staff writer at Discovery with a bachelor's degree in journalism from Georgia Southern University, “How Asteroid Mining Will Work,” http://science.howstuffworks.com/asteroid-mining1.htm] Corporations that might not be interested in exploring space for the adventure and science could be interested in the treasures that a space mining operation could send back to Earth. One NASA report estimates that the mineral wealth of the asteroids in the asteroid belt might exceed $100 billion for each of the six billion people on Earth. John S. Lewis, author of the space mining book Mining the Sky, has said that an asteroid with a diameter of one kilometer would have a mass of about two billion tons. There are perhaps one million asteroids of this size in the solar system. One of these asteroids, according to Lewis, would contain 30 million tons of nickel, 1.5 million tons of metal cobalt and 7,500 tons of platinum. The platinum alone would have a value of more than $150 billion!

Millions of asteroids are rich in important minerals- mining solvesOrfano ’10 [Finn, engineer, “Asteroid Mining - Can it be Done?” http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/58284.aspx]

There are thousands or possibly millions of asteroids littered all over the Solar System and about 20% of them are rich in metals like iron, nickel, and magnesium. Asteroids might contain enough resources to sustain humanity for many millenniums. According to John Lewis, the author of “Mining the Sky”, an asteroid measuring 1 kilometer in diameter can have 2 billion tons of mass, which would yield more metal than has been mined in all of human history. Metal mined from asteroids will be of great significance in our endeavor to colonize space. Asteroid mining will not only help in fulfilling our needs, but it will also bring back the magnificent era of gold rush. The promise of great wealth and fortune will once again rekindle man’s innate desire to explore.

66

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSolvency- Clean tech

Asteroid mining is key to clean tech innovationHsu ’10 [Jeremy, staff writer for Popsci.com, “Shortage of Rare Earth Minerals May Cripple U.S. High-Tech, Scientists,” 3-17-10, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-03/shortage-rare-earth-minerals-may-cripple-us-high-tech-scientists-warn-congress]

All those hybrid and electric cars, wind turbines and similar clean tech innovations may count for nothing if the U.S. cannot secure a supply of rare earth minerals. Ditto for other advanced telecommunications or defense technologies, scientists told a U.S. House subcommittee. China has supplied 91 percent of U.S. consumption of rare earths between 2005 and 2008, and continues to represent the world's largest rare earth exporter. But the Chinese have warned that their own domestic industry appetite for rare earths may eventually force them to stop exporting -- an action that would leave the U.S. high-tech industries crippled without other readily available supplies. "The United States, not so long ago, was the world leader in producing and exporting rare earths," said Brad Miller, the Democratic Representative from North Carolina and chairman of the subcommittee. "Today, China is the world's leader." Experts testified that China's state-owned mines had set artificially low prices for the rare earth market, and that Chinese manufacturers had also forced most U.S. rare earth and permanent magnet manufacturers out of business. Rare earth magnets represent a major component in Toyota's Prius hybrid and other clean tech.

Sustainable asteroid mining allows a transition to a clean energy economyBova ’10 [Ben, staff writer for Naples News, “Rare earth elements are in the news,” November 27, http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/nov/27/ben-bova-nov-28-2010-rare-earth-elements-are-news/]

When President Barack Obama scrapped NASA’s plans for returning to the Moon and building permanent bases there, he proposed sending astronauts to one of the NEAs, instead. Now, many of these asteroids happen to be rich in rare earth elements. In fact, most of the rare earth mines on our planet are situated at the sites of ancient asteroid impacts. If we’re going to send astronauts to an asteroid, why not include a geologist who can bring back some samples of rare earths? Why not give the mission a purpose beyond merely exploring for the sake of scientific knowledge? Why not begin to exploit the natural resources that lie among the asteroids? Such an effort could act as an incentive for private industry to move farther into space than merely providing rockets to ferry people and cargo to the International Space Station. It could also show the world — and particularly the Chinese government — that we can move beyond our dependence on their resources (and ploys). Mining rare earths from asteroids would be enormously expensive, at first. But the effort could help to start a transition toward developing space industries. In time, we could see many industrial operations running in space, using virtually free solar energy, while our world becomes cleaner and greener: a residential zone, with industry moving off our planet.

Asteroid mining is key to green tech advancementForgan and Elvis 3-29-11 Duncan H. Forgan and Martin Elvis, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh & Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “Extrasolar Asteroid Mining as Forensic Evidence for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.5369v1.pdf]

Planets have finite natural resources. This truism has become painfully apparent to [hu]mankind in recent decades, through examples such as shrinking biodiversity and the increasing challenges facing engineers and geoscientists attempting to extract fossil fuels from

67

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativethe Earth. All life acts as consumers at some level, but the level of consumption is typically regulated through population control and other pressures introduced by the ecosystem . Advances in technology have allowed humans to circumvent these controls, with the effect that humans have vastly increased their population, placing strains on local resources. There has also been a continued increase per capita in consumption of precious metals for technologies such as computers, mobile phones and the infrastructures which enable them to function. The proposed green technologies of the future, such as hydrogen fuel cells and CO2 scrubbers, will only enhance this need for already rare resources (Elshkaki & Van Der Voet, 2006; Schuiling & Krijgsman, 2006). Such resources can be found in the asteroids. Meteoritic analysis (Kargel, 1994), suggests that large quantities of gold, platinum and other precious metals exist in the asteroids of the Solar System, as well as large amounts of other elements such as iron, nickel, magnesium and silicon. He concludes that successful operations at modest mining rates could increase the total production rate of some materials by a factor of 10. By applying simple empirical models (wheremarket value scales as the square root of production rate), approximate threefold decreases in price can also be expected, over timescales of a few decades. Indeed, if the supply of precious metals such as platinum is to continue to meet technological demands, asteroid mining may become essential within the coming century (Elshkaki & Van Der Voet, 2006). Besides these industrially driven arguments, SETI scientists are driven by the possibility of detecting extraterrestrial intelligence by evidence of their activities in the Outer Solar System and the asteroids (Papagiannis, 1978, 1995). Developing asteroid mining technology for commercial reasons will certainly assist the implementation of studies of this nature. China’s monopoly of REEs directly affects American companies and prevents the US from leading the world in cleantech Rep. Hank Johnson, 2011, Author of the Resource Assessment of Rare Earths Act 2011, (The Hill, “US must dig on are earth metals”, http://hankjohnson.house.gov/2011/04/us-must-dig-on-rare-earth-metals.shtml) Even as technology becomes increasingly critical to the way we live our lives, power our world and defend our shores, the United States has allowed the production of minerals crucial in the creation of these advanced products to slide. Critical to high-tech clean-energy and defense manufacturing, rare-earth elements (REEs) are minerals used in the production of cutting-edge technologies such as wind turbines, batteries for mobile phones, laptop computers, the planet’s most powerful magnets, military radar and

sophisticated weapon systems — just to name a few. But today, China accounts for 97 percent of global REE production and announced it is cutting production for the first half of 2011 by 35 percent. Because China dominates production, it aims to build a strategic stockpile that will not only

fuel their green tech revolution but also give it greater control over international prices. Dysprosium – one of the most critical rare-earth elements used in heat-resistant magnets for military radar systems (In Latin, dysprosium means “hard to get”) – has risen from $6.50 per pound in 2003 to more than $130 per pound today. This

Chinese monopoly is creating a strategic vulnerability for the United States that undermines our national security and competitiveness in the defense and clean-energy sectors. Rare earth shortages could also cause green energy and tech companies already weakened by the recession to falter, industry officials say. Electric cars like GM’s Chevrolet Volt use seven pounds of rare-earth magnets, while each clean-energy wind turbine uses more than 600 pounds of another rare earth element, neodymium.

68

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSolvency- Warming

REMs are key to clean tech that solves global warming- Chinese stranglehold destroys the tech sectorSeaman ‘10 [John Seaman, Fellow in the Center for Asian Studies at the French Institute of International Relations, September 2010, “Rare Earths and Clean Energy: Analyzing China's Upper Hand,” online: http://www.ifri.org/?page=contribution-detail&id=6204&id_provenance=103&provenance_context_id=4]

T h e w o r l d i s i n t h e m i ds t o f a b l o sso m i n g “ c l ea n e n e r g y ” tr an s f o r m a t i on . Since 2005, global investments in clean energy have grown by more than 230%, with worldwide investment in 2009 totaling more than $162 billion. Projections for 2010

show that these investments could increase by 25%, reaching roughly $200 billion by the year’s end.1

The recent craze for “green growth” among many of the world’s most advanced economies is not only meant to respond to the threat of global climate change and reduce dependence on fossil fuels, but to revitalize local and national economies by creating new opportunities for growth and “green jobs”. But international competition over who will reap the benefits of this new growth is mounting. For many, the home-grown development of the host of technologies necessary for the clean energy transfor- mation is already challenging enough. High costs, public apathy and misguided political interference are complicating what is already an unprecedented technical challenge. But beyond the public eye there is the potential for another challenge to low carbon technologies in the form of an ominous resource crunch in the so-called “rare earth elements”. There are many commercial, strategic and geopolitical di- mensions to this issue that need a higher quality public debate to en- sure they are adequately reflected in our strategies for a sustainable energy future. As explained further in the first part of this paper, rare earths are an increasingly strategic grouping of raw metals that are included in a broad range of cutting edge technologies including but not limited to energy-related technologies such as for windmills, hy- brid or electric vehicles, and energy-saving light bulbs. Demand for these technologies, and therefore the essential rare earth elements, has and will likely continue to increase dramatically. But ensuring economically attractive access to supplies of these elements is no simple task, and many experts agree that the world is rapidly heading for an acute shortage of processed rare earths largely because of underinvestment, but

geopolitics may also come into play. Since the mid-1980s China, which holds 37% of the world’s current proven, accessible rare earth reserves, has progressively gained a near monopoly on the mining and separation of these elements down to their oxide form. China now controls 97% of the g l o b al m a r k e t f or r are e a rt h o x i d e s ( RE O ) l ar g e l y b e ca u se other r es o urce h ol d e r s h a v e sca l ed d o w n t h ei r acti v i ti es or f a il ed t o m a k e t he i n v est m e nt s n e ces s ary. A s a n a l y z ed i n t he sec o nd p a r t o f t h i s p a p e r , C h i na h a s r ec e n tl y i n i t i ated a seri e s o f ref o r m m e a sures t h a t wil l h a v e co n se q u e nc e s f or t he g l o b al su p p l y o f RE O . O f ch i e f con- cern t o t he r est o f t he w orld i s C h i n a’ s p oli c y on li m i t i ng e x p o rt s o f t h e se o x i d e s. I n e a r l y Ju l y 2 0 1 0 , C h i n a ’ s M i n i s tr y of C o mm e r c e a n n o u n ced t h a t RE O e x p o r t q u o t as i n t he se c o n d h al f o f t he y e a r w o u l d be s l as h ed by 72% i n r e l a t i on t o t he sec o nd h a l f o f 2 0 0 9 . T h i s dra m a t i c r e d ucti o n c a m e as a sh o ck t o m a n y o f t he i n d us t r y ’ s t op e x p e rts , w ho h a d e x p e c t ed at m o st o nl y a q u a r t er o f t he a n n o u n c e d r e d ucti o n. T h i s a c t i on r a i ses t he q u e s t i on o f g l o b al sh o rt a g es f o r t h e se k ey e l eme n t s i n t h e m uch m ore i mm e d i ate f ut u r e .

69

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSolvency- Environment

The plan solves massive environmental destructionInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

As humans deplete the Earth of its resources, it becomes increasingly apparent that many of our activities are damaging to both the environment and humankind. Our expanding consumption within Earth ‟ s finite biosphere poses a threat to the global economy, the ecosystem, and the societies of Earth. Large-scale operations like strip-mining pose a threat to the environment that might be higher than establishing a mining infrastructure in space. Alternative sources of rare metals are needed both to address growing demand and to maintain an increasingly green publics support of the aerospace industry.

Asteroid mining is best for the environment- the modern mining industry is unsustainableInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

The mining industry produces negative environmental consequences. Platinum salts, when inhaled, cause severe respiratory dysfunction for mine workers, and extraction of alluvial deposits of platinum can cause water pollution (Pepys, 1972). Safety precautions are available

for these issues, but are not frequently employed. The sale of platinum , however, also has positive environmental consequences. In 2006, for example, 54% of all platinum sold was employed in control devices for automobile emissions, such as catalytic converters (George, 2006). The environmental benefits of platinum production, therefore, are far greater than the costs. Asteroid mining, being a possible means of decreasing the price of platinum, can enhance the

efficiency of devices that now employ an inefficient mixture of platinum group (and other) metals. (NSLS, 2010). Platinum is also integral to the construction of hydrogen fuel cells, which can be of great benefit to the environment by enabling the use of hydrogen as a substitute for carbonaceous fuels (Vielstich, 2003). The environmental risks imposed by asteroid mining are less than those imposed by terrestrial mining, and are much more likely to be regulated by governments due to the high profile and international nature of asteroid mining activities.

70

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSolvency- Hegemony

The US is running out of REEs which causes a decrease in hegJack Lifton, 1/12/10, (Senior Fellow at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. He is an independent consultant, writer and lecturer focusing on the market fundamentals and end uses of the "technology metals”, “The Battle Over Rare Earth Metals”, http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=228:the-battle-over-rare-earth-metals&catid=102:issuecontent&Itemid=355) All is not well in the world of rare earths. The main accessible concentrations of the rare earths are found in China, where more than 95% of rare earths are now produced. Over the last seven years, China has reduced the amount of rare earths available for export by some 40%. Earlier in 2009, concern over rare earths and their availability

caught fire with the US Congress when it ordered the US Government Accountability Office to undertake a comprehensive review of

US dependence on rare earths for military applications (night vision goggles, range finders, precision guided munitions and cruise missiles to use but a few examples). The American public’s attention, apparently unaware of their use in national defense and in the production of “green” technologies, was heightened by this development. Then in December 2009 the PBS broadcast a series of interviews by a British journalist in Inner Mongolia. The topic of the interview was “Are Rare Earth Minerals Too Costly for the Environment?” The theme of the story was that the levels of pollution in the Bayanobo region of China where most of its and the world’s production of the rare earth metals takes place, are now so high that industry must be reformed if new mineral production is to continue. Even existing mineral production may be in danger. The necessity for industry restructuring seems to be the case. It is obvious that in order to clean up the damage from decades of mining and refining operations, China’s rare earth industry must slow or even stop temporarily its activities. This must be carried out in order to assess the environmental impact of past mining operations and then to plan strategies for mitigating future environmental damage. Such steps would allow China to resume and perhaps ultimately to enlarge its production of the rare earth elements. The PBS program also took note of the fact that Chinese officials are openly concerned that the elements mined in the Bayanobo region are so valuable and important to China’s technological future that they must be conserved for future Chinese use. Rare earth production is or may soon be too low to keep up with growing demand. Six months ago, a story was circulated concerning China’s State Council which is the arm of the government that sets the agenda for China’s command economy. The story, supported by a white paper from the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), suggested that the export of the rarest of the rare earths, the higher atomic numbered (or heavy ones) be immediately terminated and that the export of the rare earths should be reduced in the next five-year plan (2010-15). The story could have been floated as a trial balloon to measure world reaction to a curtailing of the rare earths’ supply. Another possibility is that the story was released to the Western press because the Chinese government had become aware of the importance of rare earths to China’s technological and green future and that this importance is sufficient enough to curtail the export of rare earths at current levels. This is particularly important since rare earth production may soon have to be reduced while environmental problems are remedied. For the rest of the world, the problem is that the rare earths which the Chinese deem so important to their technological and green future are already critical for maintaining the West’s technological and green present, let alone a future of green growth

and sustainable production. For example, China has announced that over the life of the next two five-year plans, 2010-2020, it will construct some 133 gigawatts of wind turbine generated electricity. This is likely to dramatically impact the supply of the rare earth metal neodymium. (it could take up to half a ton of neodymium to make a permanent magnet for a very large wind turbine) If China chooses to go with the wind turbine generator design that uses a rare earth permanent magnet based on neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium, (the last two of which are among the rarest of the rare earth metals) then this will require that China increase its current production levels in order to meet additional demand. The alternative is that China substantially reduce its exports of the required metals under the terms of present production levels. Modern, smaller, high performance and high efficiency electric motors and generators are also increasingly dependent on the unique properties of these metals. The interruption of the supply of these metals to non-Chinese manufacturers and end users would upset both the civilian and military markets in the West. A shortage would surely mean that, first of all, the West would have to choose between “guns and butter.” Secondly, it would mean that technological advancements would stagnate or stop altogether in alternative energy production and uses where these metals are critical. This is a direct challenge to the West’s march toward a greener future.US leadership in clean tech is a determinant of national securitySustainable Business, 7/30/10, (“US National Security Requires Clean Tech Leadership”, http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/20764) America’s current energy posture undermines its economic security and constitutes a serious and urgent threat to national security. However, the Department of Defense (DoD) could help turn this potential threat into the next great American opportunity, according to a board of 15 top-ranking admirals and generals. A report released this week by the Military Advisory Board (MAB) of CNA, a not-for-profit research organization, stresses that economic security is integral to American national security. Without a strong economy, the United States has neither a strong defense, nor effective international influence. “We need to remain competitive in the world as we move toward a future of green, sustainable energy,” said General Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, USAF (Ret.). “The biggest motivation to do it is national security.” Like the space race, the race to develop and own clean energy technology has enormous and long-range strategic implications for national security. If it does

71

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativenot lead in the race to develop and deploy clean energy technology, the United States will have to buy it from other countries--and remain as dependent on foreign nations to meet our future energy needs, just as we are today on oil. Other nations are pursuing clean energy’s economic benefits, and becoming world leaders in clean technologies. China, Spain, Germany and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have made great strides in taking advantage of the economic opportunities clean technologies produce. The report notes, “While the United States cannot compete with many nations in low-cost manufacturing, it can lead in the realm of developing cutting edge technologies and innovation in research and development.” Because of its size, the considerable amount of energy it consumes, and its extensive experience in technological innovation, the Department of Defense (DoD) is uniquely positioned to spur clean energy innovation. According to the report, “DoD is in a position to help drive this change--for itself and the nation as a whole.” “Numerous widely adopted technologies, including the jet engine, gas turbines, solid-state electronics, and the Internet were pioneered by the United States military,” the report observes. DoD’s partnership with the Department of Energy (DoE) is critical--DoE has a robust research and development capability for energy technologies and a vast knowledge base, while DoD provides a large-scale ability to demonstrate, test, fund and field new energy technologies. This partnership could greatly accelerate clean energy technologies through the pipeline to make them available to the American people as soon as possible. Chairman of the MAB General Gordon Sullivan, USA (Ret.), said, “The DoD-DoE partnership, which has been successful in the past, could be instrumental in the move away from fossil fuels if there is a willingness to empower this team to seek clean, renewable, and economical sources of power for domestic use.” Energy business as usual is not an option, the report says, noting, “The United States government should take bold and aggressive action to support clean energy technology innovation and significantly decrease the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.” With bold and visionary leadership, the nation can turn the growing energy and economic challenges into great opportunity. U.S. policymakers must provide a clear and predictable market signal that accounts for the enormous costs and risks already associated with the nation’s fossil fuel dependence. The MAB, which produced the landmark 2007 report “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change” and the 2009 “Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security,” is comprised of retired 2-, 3- and 4-star flag and general officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, National Guard and Reserve. The board includes a former Army Chief of Staff, Commanders of U.S. forces in global regions, and leaders in logistics, procurement, research and development, engineering, nuclear energy, and ocean management. Their 2007 report found that climate change constitutes a “threat multiplier” because projected impacts will exacerbate existing security risks. Building on the 2007 report, the 2009 report stated “Our approach to energy and our approach to climate change have profound impacts on each other--and both have impacts on our national security.”

China is dominating, but the world looks to US for leadership in cleantechKevin Bullis, 10/09/09, (“Is China Beating the U.S. in Clean Tech?”, http://www.technologyreview.com/business/23653/) China could beat the United States in a race to deploy clean energy technology that can reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, said Frances Beinecke, leader of a leading environmental group, speaking this week at MIT. "I just got back from China, where there is tremendous investment in the clean tech sector," said Beinecke, the president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "They have a national renewable energy standard, a national efficiency standard, and China will build more of everything--more coal, more nuclear, more renewables--and they'll invest in more efficiency than any other single country in the world." Given the progress in China, Beinecke says the U.S. needs policy changes to compete. "There's a global race going on," she said. "We need to get moving as quickly as possible, and the best way to do that is through smart policies. We need to both pull the market and push the companies through regulation." The comments were part of a strategy to convince Congress to enact an energy bill, and to push the United States to take a leading role in framing an international climate-change agreement this winter in Copenhagen. The NRDC hopes the climate-change legislation will pass in Congress ahead of the climate treaty meeting, or as soon thereafter as possible. A climate bill was passed by the House in May, but as congressional attention has shifted toward health care, the Senate has been slow to take up its own bill. "The world is looking for leadership from the United States," Beinecke said. In backing the energy bill in Congress, NRDC has split from some other environmental groups, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, that have opposed the draft legislation in Congress as not going far enough to control greenhouse gases. "This legislation won't be perfect," Beinecke said. "But the point is to put a target and a timetable out there, to put a cap on carbon and begin to get capital dollars to flow into the energy sector to create a very different energy future. Nearly two million jobs could be created in America, just from the House bill." China has increased its investment in clean technology in recent years. According to a report released in August by The Climate Group, a nonprofit group based in London that supports clean technology development, "in an incredibly short space of time China has taken the lead in the race to develop and commercialize a range of low carbon technologies." The report highlighted that China plans to produce half a million electric vehicles in 2011, and that it produces 30 percent of the world's solar panels and is the world's fourth-largest generator of wind power. A report from the British bank HSBC earlier this year noted that China's economic stimulus package invested

72

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmative$221 billion in technology for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, about twice the amount invested in such technology through the U.S. economic stimulus package enacted earlier this year.

Rare earth metals key to US leadershipSuzanne Goldenburg, 12/26/10, (“Rare earth metals mine is key to US control over hi-tech future”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/26/rare-earth-metals-us) It's a deep pit in the Mojave desert. But it could hold the key to America challenging China's technological domination of the 21st century. At the bottom of the vast site, beneath 6 metres (20ft) of bright emerald-green water, runs a rich seam of ores that are hardly household names but are rapidly emerging as the building blocks of the hi-tech future. The mine is the largest known deposit of rare earth elements outside China. Eight years ago, it was shut down in a tacit admission that the US was ceding the market to China. Now, the owners have secured final approval to restart operations, and hope to begin production soon. "We will probably never be the largest [mine] in the world again. It will be hard to overcome China's status in that regard, but we do think we will be a very significant supplier," Mark Smith, chief executive of Molycorp Minerals which owns the mine, told reporters during a tour of the site. So far as the Obama administration is concerned, the mine can't open soon enough. A US department of energy report warned on 15 December that, in the absence of mines such as this one, America risks losing control over the production of a host of technologies, from smart phones to smart bombs, electric car batteries to wind turbines, because of a virtual Chinese monopoly on the rare earth metals essential to their production. China controls 97% of global rare earth metals production. Such total domination of a strategic resource became impossible to ignore in October when China cut exports of rare earth elements by more than 70% over the previous year, disrupting manufacturing in Japan, Europe and the US. Prices of even the cheapest of the 17 rare earth elements rose 40%. Now America, like Japan and Europe, is desperate to find alternatives. "Reopening domestic production is an important part of a globalised supply chain," David Sandalow, the energy department's assistant secretary for international affairs told a seminar in Washington. For Smith, the official recognition of the strategic importance of the metals was a long time coming. "I've been going out to Washington DC every other week for about two years trying to tell the rare earths story," he said. They are listening in Washington now. At the 15 December seminar at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, one PowerPoint presentation lingered on a slide that showed only the Chinese flag. The room filled with nervous laughter. By 2015, global demand for rare earths is expected to reach 205,000 tonnes. "If we don't get alternative supplies up and running we are going to have this supply gap that is going to cause a lot of issues," Smith said. Those issues forced their way onto the government's agenda this autumn when China began squeezing raw material exports of rare earth minerals. Some US media reports have speculated China is trying to use its control over the supply lines for political leverage. But a number of analysts say China is trying to get better control over an expensive, dirty and dangerous mining process, and to get more factories to set up shop inside the country.

73

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmative***Add-Ons***

74

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeWarming and Middle East Add-On

A. New energy sources solve Middle East wars and climate changeHart ’07 [Gary, former US Senator, April 24, http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5741007]

Our policy of oil dependence is why we are engaged in the second Persian Gulf war in a decade and why we will continue to fight wars in the Gulf for decades to come. To believe that military intervention is the key to security is to badly miss the point. Were we to become sufficiently independent of Persian Gulf oil, so that our economy could flourish without it, we would liberate our foreign and defense policies, contribute substantially to solving climate change, make our livelihood more secure, liberate resources for education and health, and dramatically increase our sense of genuine security.

B. Middle East war risks nuclear warBenn ‘09 [Aluf, “Nuclear diplomacy in the Middle East,” August 6, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1104190.html]

After the Gulf War, Iraq's secret nuclear program was discovered and dismantled by UN inspectors. Since 1993, the knowledge that the Iranians too were striving for nuclear weapons has been at the top of Israel's strategic agenda. It led to the consolidation of the "Rabin doctrine," which was later also supported by Ehud Barak (now defense minister), and holds that it is important to complete the "peace circle" in the region before Iran attains its goal. The basic assumption was that if Israel is at peace with its neighbors, the Iranians' motivation to launch a nuclear war of annihilation will decrease. Another assumption was that it would be easier to achieve peace before the Iranian bomb leads to general radicalization in the region.

C. Warming causes extinctionTickell, 8-11-2008 , Climate Researcher(Oliver, The Gaurdian, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)

We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser

to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a

catastrophe that would mean , in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or

perhaps the beginning of our extinction . The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost , complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure,

and much of the world's most productive farmland . The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more

frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is

quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a

greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could

go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum , when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to

100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

75

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeTerrorism Add-On

A. Rare-earth supplies are key to fight terrorismFoster 3-19-11 [Peter, China correspondent for The Telegraph, “Rare earths: why China is cutting exports crucial to Western technologies,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8385189/Rare-earths-why-China-is-cutting-exports-crucial-to-Western-technologies.html]

It pointed out that even the US's main battle tank, the M1A2 Abrams, uses samarium-cobalt in its navigation system, as does the state-of-the-art Aegis Spy-1 radar. Rare earths are also used in the motors that power the rudders and tail-fins of the fifth-generation F-22 Raptor, and even the hellfire missiles that target Taliban terrorists from drones above the battlefields of Afghanistan need a chemical produced only in China.

B. Terrorism causes extinctionSid-Ahmed, September 1, 2004 (Mohamed, political commentator, activist, and Al-Ahram columnist, “Extinction!”, Al-Ahram Weekly, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm)

Despite the acute contradiction on which it was based, the bipolar world order was an international system in which nations could be in a state of conflict but where they were also members of the United Nations, related to each other via agreements, accords, treaties, etc.. that is, through a system of mutual obligations, which restricted, to one extent or another, their freedom of action. The disappearance of the Soviet Union left the field clear not only to the United States at the summit of the global community but to the forces of international terrorism at its base. These forces are waging a war on the international system unbound by any constraints. It is a war waged by "irresponsible" groups who do not expose themselves to the accountability of the world system, nor to transparency in any form. That is why terrorism is so difficult to cast light on and can represent a greater danger than wars waged by regular armies. During the Cold War, the overkill capabilities developed by the superpowers allowed them to use deterrence as a device to prevent nuclear conflagration; there was a tacit agreement between them that while they could, and did, engage in brinkmanship by threatening to use their weapons of mass destruction, they would desist from actually doing so. In the absence of any kind of parity between the protagonists in today's shadowy war on terror, mutual deterrence has been replaced by a process of pre-emption that incites the enemy to take anticipatory measures. The devastating attack of 11 September 2001, which claimed nearly 3,000 victims, is a case in point. What provoked the attack? Why that particular type of anticipatory blow? Is there an explanation for the sequence of events that began with raids against two US embassies in Africa, followed by the attack on an American destroyer close to Aden and climaxed with 9/11? It was a practice run for an even more devastating attack involving nuclear weapons. But if Osama Bin Laden was in possession of nuclear weapons at the time, why did he choose to go for an intricate plan entailing the hijacking of four passenger planes, tight synchronisation and split-second timing? Surely triggering a nuclear device would have been easier. Settling for the low-tech alternative of turning planes into missiles indicates that Bin Laden was not then in possession of nuclear weapons. Actually, the idea of linking terrorism to prohibited weapons of mass destruction came from Bush, not from the terrorists themselves, and was aimed at establishing some sort of link between Iraq and terrorism to legitimise his war against Saddam Hussein. We have reached a point in human history where the phenomenon of terrorism has to be completely uprooted, not through persecution and oppression, but by removing the reasons that make particular sections of the world population resort to terrorism. This means that fundamental changes must be brought to the world system itself. The phenomenon of terrorism is even more dangerous than is generally believed. We are in for surprises no less serious than 9/11 and with far more devastating consequences. A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring

WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists ? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the

negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if

humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

76

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeEnvironment Add-On

A. Asteroid mining solves massive pollution of the environmentScience Clarified ’08 [Science and technology magazine sponsored by SoftLayer Technologies, “How Humans Will Mine Asteroids and Comets,” http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Comets-and-Asteroids/How-Humans-Will-Mine-Asteroids-and-Comets.html]

The discussion of the monetary worth of asteroids and comets must not divert attention from the other major reason to pursue the

dream of mining these objects. Namely, the metals, minerals, and volatiles acquired in such operations would help conserve supplies of these materials on Earth. At present, these supplies

are marginally sufficient to sustain the planet's present population. But that population will inevitably grow and supplies of a number of metals and other commodities will begin to run out. Also, processing metals and minerals (separating them from the rocky mixtures in which most are trapped) pollutes Earth's air, soil, and water. This problem will be eliminated entirely in space mining since all of the processing will take place far from Earth. At first glance, it would seem that such operations would simply shift the pollution problem from Earth to outer space. But this need not be the case. William Hartmann explains: Some writers have raised the specter of humanity despoiling the solar system, in the same manner that over-

industrialization is beginning to despoil Earth's environment. But . . . with a careful balance of research and exploitation, we could learn from and process materials in space in a [clean] way that would [also] begin to take the pressure off Earth's ecosystem. A transition from Earth-based manufacturing to interplanetary manufacturing could eventually reduce pollution and ravaging of Earth by an Earth-based society bent on ripping the last dwindling resources from the land. 43

B. That causes extinction- outweighs nuclear warChen ‘00 [Professor of Law and Vance K. Opperman Research Scholar, University of Minnesota Law School (Jim, Globalization and Its Losers, Winter 2000, 9 Minn. J. Global Trade 157, Lexis)

Conscious decisions to allow the extinction of a species or the destruction of an entire ecosystem epitomize the

"irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources" that NEPA is designed to retard. 312 The original Endangered Species Act gave such decisions no quarter whatsoever; 313 since 1979, such decisions have rested in the hands of a

solemnly convened "God Squad." 314 In its permanence and gravity, natural extinction provides the baseline by which all other types of extinction should be judged. The Endangered Species Act explicitly acknowledges the "esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value" of endangered species and the biodiversity they represent. 315 Allied bodies of international law confirm this view: 316 global biological diversity is part of the commonly owned heritage of all humanity and deserves full legal protection. 317 Rather remarkably, these broad assertions understate the value of biodiversity and the urgency of its protection. A Sand County Almanac, the eloquent bible of the modern environmental movement, contains only two demonstrable biological errors. It opens with one and closes with another. We can forgive Aldo Leopold's decision to close with that

elegant but erroneous epigram, "ontogeny repeats phylogeny." 318 What concerns [*208] us is his opening gambit: "There are some who can live without wild things, and some who cannot." 319 Not quite.

None of us can live without wild things. Insects are so essential to life as we know it that if they "and other land-

dwelling anthropods ... were to disappear, humanity probably could not last more than a few months." 320 "Most of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals," along with "the bulk of the flowering plants and ... the physical structure of most forests and other terrestrial habitats" would disappear in turn. 321 "The land would return to" something resembling its Cambrian condition, "covered by mats of recumbent wind-pollinated vegetation, sprinkled with clumps of small trees and bushes here and there, largely devoid of animal life." 322 From this perspective, the mere thought of valuing biodiversity is absurd, much as any attempt to quantify all of earth's planetary amenities as some trillions of dollars per year is absurd. But the frustration inherent in enforcing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has shown that conservation cannot work without appeasing Homo economicus, the profit-seeking ape. Efforts to ban the international ivory trade through CITES have failed to stem the slaughter of African elephants. 323 The preservation of biodiversity must therefore begin with a cold, calculating inventory of its benefits. Fortunately, defending biodiversity preservation in humanity's self-interest is an easy task. As yet unexploited species might give a hungry world a larger larder than the storehouse of twenty plant species that provide nine-tenths of humanity's current food supply. 324 "Waiting in the wings are tens of thousands of unused plant species, many demonstrably superior to those in favor." 325 As genetic warehouses, many plants enhance the productivity of crops already in use. In the United States alone, the [*209] genes of wild plants have accounted for much of "the explosive growth in farm production since the 1930s." 326 The contribution is worth $ 1 billion each year. 327 Nature's pharmacy demonstrates even more dramatic gains than nature's farm. 328 Aspirin and penicillin, our star analgesic and antibiotic, had humble origins in the meadowsweet plant and in cheese mold. 329 Leeches, vampire bats, and pit vipers all contribute anticoagulant drugs that reduce blood pressure, prevent heart attacks, and facilitate skin transplants. 330 Merck & Co., the multinational pharmaceutical company, is helping Costa Rica assay its rich biota. 331 A single commercially viable product derived "from, say, any one species among ...

12,000 plants and 300,000 insects ... could handsomely repay Merck's entire investment" of $ 1 million in 1991 dollars. 332 Wild animals, plants, and microorganisms also

provide ecological services. 333 The Supreme Court has lauded the pesticidal talents of migratory birds. 334 Numerous

organisms process the air we breathe, the water we drink, the ground we stroll. 335 Other species serve as sentries. Just as canaries warned coal miners of lethal gases, the decline or disappearance of indicator species provides advance warning against deeper [*210] environmental threats. 336 Species conservation yields the greatest environmental amenity of all:

ecosystem protection. Saving discrete species indirectly protects the ecosystems in which they live. 337 Some larger animals may not carry great utilitarian value in themselves, but the human urge to protect these charismatic "flagship species" helps protect their ecosystems. 338 Indeed, to save any species, we must protect their ecosystems. 339 Defenders of biodiversity can measure the "tangible economic value" of the pleasure derived from "visiting, photographing, painting, and just looking at wildlife." 340 In the United States alone, wildlife observation and feeding in 1991 generated $ 18.1 billion in consumer spending, $ 3 billion in tax revenues, and 766,000 jobs. 341 Ecotourism gives tropical countries, home to most of the world's species, a valuable alternative to subsistence agriculture. Costa Rican rainforests preserved for ecotourism "have become many times more profitable per hectare than land cleared for pastures and fields," while the endangered gorilla has turned ecotourism into "the third most important source of income in Rwanda." 342 In a globalized economy where commodities can be cultivated almost anywhere,

environmentally [*211] sensitive locales can maximize their wealth by exploiting the "boutique" uses of their natural bounty. The value of endangered species and

the biodiversity they embody is "literally ... incalculable." 343 What, if anything, should the law do to preserve it? There are those that invoke the story of Noah's Ark as a moral basis for biodiversity preservation. 344 Others regard the entire Judeo-Christian tradition, especially the biblical stories of Creation and the Flood, as the root of the West's deplorable environmental record. 345 To avoid getting bogged down in an environmental exegesis of Judeo-Christian "myth and legend," we

77

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmativeshould let Charles Darwin and evolutionary biology determine the imperatives of our moment in natural "history." 346 The loss of biological diversity is quite arguably the gravest problem facing humanity. If we cast the question as the

contemporary phenomenon that "our descendants [will] most regret," the "loss of genetic and species diversity by the

destruction of natural habitats" is worse than even "energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government." 347 Natural evolution may in due course renew the earth with a diversity of species approximating that of a world unspoiled by Homo sapiens -- in ten million years, perhaps a hundred million. 348

78

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeEconomy Add-On

A. Failure to solve the rare-earth shortage causes an economic crisisDutram ’10 [Eric, Head of Editorial at ETF Database, (Exchange-Traded Fund) “Rare Earth Metal Shortage Could Sink These 3 ETFs,” July 19, http://etfdb.com/2010/rare-earth-metal-shortage-could-sink-these-three-etfs/]

A huge step in this policy came earlier this month as China’s Ministry of Commerce announced that foreign shipments of rare earth metals came in at just less than 8 metric tonnes, a cut of over 72%. This huge drop is likely to drive up prices for a variety of goods, and could lead to supply shortages in the very near future. The United States Magnetic Materials Association (USMMA), which represents high-performance magnet

producers and suppliers, warned of “impending shortages“of rare earth materials needed to support domestic manufacturing, noting that China’s shrinking export quota “should serve as a huge red flag for US government officials studying this issue.” Since the metals are so crucial to a variety of industries, a shortage could ripple throughout the US economy, hitting rare earth metal-dependent sectors particularly hard. Below, we profile three ETFs to watch as this drama plays out.

B. Economic decline causes nuclear warJames Cusick, 3/18/2009 Sunday Herald (Scotland) http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2495478.0.dont_bank_on_financial_trouble_being_resolved_without_conflict.php

I'm not saying that America is about to declare war on China, or that Germany is going to invade France. But there are profound economic stresses in central Europe that could rapidly turn into conflict in the bankrupt Baltic states, Hungary, Ukraine. And if the Great Recession, as

the IMF's Dominique Strauss-Kahn called it last week, turns into a Great Depression, with a prolonged collapse in international trade and financial flows, then we could see

countries like Pakistan disintegrate into nuclear anarchy and war with neighbouring India , which will itself be experiencing

widespread social unrest. Collapsing China could see civil war too; Japan will likely re-arm; Russia will seek to expand its sphere of economic interests. Need I to go on?

79

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeAlternative Energy Add-On

A. Asteroid mining is key to clean tech innovationHsu ’10 [Jeremy, staff writer for Popsci.com, “Shortage of Rare Earth Minerals May Cripple U.S. High-Tech, Scientists,” 3-17-10, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-03/shortage-rare-earth-minerals-may-cripple-us-high-tech-scientists-warn-congress]

All those hybrid and electric cars, wind turbines and similar clean tech innovations may count for nothing if the U.S. cannot secure a supply of rare earth minerals. Ditto for other advanced telecommunications or defense technologies, scientists told a U.S. House subcommittee.

China has supplied 91 percent of U.S. consumption of rare earths between 2005 and 2008, and continues to represent the world's largest rare earth exporter. But the Chinese have warned that their own domestic industry appetite for rare earths may eventually force them to stop exporting -- an action that would leave the U.S. high-tech industries crippled without other readily available supplies. "The United States, not so long ago, was the world leader in producing and exporting rare earths," said Brad Miller, the Democratic Representative from North Carolina and chairman of the subcommittee. "Today, China is the world's

leader." Experts testified that China's state-owned mines had set artificially low prices for the rare earth market, and that Chinese manufacturers had also forced most U.S. rare earth and permanent magnet manufacturers out of business. Rare earth magnets represent a major component in Toyota's Prius hybrid and other clean tech.

B. Stops escalating energy warsCabral ’10 [Jim Cabral, “Beyond BP: Michael Klare on US Energy Policy”, Valley Advocate, 8-12-2010]

The preoccupation of states with securing the reliability of energy through exploration and extraction might seem benign enough (leaving aside for a moment the weighty issues of diminishing and increasingly remote supplies). But understood as a matter of state security , energy procurement is inextricably bound up with military proliferation . Hence Klare's "new geopolitics of energy" is

fraught with the potential for conflict, especially given the urgency that state leaders attach to finding new sources of energy. Energy competition among what Klare calls the "energy deficit" states typically involves arms-for-energy tradeoffs with their suppliers, the "energy surplus" states. In the case of oil, arms transfers to the governments of surplus states pave the way for the deficit states' NOCs (and any IOCs headquartered in their countries) both to exploit their hosts' oilfields and to search for new ones. For deficit states, the top priority accorded to "energy security" renders considerations of surplus states' integrity (Do they respect international norms? Do they allow their citizens to exercise civil liberties?) irrelevant, for the most part. Not

surprisingly, the accelerating militarization of energy procurement increases the possibilities for armed international conflict .

Klare explains how nationalism lends momentum to this process: "The long-term risk of escalation is growing even more potent because major energy importers and exporters regularly appeal to that most dangerous of emotions, nationalism , in making their claim

over the management of energy flows. Nationalistic appeals, once they have gripped a populace, almost invariably promote fierce emotion and irrationality . Add to this fact that the leaders of most countries involved in the great energy race have come to view the struggle over hydrocarbon assets as a 'zero-sum' contest—one in which a gain for one country almost always represents a loss for others. A zero-sum mentality leads to a loss of flexibility in crisis situations, while the lens of nationalism turns the pursuit of energy assets into a sacred obligation of senior government officials ." The "competitive arms transfers" that represent the militarization of energy procurement also have another disturbing upshot: strengthening and legitimizing repressive, corrupt foreign regimes. In the case of U.S. arms recipients, the list is long and growing. It includes long-time allies in the Persian Gulf region—most notably Saudi Arabia—whose anachronistic social policies effectively reduce women to the status of second-class citizens; corruptible African governments in Nigeria, Chad, and Angola, where—along with off-shore drilling sites along the continent's west coast—U.S.-based oil companies such as Exxon and Chevron currently operate; and more recent allies in the energy-rich Caspian Sea region, including those Klare refers to as the "autocratic regimes" of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. While the governments of the oil-rich Persian Gulf have long been wooed with energy deficit countries' military largess, the emergence of the Caspian Sea region's governments as coveted allies

may come as a bit of a surprise to some. Klare soberly sketches out a "three-way struggle for geopolitical advantage" in the Caspian Sea basin, as the U.S., Russia (Caspian states having formerly been Soviet republics) and China funnel arms and other forms of military assistance into the region in competition for influence there. Again stressing the dangers of an escalation of conflict, Klare notes that "This three-way struggle ...is militarizing the Caspian basin, inundating the region with advanced arms and an ever-growing corps of military advisers, instructors, technicians, and combat-support personnel. [It will] heighten traditional suspicions and rivalries that have long plagued the region. The Great Powers are not only adding tinder to possible future fires, but also increasing the risk that they will be caught in any conflagration ."

80

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeTech Innovation Add-On

A. Lack of REMs destroy US tech innovationDutram ’10 [Eric, Head of Editorial at ETF Database, (Exchange-Traded Fund) “Rare Earth Metal Shortage Could Sink These 3 ETFs,” July 19, http://etfdb.com/2010/rare-earth-metal-shortage-could-sink-these-three-etfs/]

XLK is a broad technology fund that invests in a variety of companies likely to be negatively impacted by a shortage of rare earth metals. In terms of sectors, XLK is heavy in hardware firms (50%), with another big allocation (19%) to software firms. Among the top holdings, Apple (11.2%), IBM (7.8%), and Cisco (6%) are good examples of companies likely to be impacted by a shortage, since many of their key products thrive on these metals. “Without the powerful magnets developed using neodymium, makers of mobile phones and mp3 players would not have been able to carry out extensive miniaturization,” says André Diederen of the Dutch research institute TNO [also see Nine Twists On Sector ETF Investing].

B. Tech innovation is key to solve nuclear conflicts across the globePaone ’09 [Chuck, 66th Air Base Wing Public Affairs for the US Air Force, 8-10-09, “Technology convergence could prevent war, futurist says,” http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123162500] The convergence of " exponentially advancing technologies" will form a "super- intelligence" so formidable that it could avert war, according to one of the world's leading futurists. Dr. James Canton, CEO and chairman of the Institute for Global Futures, a San Francisco-based think tank, is author of the book "The Extreme Future" and an adviser to leading companies, the military and other government agencies. He is consistently listed among the world's leading speakers and has presented to diverse audiences around the globe. He will address the Air Force Command and Control Intelligence, Survelliance and Reconnaissance Symposium, which will be held Sept. 28 through 30 at the MGM Grand Hotel at Foxwoods in Ledyard, Conn., joining Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and a bevy of other government and industry speakers. He offered a sneak preview of his symposium

presentation and answered various questions about the future of technology and warfare in early August. "The superiority of convergent technologies will prevent war ," Doctor Canton said, claiming their power would present an overwhelming deterrent to potential adversaries. While saying that the U.S. will build these

super systems faster and better than other nations, he acknowledged that a new arms race is already under way. " It will be a new MAD for the 21st century ," he said, referring to the Cold War-era acronym for Mutually Assured Destruction, the idea that a nuclear first strike would trigger an equally deadly response. It's commonly held that this knowledge has essentially prevented any

rational state from launching a nuclear attack. Likewise, Doctor Canton said he believes rational nation states, considering this imminent technology explosion, will see the futility of nation-on-nation warfare in the near future. Plus there's the "socio-economic linking of the global market system." "The fundamental macroeconomics on the planet

favor peace, security, capitalism and prosperity," he said. Doctor Canton projects that nations, including those not currently allied, will work together in using these smart technologies to prevent non-state actors from engaging in disruptive and deadly acts. As a futurist, Doctor Canton and his team study and predict many things, but their main area of expertise -- and the one in which he's personally most interested -- is advanced and emerging technology. "I see that as the key catalyst of strategic change on the planet, and it will be for the next 100 years," he said. He focuses on six specific technology areas: "nano, bio, IT, neuro, quantum and robotics;" those he expects to converge in so powerful a

way. Within the information technology arena, Doctor Canton said systems must create "meaningful data," which can be validated and acted upon. "Knowledge engineering for the analyst and the warfighter is a critical competency that we need to get our arms around," he said. "Having an avalanche of data is not going to be helpful." Having the right data is. "There's no way for the human operator to look at an infinite number of data streams and extract meaning," he said. "The question then is: How do we augment the human user with advanced artificial intelligence, better software presentation and better visual frameworks, to create a system that is situationally aware and can provide decision options for the human operator, faster than the human being can?" He said he believes the answers can often be found already in what he calls 'edge cultures.' "I would look outside of the military. What are they doing in video games? What are they doing in healthcare? What about the financial industry?" Doctor Canton said he believes that more sophisticated artificial intelligence applications will transform business, warfare and life in general. Many of these are already embedded in systems or products, he says, even if people don't know it.

81

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeAsteroid Deflection Add-On

A. The plan paves the way for asteroid deflection International Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

One proposal to address this scarcity is to import material to Earth from near-Earth objects (NEOs) such as asteroids (Globus, 2010). There are thousands of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) (JPL, 2010). Current literature estimates suggest asteroids as a source of trillions of dollars worth of precious metals and minerals. The establishment of a space-bound mining program would generate new industry and potentially massive profits, and stimulate innovation. The technology used to mine these asteroids may one day be adapted to facilitate deflection of earthbound potentially hazardous objects for to generate the materials necessary for the construction of human settlements in space.

B. <add asteroid impacts from mapping affirmative>

82

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmative***Case Blocks***

83

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeAT: Plenty of REM on Earth

Even with large US reserves, multiple factors prevent domestic drillingParthemore ’11 [Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,” http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf]

When examining whether specific minerals will be available to meet U.S. government needs, it can be tempting to look simply at whether world supply is adequate to meet global demand over the long term. This is an accessible metric, and one that USGS estimates regularly. According to USGS calculations, the world’s supplies are adequate to meet long-term demand for each of the minerals examined here – gallium,

lithium, niobium, rare earths, rhenium and tantalum – for decades in absolute terms. This long-term picture is deceptive, however.

Policymakers should instead consider a range of nuances in evaluating mineral-related vulnerabilities. For instance, when production costs are too high relative to prices, mines can shut down – temporarily or for years – and supplies can decline in the short term regardless of long-term supply sufficiency. Many countries that hold large reserves also lack the technology, expertise or funding to develop these minerals on their own, which can lead to greater concentration of suppliers. Today this is of greatest concern for gallium, rare earth minerals and rhenium given their limited number of suppliers. 32

84

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeAT: US production solves

It will take 15 years for the US to catch up to Chinese rare-earth productionFoster 3-19-11 [Peter, China correspondent for The Telegraph, “Rare earths: why China is cutting exports crucial to Western technologies,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8385189/Rare-earths-why-China-is-cutting-exports-crucial-to-Western-technologies.html] The GAO report estimated it could take 15 years for the West to catch up with China and develop alternative supplies. Karl A Gschneidner Jr, a senior metallurgist at the US Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory, has been studying rare-earth materials since the 1960s. 'There is nearly zero rare-earths mining, processing and research going on now in the US,' he told Chemical & Engineer News.

85

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeAT: Domestic mining solves

Domestic mining operations fail- not nearly enough to satisfy demandFoster 3-19-11 [Peter, China correspondent for The Telegraph, “Rare earths: why China is cutting exports crucial to Western technologies,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8385189/Rare-earths-why-China-is-cutting-exports-crucial-to-Western-technologies.html]

In such a small market, where prices can fall as rapidly as they have risen, many of the rare earth mining opportunities being explored begin to look dangerously uneconomic. Rare earths may be abundant, but finding them in sufficiently high concentrations to make their extraction economic is more problematic. One Canadian-listed company, Avalon Rare Metals, which hopes to exploit a large deposit in Canada's Northwest Territories, estimated its start-up costs at $900 million, an astronomical sum, say market analysts, given the value of the entire industry. The military-strategic fears, while good for headlines, are also somewhat overblown according to industry insiders, a view endorsed in October 2010 by a year-long Pentagon study into how to secure future supplies of rare earths and other critical materials. 'The quantities are extremely small,' Eric Noyrez, the chief operating officer of Lynas, said on the sidelines of the Critical and Rare Metals Summit III in Washington in October, estimating that the US military would need 10 to 20 tons of rare earth metals a year for its weapon systems. 'Fixing that would not take much time,' he said.

86

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeAT: Can’t land on the asteroid

Empirically proven- we can get to asteroids for miningInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

Robotic missions have visited a small number of asteroids. In 1991, NASA ‟ s Galileo mission visited 951 Gaspra and 243 Ida, asteroids on the inner edge of the main belt (NASA, 2010a). Although both S-type, these asteroids have completely different composition. The NEAR Shoemaker mission performed fly-bys of 253 Mathilde (main belt, C-type) and landed on the NEO 433 Eros in 2001 (NASA, 2010b). ESA‟s Rosetta spacecraft flew by asteroid 2867 Steins in September 2008 (Lakdawalla, 2010), and Lutetia in July 2010 (ESA, 2010). The only sample-return mission attempted to date is Hayabusa (JAXA, 2010), which landed on asteroid Itokawa in 2005 and returned to Earth in 2010. At present, it is unclear whether Hayabusa retrieved any valid samples. These missions provided relatively precise surface maps, as well as density and composition estimates. The results did not always agree with expectations and highlight the enormous amount of work remaining to obtain an accurate database of all NEAs.

Several existing techniques make landing on an asteroid possiblePERMANENT ‘02 [Projects to Employ Resources of the Moon and A steroids Near Earth in the Near Term, “§ 1.6 Mining and Processing an Asteroid,” http://www.permanent.com/a-mining.htm]

Some studies call for stopping the rotation of the asteroid if it's small in order to attach the solar-powered processing equipment to the asteroid and have it always facing the sun. A landmark early NASA study called for despinning the asteroid by anchoring a cable, wrapping it around the asteroid, and having a rocket-powered space jeep slow down and stop its rotation. For a 100 meter diameter asteroid rotating 4 times per day, about 29 tons of fuel would be needed to despin the asteroid. If the asteroid is fragile, the rocket could thrust gently for a week. However, a better approach would probably be to use a yoyo-like gadget commonly used to despin satellites without using any fuel propellant. (paper reference) To do this, you wrap 2 lengths of string around the asteroid in the direction opposite to the spin, and tie a chunk of rock to each distal end. The other ends are attached to the asteroid so that they can let go once the yoyo has stopped its spin (i.e., at the part of the cycle when it would start spinning the asteroid back in the other direction). The centrifugal force pulls the chunks away, applying a torque to the asteroid. The length of string needed to despin depends on the size and mass of the asteroid and the mass of the chunks, but not on the initial angular velocity. The string can be very thin, although the needed strength does depend on the angular velocity. For example, take a roughly spherical asteroid, 100 meters (yards) in diameter, massing about 1.6 million tons. If each string is 6 km long, enough to wrap around the asteroid 20 times, the two rock chunks needed would weigh about 20 tons each, i.e., only 1 part in 80,000 of the mass of the asteroid. If the thing is rotating initially at 4 revolutions/day, then ordinary 10 lb. test fishing line would be more than sufficient. The 20 ton chunks could come from the asteroid itself, e.g., bags of rock. (Calculations by Dr. Phil Chapman, personal communication.)

87

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeAT: Can’t detect asteroids

Asteroid detection is easy- broad cooperation solvesInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

Techniques for remote sensing already exist. Cooperation with organizations who have already established systems for asteroid observation is advantageous. Earth and space based instruments can measure the light curves of an asteroids, a graph of its intensity against time. One method that is not appropriate from the Earth is Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR). This is similar to radar but uses light. Earth based LIDAR is inappropriate to observe asteroids due to the errors introduced by the atmosphere. This is a good technique for space missions.

Infrared technology solves asteroid detection- guarantees mineral locationInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

We recognize that many asteroids have never been observed. Since NEAs emit radiation mostly in the infrared band, an all-sky survey by an orbiting satellite in this band presents itself as a useful tool for NEA discovery. The Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), is a useful model for Earth-orbiting platforms for asteroid discovery, but has been limited to detection of Main Belt asteroids larger than three kilometer, with a projected ten month lifetime (NASA, 2010e). Search for asteroids was not the primary priority of the WISE mission, and suffered as a result. This is unfortunately typical of NEA searches as well. Follow-on missions that address this problem include the NEO Survey Observatory (Reitsema, 2009). The NEO Survey Observatory is proposed to rest in a Venus-trailing orbit and observe a broader swath of the solar system than can be observed from Earth. Three such spacecraft, properly placed in heliocentric orbits separated by 120 degrees, would be able to observe the entire near-Earth orbital region simultaneously. In addition, NASA has proposed enhancements to the WISE data pipeline to facilitate more accurate and comprehensive data collection with respect to NEAs (NASA 2010d). Missions of this type will solve some of the science challenges mentioned earlier; those having to do with asteroid characterization in terms of size and orbital parameters.

88

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmative***Topicality Answers***

89

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeTopicality- Exploration

Asteroid mining is space explorationSanchez and McInnes ’10 [J.P. Sanchez of the Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, University of Strathclyde, UK and C.R. McInnes of the Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, University of Strathclyde “Assessment on the feasibility of future shepherding of asteroid resources,” http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/27784/1/Sanchez_JP_-_strathprints_-_Assessment_on_the_feasibility_of_future_shepherding_of_asteroid_resources_26_Sept_2010.pdf]

Most of the plausible futures for human space exploration and exploitation involve a large increase of mass in Earth orbit. Some examples include space solar power, space tourism or more visionary human space settlements. Whether this mass is water for crew, propellant for propulsion or materials for structures, these resources will require overcoming Earth’s natural gravity well to be delivered in space. Thus, even if technologically possible, this will certainly put a large economic burden on future space progress. An alternative to this approach is to search among the population of asteroids in search of the required reservoir of material[1-2]

90

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmative***Disadvantage Answers***

91

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativePolitics Answers- Plan popular

The plan is bipartisan- lawmakers will be swayed by pro-military rhetoricThe Washington Times 4-11-11 [“U.S. urged to mine ‘rare earth’ minerals for high-tech devices,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/11/us-urged-to-mine-rare-earth-minerals/?page=all]

Lawmakers in both parties have tried to address the issue. Rep. Henry Johnson, Georgia Democrat,

and Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, introduced a bill at the end of March calling for a three-year assessment of rare earth supplies to be conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. Rep. Mike Coffman, Colorado Republican, also introduced a bill last week that aims to boost rare earth mining operations and give the U.S. an edge in the industry. His Rare Earth Supply-Chain Technology and Resource Transformation bill would, among other items, direct federal agencies to expedite rare earth production permits, have the Defense Logistics Agency build a federal inventory through long-term supply contracts to boost domestic production, and offer federally backed loans to producers if private financing proves inadequate. “Our nation must act to protect our security interests with regard to rare earth elements,” Mr. Coffman said in introducing his bill. “China is neither an ally of the United States nor is it a reliable trade partner when it comes to these strategic metals.” The Coffman bill undoubtedly would benefit Colorado-based Molycorp Minerals, which is the largest U.S. supplier of rare earth elements. The company is hopeful that legislation will pass swiftly through Congress.

“The reality we are facing is that there will be shortages [of rare earth elements] in 2011 to 2013,” Molycorp

spokesman Andy Davis told the AEI gathering. “Time is of the essence. The funding is definitely a challenge, [but] this is one of the few issues where you are not finding a blatantly partisan fight.” The buzz about rare earth minerals has led Congress to ask Department of Defense officials to evaluate how much they rely on these elements and whether or not the shortage is an issue of national security, said Belva Martin, director of the acquisition and sourcing management team at the Government Accountability Office.

Strong Congressional support for the plan- REM desperation prevailsWorthington ‘10 [David, writer for SmartPlanet, October 1, “Obama administration digs into China’s ‘rare earth’ monopoly,” http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/intelligent-energy/obama-administration-digs-into-chinas-rare-earth-monopoly/2977/]

David Sandalow, U.S. Assistant Energy Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, told Congress that “diversified sources of supply are important for any valuable material,” and suggested that there be a roadmap for “multiple, distributed sources of clean energy materials.” Domestically, Congress is also crafting legislation to ramp up domestic production by offering federal loan guarantees to mining companies. The House of Representatives passed the Rare Earths and Critical Materials Revitalization Act of 2010 on Wednesday. “We need to act now to begin the process of creating our own supply of rare earth materials so the United States is never dependent on China–or on any other country–for crucial components for our national security,” Pennsylvania Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper said in a prepared statement. China holds 37 percent of the world’s known reserves of the metals within its territory, and its capacity to process rare earths outpaces any other nation. China currently produces 95 percent of rare earth metals sold worldwide, Reuters noted in a report. In comparison, the United States holds 13 percent of reserves; however, a recent report by the U.S. Geological Survey suggests that the country sits upon a largely untapped stockpile of rare earths. The remaining concentrations of the elements are scattered across the globe.

92

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativePolitics Answers- Pentagon link turn

The Pentagon loves the planHandwerger 3-27-11 [Jeb, stock analyst and editor of Gold Stock Trades, “Goldman Sachs Did Not Do Their Homework On The Rare Earth Shortage,” http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-did-not-do-their-homework-on-the-rare-earth-shortage-2011-5]

U.S. Legislators are thinking about taking the case before the World Trade Organization to free The West from Chinese domination of rare earths. The Pentagon has observed that the shortage of rare earths has shown a slowdown in the manufacturing of strategic weapon systems crucial to U.S. military operations.

That’s key to the agendaWashington Post ‘10 [9-15-10, “Gates details $100 billion in defense cuts,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/14/AR2010091406909.html]

The savings plan Gates detailed Tuesday includes a five-step road map on how the Pentagon can be more efficient when it buys roughly $400 billion worth of goods and services including advanced aircraft, ammunition and submarines and contracts for feeding U.S. troops overseas, mowing lawns at military bases and running complex computer networks. As part of the plan, the Pentagon will decide what it can afford to pay for a weapons system within its budget. Analysts say that often contractors bid on weapons and then return with ideas that can lead to runaway cost increases. The plan also includes incentives for contractors to keep costs low, better manage contracts, and reduce unnecessary, bureaucratic reports. "In too many instances, cost estimates that are based on past programs - I might say past mismanagement - have deprived us of incentives to bring down costs," Gates said. Defense industry analysts say it is unclear whether the savings plans will stick once Gates leaves. He has said will retire next year. Also, his goals

could face congressional opposition. But others say it is possible that Gates's initiatives will remain intact. "Gates has shown that he knows how to be forceful and even force Congress to do what he wants," said Winslow Wheeler, a defense industry expert. "It is clear to me that if he wants to make it happen, he can make it happen."

93

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeEconomy DA Answers

Asteroid mining can solve the economy by injecting trillions into the US market and will stimulate technological advancements for future space exploration.Team ASTRA ’10 (Team ASTRA is a group of international scientists committed to developing space technologies. International Space University. “Asteroid mining Technologies Roadmap and Applications. Final Report.” http://www.mendeley.com/research/asteroid-mining-technologies-roadmap-and-applications-final-report/, 2010, JGR)

One proposal to address this scarcity is to import material to Earth from near-Earth objects (NEOs) such as asteroids (Globus, 2010). There are thousands of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) (JPL, 2010). Current literature estimates suggest asteroids as a source of trillions of dollars worth of precious metals and minerals. The establishment of a space-bound mining program would generate new industry and potentially massive profits , and stimulate innovation . The technology used to mine these asteroids may one day be adapted to facilitate deflection of earthbound potentially hazardous objects or to generate the materials necessary for the construction of human settlements in space.

Asteroid mining would eventually pay for itself, becoming cheaper than terrestrial mining.Team ASTRA ’10 (Team ASTRA is a group of international scientists committed to developing space technologies. International Space University. “Asteroid mining Technologies Roadmap and Applications. Final Report.” http://www.mendeley.com/research/asteroid-mining-technologies-roadmap-and-applications-final-report/, 2010, JGR)

In simplest terms, asteroid mining is a financially viable business venture if the minerals returned and sold on Earth can generate revenues that exceed the total costs of the business. Although this determination is critical to informing whether asteroid mining can exist as a

for-profit concern, it does not answer the question of whether or not investors would be motivated to pursue such an endeavor. To do so, we must also look at the opportunity costs of asteroid mining. A Net Present Value (NPV) analysis is the most traditional means in the business world of determining the value of a particular venture or investment. NPV analyses account for opportunity costs by selecting the most appropriate cost of capital. If the NPV is positive after discounting future cash flows by the cost of capital (which is, in reality, an opportunity cost calculation), then

investors should be motivated to proceed with the business. We should not limit ourselves, however, to looking at opportunity costs through the NPV lens. (In fact, our modeling of the potential profitability of asteroid mining is driven by real options analyses, and an NPV analysis that is modified to suit mining operations is discussed in detail later.) Given the obvious analog of terrestrial mining, the opportunity cost question is immediately apparent; would investing the capital required for asteroid mining provide better returns if spent on terrestrial mineral exploration? Figure 10-1 seeks to address this question by combining expected resource prices and costs into a marginal return on investment (ROI) over time and comparing this ROI across asteroid and terrestrial mining. There are two underlying, widely held assumptions underpinning this relationship. The first is that, over time, terrestrial supply of resources will decline as scarcity increases with consumption. With this increasing scarcity, the cost of discovering and mining a given mass of mineral increases. Second, as the space industry evolves and technology advances, the cost to execute space asteroid mining missions declines. It is important to note that there is no single industry curve, but a separate curve for each mineral, in which there could be both terrestrial and asteroid mining. These two trends converge at some point in time (T), where asteroid mining becomes a better use of investment dollars than mining on Earth. To determine where the present lies on the time axis requires precise mission costing that is beyond the scope of this project. This can be narrowed by using available data and illustrative assumptions. This is shown in Figure 10-1.

94

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSpending DA Answers

The plan solves petroleum supplies that are key to economic sustainabilityParthemore ’11 [Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,” http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf]

Policymakers should also consider minerals that play uniquely important roles in the American economy. Rare earths, for example, are important in petroleum refining, which today enables the smooth functioning of the economy. Looking to the longer term, much concern is turning toward minerals that may see booming demand as the economy develops a greater reliance on energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, such as the lithium used in advanced batteries and hybrid and electric vehicles. These minerals will directly affect U.S. economic competitiveness, and plans for improving economic growth and job development.

Normal means is cost-sharing with private companies, which offsets the linkInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

Possibly, an asteroid mining entity would not have to pay for the entire characterization mission. Since this mission would garner significant scientific interest, it presents an opportunity for a joint venture or a Public Private Partnership (PPP), so that the costs can be split. The model can easily account for this, the rule is to input only the costs incurred by the entity.

Turn-A. The plan solves business confidenceInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

The R&D phase will probably be the most expensive stage of the project. Debt financing by borrowing against the value of the asteroid minerals would not be feasible since the collateral would not be physically attainable in the event of mission failure. Without substantial assets or collateral during the initial phase, the best method to initially raise capital with minimum return is incentive-based public investments. Using Google Lunar X-Prize as an example, various technologies like vehicle designs or microgravity mining equipment could be developed by the private sector by offering a lump sum reward and good publicity upon delivery of the product or service. Industrial partnering presents another potentially promising source of capital.

Corporations from the mining or oil industry, which have a substantial amount of available capital, share largely the same interests in the exploitation of natural resources. The venture could also sell shares of the entity to public or private investors, including those governments interested in increasing their access to natural

resources. The benefits to public investors (that is, governments) lie not just in increasing access to natural resources, but also in the opportunity to stimulate economic growth, support a new job-producing industry, and develop advanced technologies with spin-off applications. As the R&D phase matures, the business plan is solidified, and risks are reduced, venture capital and private equity financing can then be considered. Following the first

successful launch and return mission, potential venture capitalists and private equity investors will have increase confidence in the business. With substantial financial support and physically attainable collateral, debt financing would then be feasible to sustain the routine operations required for commercial asteroid mining. Figure 10-4 below illustrates the timeline of investments required during various phases of the mission.

B. That’s the biggest internal link to the economyBraithwaite ’04 [John, Australian Research Council Federation fellow, Australian National University, and chair of the Regulatory Institutions Network, March 2004, The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 592 Annals 79, p. l/n]

95

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeThe challenge of designing institutions that simultaneously engender emancipation and hope is addressed within the assumption of economic institutions that are fundamentally capitalist. This contemporary global context gives more force to the hope nexus because we know capitalism thrives on hope. When business confidence collapses, capitalist economies head for recession. This dependence on hope is of quite general import; business leaders must have hope for the future before they will build new factories; consumers need confidence before they will buy what the factories make; investors need confidence before they will buy shares in the company that builds the factory; bankers need confidence to lend money to build the factory; scientists need confidence to innovate with new technologies in the hope that a capitalist will come along and market their invention. Keynes’s ([1936]1981) General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money lamented the theoretical neglect of “animal spirits” of hope (“spontaneous optimism rather than . . . mathematical expectation” (p. 161) in the discipline of economics, a neglect that continues to this day (see also Barbalet 1993).

Turn- mining on Earth is comparatively more expensiveInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

Ultimately, trade-off considerations against terrestrial mining will govern the feasibility of commercial asteroid mining. As it stands, it may be relatively less costly to exploit materials on Earth. As Earth resources become scarce and space technology advances, the relative cost of terrestrial mining will increase and the expenses of space operations will decline. There will come a point in time when the marginal return of asteroid mining supersedes that of the current conventional methods; that is when commercial asteroid mining will become economically feasible.

No link- mining technology is getting much cheaperAbundant Planet ’09 [“Asteroid Mining: Economic and Ecological Motivations,” Feb. 17, http://www.abundantplanet.org/asteroid-mining-economic-and-ecological-motivations-2009-02-17]

The economic argument for asteroid mining is straightforward. There is substantial demand for several metals that asteroids can supply. Rudimentary versions of the production technologies that can link extraterrestrial supply with terrestrial demand have been developed and deployed. (The Hayabusa is due to return mineral samples from near-Earth asteroid 25143 Itokawa in 2010.) The costs to advance these production technologies are dropping, due to ongoing progress in computing systems and autonomous robotics and to the rise of commercial space flight.

96

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSpending DA Answers- Plan profitable

Asteroid mining generates billions Space Wealth 2-23-11 [Space research organization and public benefit corporation, “Is Profitable Asteroid Mining A Pragmatic Goal?” http://spacewealth.org/files/Is-P@M-Pragmatic-2011-02-23.pdf]

Platinum group metals are also critical as catalysts in hydrogen fuel cells, which are key to a possible post-carbon, “hydrogen economy.” 28 In 2008, TheNational Research Council identified PGMs as the “most critical” metals for U.S. industrial development. 29 Platinum group metals are abundant in certain types of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). NEAs that are mineralogically similar to one of the most common types of “observed fall” meteorites (H-type, ordinary chondrites) offer

PGM concentrations (4.5 ppm) 30 that are comparable to those found in profitable terrestrial mines (3-6 ppm). 31 Other meteorites suggest that some asteroids may contain much more valuable metal. 32 The PGM value of a 200 m asteroid can exceed $1 billion, or possibly $25 billion. 33 Over 7,500 NEAs have been detected. 34 Close to a fifth of these are easier to reach than the moon; more than a fifth of those are ≥200 m in diameter: 200+ targets. 35 President Obama requested, and Congress has authorized, a four-fold increase in detection funding ($5.8 m to $20.4 m/year). 36 This could lead to ~10,000 known 200 m NEAs in a decade. 37 But detection is just a start. The costs to locate, extract, and process asteroid ore are not well understood. 38 Before significant private capital is put at risk, we need to learn more.

Asteroid mining is extremely profitableScience Clarified ’08 [Science and technology magazine sponsored by SoftLayer Technologies, “How Humans Will Mine Asteroids and Comets,” http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Comets-and-Asteroids/How-Humans-Will-Mine-Asteroids-and-Comets.html]

Regarding the materials themselves, Amun's total tonnage breaks down into many different metals. The most abundant of these are iron and nickel, which alone would have a market value of about $8 trillion. (Keep in mind that a trillion is a million times a million.) Supplies of another metal, cobalt, on Amun would be worth perhaps $6 trillion. Then there are rarer metals such as platinum, iridium, osmium, and palladium, which together would add another $6 trillion to the investors' profits. The nonmetals, including carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, oxygen, hydrogen, and gallium, would be worth at least $2 trillion. If humans mined all of Amun, therefore (which would take many years), the gross profits would come to at least $22

trillion. It is difficult to estimate the upfront costs of such a mining operation. But even if they were as high as $1 trillion, the net profits would still be $21 trillion. Clearly, asteroid mining will be an extremely profitable business.

97

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativePlatinum DA Answers

Platinum prices are on the declineHolmes 6-24-11 [Frank, CEO and chief investment officer of U.S. Global Investors, Inc., “Supply Issues Are Driving Platinum Prices,” http://seekingalpha.com/article/276522-supply-issues-are-driving-platinum-prices] Following a substantial 90 percent increase since the financial crisis, platinum prices have been sluggish. During the first six months of 2011, the metal gained only a few basis points. Platinum has significantly lagged silver (up 15.72 percent) and gold (up 7.72 percent), but has outpaced palladium, its closest relative.

The link is inevitable- the platinum market is about to become unstableDaniels Trading 6-29-11 [Investment trading firm, “Platinum, palladium futures perform steadily,” http://www.danielstrading.com/resources/news/General-Financial-News/Platinum-palladium-futures-perform-steadily_800541105/] Platinum and palladium, two precious metals that also are valuable for auto manufacturing and other industrial uses, are rising in price but might encounter rough waters, according to Dow Jones Newswires. Platinum prices will endure a measure of volatility during the next 180 days, David Brown, chief executive officer of Impala Platinum, told the news source.

The same forces that drive other precious metals like gold and silver also are in play with platinum. The market reacts to the sovereign debt crisis and Greece's efforts to emerge from it. Also impacting precious metal prices are slowdowns in the U.S. and China, the world's top two economies.

98

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativePlatinum DA Answers- Prices low

Platinum prices are fallingProfessional Jeweler 6-24-11 [“Platinum price dips to three-month low,” http://www.professionaljeweller.com/article-9610-platinum-price-dips-to-three-month-low/] The platinum price has dipped since the beginning of the month as weakness in the industrial sectors that use the precious metal drive down prices. Platinum is now trading at US$1,703 per oz after hitting a peak of US$1,842 on June 9. The price has been slowly descending since this high and is now at the lowest it has been since mid March when the price fell to US$1,689.

99

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativePlatinum DA Answers- AT: South African economy

South Africa can’t produce enough platinum to compete globallyHolmes 6-24-11 [Frank, CEO and chief investment officer of U.S. Global Investors, Inc., “Supply Issues Are Driving Platinum Prices,” http://seekingalpha.com/article/276522-supply-issues-are-driving-platinum-prices]

While demand remains strong, platinum supply has declined over the past five years. The world primarily relies on South Africa to supply its platinum needs. The country’s production accounted for roughly 76 percent of the world’s platinum in 2010, but supply has been decreasing since 2006. Johnson Matthey, a metals group company, cites strikes and stoppages as short-term issues impeding the expansion of platinum mines, while longer-term issues include the strong South African rand, inflation and availability of electricity. South Africa has the potential to increase output by as much as 5 percent in 2011, but Johnson Matthey doubts the country can shake off the production issues it’s experienced in recent years.

100

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSpace Weaponization DA Answers

The link is empirically denied and backwards- the international community already favors asteroid miningParthemore ’11 [Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,” http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf]

Due to requirements for advanced technologies and components that can withstand extreme conditions, the expansion of countries’ space capabilities over the coming decades will influence demand for critical minerals. A range of nations – from India to Iran – aim to bolster their reputations as space powers and develop more advanced satellite systems and launch capabilities. The U.S. government must therefore expect demand growth (and potentially growth that is not linear or predictable) for minerals like rare earths that are critical in space technologies. On the supply side, many countries are considering the possibility of mining space objects, and even the 2010 U.S. National Space Policy suggests that the United States should “identify potentially resource-rich planetary objects.” 18

101

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeAsteroid Collision DA Answers

The plan doesn’t cause asteroid collision- we could stabilize NEAs in orbitSanchez and McInnes ’10 [J.P. Sanchez of the Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, University of Strathclyde, UK and C.R. McInnes of the Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory, University of Strathclyde “Assessment on the feasibility of future shepherding of asteroid resources,” http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/27784/1/Sanchez_JP_-_strathprints_-_Assessment_on_the_feasibility_of_future_shepherding_of_asteroid_resources_26_Sept_2010.pdf]

With regard to asteroid deflection, a range of methods have been identified to provide a change in the asteroid linear momentum[6]. Some of these methods, such as the kinetic impactor have been deemed to have a high technology readiness level (TRL), while others may require considerable development. If the capability to impact an asteroid exists (e.g., Deep Impact), or if the capability to deflect an asteroid is available in the near future, a resource-rich asteroid could in principle be manoeuvred and captured into a bound Earth orbit through judicious use of orbital dynamics. On the other hand, if direct transfer of the entire NEA is not possible, or necessary, extracted resources could also be transferred to a bound Earth orbit for utilisation. It is envisaged that NEA could also be ‘shepherded’ into easily accessible orbits to provide future resources.

102

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmative***Counterplan Answers***

103

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeRecycling CP Answers

The CP doesn’t solve- doesn’t generate enough mineralsHsu 4-6-11 [Jeremy, Innovation News Daily senior writer, “Wealth of Minerals Could Be ‘Mined’ By Recycling Gadgets,” http://www.innovationnewsdaily.com/rare-earth-minerals-recycle-supply-1873/]

Recycling the minerals looks most likely for metallurgical applications, automobile catalysts, and magnets in wind turbines and automobiles, where the minerals exist in larger quantities, said Xiaoyue Du, a Ph.D. candidate in forestry and environmental studies at Yale University. But Du added that many recycling challenges remain even for the most widely-used applications. "Because the rare earths are used in a small amount mixed with other metals or materials, it's very hard and costly to separate them, for example, in the cell phones," Du told InnovationNewsDaily. The Yale study came up with the first global estimate of the amount of rare earth minerals already in use, as opposed to the amount in the ground or mined each year. Rare earth minerals already in use totaled about 485,000 tons in 2007, or four times the amount mined in the same year.

104

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativePrivate Actor CP

Perm- do both: solves bestParthemore ’11 [Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,” http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf]

Finally, Congress and the executive branch should promote information sharing with the private sector and internationally. Regular dialogues and information sharing among the U.S. Departments of Energy, State and Defense, and industry and international stakeholders can be a cost-effective means of helping the U.S. government prevent mineral disruptions and trade disputes from negatively affecting U.S. foreign policy goals, defense readiness or economic growth. Over time, regular dialogues and greater transparency can help policymakers to access better information on minerals, and can create an “in-group” mentality in which companies and government agencies alike increasingly see the professional benefit for sharing certain types of information. For instance, more open dialogue can provide important information to companies on emerging government concerns and geopolitical trends that may affect their businesses.

CP doesn’t solve- lack of accountability or regulationInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

A mining operation run by a private entity could be associated with more than one State. In this case, it is unclear which State would be liable for the asteroid or asteroidal material. With present international space law, it is unclear how to manage these issues (Lee, 2009). In the event of a human mission, it will be a challenge to address the mitigation of liability for astronaut activities. To determine liability, it is necessary to establish methods to assess the risks associated with sending humans on a mission to mine an asteroid. Consideration of liability for contaminating the Earth with material mined from asteroids is also necessary. Currently, it is unclear which nation or governing body would be liable for this damage (Foster, 1972).

Only federal action solves- key to confidence and rallying supportForgan and Elvis 3-29-11 Duncan H. Forgan and Martin Elvis, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh & Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “Extrasolar Asteroid Mining as Forensic Evidence for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.5369v1.pdf]

Governments which invest at early stages in these projects will receive profitable advantages over their competitors, including early access to raw materials, new technologies and highly skilled personnel, each a boost to any nation’s economy. These benefits may not outweigh the current financial disadvantages, but dwindling resources and rising costs on Earth will gradually improve the prospect of developing TAM missions until they become an obvious choice. Exactly how the initial capital will be raised will be the most important and difficult obstacle - private investors will baulk at the prospect of entirely funding TAM, but as with other large scale projects such as the Panama Canal (which was also faced with technological challenges and capital problems) the action of governments can make all the difference, especially if they can be encouraged into competition with each other (Hickman, 1999).

Private actors will withhold key information- no contractual obligation to cooperate

105

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeParthemore ’11 [Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,” http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf]

In addition to continuing to produce good data, the U.S. government can do more to leverage its relationships with contractors. The private sector will continue to withhold important information in order to keep information proprietary or because it could be harmful to the bottom line if shared with the government. But when DOD, for example, has billion-dollar contracts with suppliers for critical military assets, it should be able to have contractual requirements that these companies share information about major supply chain vulnerabilities that can provide other countries with leverage over the United States or potentially cause major disruptions. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is an important model for requiring due diligence in understanding and reporting supply chain information among manufacturers that source minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 53

The CP risks upsetting military element suppliesParthemore ’11 [Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,” http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf]

The overlap between military and private sector needs can complicate tracking shifts in demand and their implications given the military’s dependence on dual-use technologies such as communications equipment, computers and satellites. This makes the defense-related supply of critical minerals vulnerable to the rise and fall of commercial demand. All minerals examined in this study are dual-use in U.S. consumption: Niobium is used mostly in steel production and aerospace applications; rare earth minerals are in everything from computer monitors to satellites; and rhenium is used in turbine engine components and in superalloys because of its heat resistance and other properties. 34

CP fails- no common interest with military goalsParthemore ’11 [Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,” http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf]

In developing new policies related to minerals, policymakers must remember that substantial government intervention already exists, including permitting exploitation on government lands and regulating environmental impacts. However, policymakers must navigate a market that is not always easy to predict and in which the need for federal government intervention (or nonintervention) is not always obvious. In the recent rare earths case, the private sector responded by providing some capital for a domestic mining operation to resume. This does not always solve the foreign policy and geopolitical challenges the U.S. government experiences. In particular, for minerals that private companies will not reliably produce or more defense-specific applications, U.S. government interests may be at stake while private interests are not.

Private actors can’t solve asteroid miningDBNJ 6/6 ( Daytona Beach News Journal. “NASA needs clear plan for the future” http://www.news-journalonline.com/opinion/editorials/n-j-editorials/2011/06/06/nasa-needs-clear-plan-for-the-future.html, 6 June 2011, JGR)

There is a lack of certainty coming out of Washington, D.C., about the future of the space program. There is bickering in Congress. There is uncertainty at Kennedy Space Center, the Florida home of the space launch. The plan to retire the space shuttle was made by President George W. Bush in 2004. Bush wanted to replace it with new spacecraft that would get astronauts to the moon. Bush announced plans for a program named

106

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeConstellation. This program was cancelled by President Barack Obama in 2010, but the general plan is to use the Orion portion for manned missions. Congress is currently undecided about the rocket to use, but the news about Orion, recently announced by NASA, will save jobs at Kennedy Space Center. It will also save the $5 billion that has been spent developing Orion, according to U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a former astronaut himself. The Associated Press said NASA will likely rename Orion the "Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle." But what will it be used for? A manned mission to Mars? What about those asteroids that are thick with gold, platinum and other useful elements? It's been theorized that manned spacecraft will soon land on near-Earth asteroids for mining purposes. The crew vehicle is said to be much safer than a space shuttle, but it lands in water when it returns, meaning each vehicle will be retired to a museum after each use. (Blame salt water for that.) For now, the general game plan is to use the private sector's considerable space program to get astronauts to the International Space Station, or to get cargo into space. That's a good idea -- one that encourages private-sector innovation regarding our very important maintenance of satellites and scientific research in space. But even the private sector isn't planning on the kind of missions that the space shuttles were doing. And there certainly is no private plan for exploration on the moon, Mars or the asteroids of this solar system . The space shuttle Atlantis sits at Kennedy Space Center awaiting a countdown that could begin on July 8. It will be the final flight of a U.S. manned shuttle or any other kind of U.S. manned space rocket -- for now. But it shouldn't be the last NASA manned mission ever. Congressional leaders and President Obama need to agree on the future of NASA and its manned space flights. They should look to the future, assessing the need and usefulness of the next mission. And they need to keep in mind the scientific and, now, commercial possibilities future missions could bring.

107

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeMountain Pass Mine CP Answers

The CP doesn’t solve the military advantage- Mountain Pass elements are too lightHsu 4-14-11 [Jeremy, Innovation News Daily senior writer, “U.S. Military Supply of Rare Earth Elements Not Secure,” http://www.technewsdaily.com/us-military-supply-of-rare-earth-elements-not-secure-0430/]

Still, a need for even rarer "heavy" rare earth elements would require the U.S. military to look beyond the Mountain Pass mine, which can only produce a little terbium and dysprosium. Light rare earths include the minerals ranging from lanthanum to gadolinium on the periodic table of elements, while heavy rare earths range from terbium to lutetium.

108

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeMine the Moon Answers

Mining asteroids is key- it’s more efficient and economically viableScience Clarified ’08 [Science and technology magazine sponsored by SoftLayer Technologies, “How Humans Will Mine Asteroids and Comets,” http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Comets-and-Asteroids/How-Humans-Will-Mine-Asteroids-and-Comets.html]

First, whether they live on Earth or in space cities, people will naturally want to obtain cosmic resources as easily and cheaply as possible. The fact is that mining the asteroids will be far easier and more economical than mining a large body like the Moon. The Moon's surface gravity is about one-sixth that of Earth, which is strong enough to require a good deal of fuel to land miners and their equipment on its surface. More importantly, getting the processed metals and minerals off the Moon's surface would take even larger amounts of fuel. An added problem is that most of the valuable metals and minerals on the Moon are spread out over thousands of square miles and bound up inside mixtures of rock and dirt, many lying deep underground; it would require a lot of exploration, as well as strenuous and expensive digging and processing, to free them.

Asteroids hold uniquely pure and valuable materials- the Moon doesn’t compareScience Clarified ’08 [Science and technology magazine sponsored by SoftLayer Technologies, “How Humans Will Mine Asteroids and Comets,” http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Comets-and-Asteroids/How-Humans-Will-Mine-Asteroids-and-Comets.html]

Another advantage of mining asteroids rather than the Moon is that the asteroidal metals and minerals are concentrated in a small, easily accessible space and are much purer in content. Almost all asteroids, Daniel Durda points out, "have a hundred times more metal not bound up in rocky minerals than do moon rocks." 45 On S-type and especially M-type asteroids, such materials will require very little processing. Indeed, a fair amount will be collectable even before the digging process begins. The surface of such bodies is rich in granules of metal, ranging from sand- to perhaps fist-sized pieces, all mixed with sootlike dirt. These granules "can easily be separated from the dirt," the Minor Planet Center experts say, using only magnets [in the form of magnetic rakes] and soft grinders. Some engineering designs have "centrifugal grinders," whereby the dirt is fed into a rotating tank and shattered against the wall a time or two. Out come little metal disks, which are separated using simple magnets. 46

Harvest valuable resources from asteroids would be easier than mining the moon. Sheraz ’10 (Umar Sheraz is a Senior Policy Analyst in Pakistan. Journal of Futures Studies. “Mining Futures: Beyond the Headlines” http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/15-2/A02.pdf, November 2010, JGR)

Space mining was initially conceived as a work of science fiction, dramatically pictured in blockbusters like the block-buster movie Alien, but given the changes in the last two decades , space mining is now a concept that far-sighted entrepreneurs can consider. The breaking up of the monopoly on deep-space launches by private launch services, which was once held by Cold War superpowers , has considerably reduced the cost of access to space. Also, technological advances and the transfer of military technology following the Cold War have led to advances in materials, computers, robotics, and deep-space propulsion . Streamlined management of space projects has considerably reduced the costs of space travel, with space missions now costing onefourth of equivalent projects ten years ago. The icing on the cake is the discovery of 24 rare and valuable minerals on asteroids that are easier to reach and return with collect material from, than even [from] the moon . So what was mission impossible a few

decades ago, is within the realms of practical now!!!

109

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeSeabed Mining CP Answers

Seabed mining causes global warParthemore ’11 [Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,” http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Minerals_Parthemore_1.pdf]

Seabed mineral exploration is high on the agenda for a range of countries and companies and, if major new supplies are discovered, will substantially change the global market for critical minerals. After decades of major investments in seabed exploration by scientists, petroleum producers and others, the world is experiencing great advances in the technical and economic viability of undersea exploration and exploitation. Countries seeking to mine these potentially important seabed mineral reserves may engage in territorial disputes as a result, even though doubt remains over whether, where and at what price seabed mineral supplies may become economical to produce. For example, territorial disputes over areas of the Arctic that are opening up to exploration and in the South China Sea – areas seen as having great mineral supply potential – are already concerning U.S. military strategists and diplomats. The possibility of seabed mining is already fueling a renewed debate about whether the United States should ratify the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS).

110

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeColonize Mars CP Answers

The plan is a prerequisite to the CP- asteroid mining solves necessary resources for colonizationScience Clarified ’08 [Science and technology magazine sponsored by SoftLayer Technologies, “How Humans Will Mine Asteroids and Comets,” http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Comets-and-Asteroids/How-Humans-Will-Mine-Asteroids-and-Comets.html]

There is another dimension to human acquisition and consumption of cosmic resources, however. Nearly all the experts agree that by the time space mining becomes widespread, only a small percentage of the materials mined will end up on Earth. Instead, a major portion of these resources will be used to construct and sustain human colonies and cities floating in space. Space, they say, will become a vast new frontier that will attract many people born on Earth, helping to stabilize or at least slow the growth of the planet's population. (And of course, over time even more people will be born in space.)

Colonizing Mars isn’t feasible- gravity levels are unfit for humansSpace Wealth 2-23-11 [Space research organization and public benefit corporation, “Is Profitable Asteroid Mining A Pragmatic Goal?” http://spacewealth.org/files/Is-P@M-Pragmatic-2011-02-23.pdf] Mars is not the ultimate goal. Offering only onethird Earth’s gravity, Mars may never be healthy for Earthevolved, cellular life. We need gravity. 5 The delicate molecular and computational apparatus within every watery cell of DNA life 6 may require gravitational conditions rather close to what they have been for 4 billon years: 980 Galileos (±0.3%). Humans may hope to visit Mars, but making it an “ultimate goal” is just not rational. The Moon, offering only onesixth Earth’s gravity, is even less hospitable.

111

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeInternational CP Answers

Perm- do both- international collaboration solves bestSpace Wealth 2-23-11 [Space research organization and public benefit corporation, “Is Profitable Asteroid Mining A Pragmatic Goal?” http://spacewealth.org/files/Is-P@M-Pragmatic-2011-02-23.pdf]

In cooperation with other forward looking nations, 39 the U.S. should purchase an option to develop asteroid resources by investing in the knowledge required to mine asteroids. We can then choose to exercise this option if terrestrial PGM supplies do in fact collapse. Asteroids may also be able to supply other metals that are increasingly at risk. 40 There are several candidates: In 2009, the U.S. imported 100% of 19 key industrial metals. 41

112

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeInternational Cooperation CP Answers

US action alone is key- the CP causes jurisdiction disputesInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

Defining the jurisdiction for the activities associated with asteroid mining is important. Under Art. VIII of the OST “a State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body”. In regards to the registration of space objects, there is a need to determine the Launching State to attribute the country that is responsible and/or liable for asteroid mining projects. In case of only one State launching a space object, this law will not create any difficulties. However, when more than one State launches, the States involved have to select amongst themselves, which State has to register the space object. That State would accordingly exercise quasi-territorial jurisdiction and control over the space object (Lee, 2009). According to the approach of the United States of America, only objects that are owned by the U.S. government or private entities will be registered, regardless of where they are launched (Hodgkins, 1992). We suggest following this approach in regards to asteroid mining if more than one State is planning a mission. The reason for this being that the owner of the payload would want the continual jurisdiction and legal control of it, rather than the other Launching States. It is increasingly difficult for the international legal framework to specify liability and jurisdiction for the activities of different types of entities in space. A possible solution is to compel many commercial entities and their governments to prescribe, clarify and limit their liabilities towards each other through means of private contracts. The States should regulate this individually by implementing laws requiring this in the States‟ national laws.

113

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining Affirmative***Kritik Answers***

114

Samford Debate Institute ’11 Asteroid Mining AffirmativeGeneral K Answers

Asteroid mining is ethical- yields a better quality of lifeInternational Space University ’10 [Space Studies Program, “Asteroid Mining, Technologies Roadmap, and Applications,” online]

The immediate societal impact of asteroid mining is the adjustment of the worldwide market of raw materials. The availability of asteroid raw materials will change the landscape of the traditional mining industry. Communities or countries dependant on mining may lose part of their economic basis, or be forced to adopt more efficient operations. Still, asteroid mining as a profitable space venture will result in a developmental boost. New opportunities will arise, ideally leading to increased quality of life. Since a favorable opinion is a key factor to success, these profound changes need to be accompanied and facilitated by public outreach. In this frame, team ASTRA

recommends initiation of a public outreach program to gain public support, so that policymakers shall be proponents of asteroid mining (Recommendation V). In addition, in order to insure the support of nations currently relying on mining, stakeholders should inform them on the benefits they would gain from asteroid mining (Recommendation VI).

Our calculations about asteroids are true- prefer our scientific understanding to their generic philosophical objectionsSpace Wealth 2-23-11 [Space research organization and public benefit corporation, “Is Profitable Asteroid Mining A Pragmatic Goal?” http://spacewealth.org/files/Is-P@M-Pragmatic-2011-02-23.pdf]

Our understanding of asteroid spectra, and the association of asteroids in space with asteroids on Earth (aka: meteorites), has improved. 63 We can now discuss “asteroid and meteorite properties using a common language of mineral abundance and composition.” 64 While we can do more with current terrestrial equipment, 65 what we really need is on-site asteroid analysis, in order to verify mineralogical inferences drawn from remote spectral analysis. This can be secured only with spacecrafts.The challenges of determining asteroid mineralogy, and the need for onsite analysis and returns, are well articulated in Burbine, et al. (2008). 66

115