• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis US-INDIA RELATIONS DA US-India Relations DA...... 1 ***Strat Sheet—MUST READ***...... 3 1NC Shell...... 4 India DA – Uniqueness...... 7 India DA – Links [Unilateral Action]...... 12 India DA – Links [SSP]...... 18 India DA – Links [Weaponization/Militarization]...... 20 India DA – Links [Lunar Missions]...... 22 India DA – Links [Techno-Nationalism]...... 23 India DA – Impacts [Warming]...... 24 India DA – Impacts [Indo-Pak War]...... 27 India DA – Impacts [Sino-Taiwan War]...... 28 India DA – Impacts [Hegemony/Space Debris]...... 31 India DA – Impacts [Terrorism]...... 33 India DA – Impacts [East Asian Stability]...... 34 India DA – Impacts [Interoperability]...... 37 DA Acts As CP – Only CP Solves...... 38 DA Acts As CP – Solves SSP...... 39 DA Acts As CP – SSP Net-Benefit...... 43 DA Acts As CP – Solves NEOs [Asteroids]—[turns case]...... 44 DA Acts As CP – Solves Lunar Exploration/space Heg...... 46 DA Acts As CP – Solves Commercialization...... 47 DA Acts As CP – Solves Laundry List...... 48 DA Acts As CP – Spending Net-Benefit...... 50 Cooperation Key...... 51 Unilateralism Bad – Kills Globalization...... 52 AT – Alt Cause...... 53 AT – Normal Means [Generic]...... 54 AT – Normal Means [SSP]...... 55 AT – Chinese Aggression Turn...... 57 AT – India Militarization Turn...... 58 AT – Link Turn...... 59

1 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis AT – Perm Solves the Link...... 60 AT – Plan Spurs Co-op...... 61 ***AFF Answers...... 62 Non-Unique...... 63 Alt Cause to Stable Relations...... 65 Relations Resilient...... 66 Impact Turn – Chinese Aggression [1/2]...... 67 Impact Turn – Chinese Aggression [2/2]...... 68 Internal Link Turn...... 69 Normal Means...... 70 Militarization Link Turn...... 71 AT – SQUO Solves...... 72 AT – Cooperation Key...... 73 AT – Solves Satellites...... 74 AT – Democracy Impact...... 75 AT – Space Debris Impact...... 76

2 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis ***STRAT SHEET—MUST READ*** Okay, so the story goes: US and India are cooperating on space exploration in the status quo. The plan only goes through unilateral action causing India to feel left out and irrelevant. This strains relations which only space exploration is key to. The strain means less cooperation on climate change causing inevitable warming.

If I were you, don’t read the warming impact in the 1NC if you are debating SSP because you don't want them to concede impact defense that you will read on their climate change and energy flows, taking out your impact. The story for each impact is located right below each impact scenario.

Read the 1NC, and then in the block, read that the DA Acts as CP [SQUO SOLVES] specific to one of the AFFs that is in the file.

The best aff answer is the Alt Cause argument – to answer this, just overwhelm that space cooperation is at the core of relations – their card doesn’t assume this, and then read more uniqueness evidence to support this argument.

Another good aff answer is normal means – the carded answer is only specific to SSP, but you can still read this card against any other aff justifying how any country or sector can engage in space exploration proving there is no normal means.

3 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis 1NC SHELL

A. Uniqueness—US is cooperating with India on space exploration in the SQUO O’Donnell, Researcher at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 11 [Frank, holds an MSc (Distinction) in Strategic Studies from the University of Aberdeen and an MA (Honors) in International Relations and Middle East Studies from the University of St Andrews, May 13, “India's Space Ascent Gains New Boost,” Geopolitical Monitor, last accessed 6/23/11, http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/indias-space-ascent-gains-new-boost-4363] TD

Speaking before the Indian Parliament in November 2010, US President Barack Obama outlined his policy of "forging deeper cooperation with 21st century centers of influence - and that must necessarily include India. " Noting space collaboration as an area ripe for expanded collaboration, the joint statement by Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced their determination to "transform bilateral export control regulations and policies to realize the full potential of the strategic partnership between the two countries." To fulfill this objective, nine institutions critical to Indian space and defense technology development were removed from the US Department of Commerce "Entity List " in January. This list restricts commerce in space, nuclear, chemical and biological technology with certain organizations. The Commerce Department also reallocated India to an export control category exclusive to Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) "adherent" states. These revisions esase the path for exporters to obtain licenses for transfer of space technology to India, although individual licenses may still be denied. The granting of "MTCR adherent status" particularly signifies a growing US perception that India takes seriously concerns regarding global proliferation and sensitive technology transfers . These actions provide new opportunities for American agencies and firms to assist India in the evolution of its space program, including supporting Indian goals of mastering advanced rockets, deploying an expanded satellite fleet, and building international commercial launch capacity.

B. Link—Plan crushes US-Indian relations – only cooperation, like that of the SQUO, can solve Faulconer and Rendleman 10 [J. Walter, the new business area executive for civilian space at The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, James D., Colonel, USAF (Ret.), Colorado Springs, Colorado, 2010, “Improving International Space Cooperation,” StrategicSpaceSolutions, last accessed 7/8/11, http://strategicspacesolutions.com/Public-papers/Intl- Space-Coop%206-5-10.pdf] TD

Diplomatic prestige. Cooperation provides opportunities for a nation to demonstrate its international leadership and technical prowess. For example, India has used its recent launches to host payloads from a number of international partners. South Korea is leveraging Russian launch technology to attempt space launches of satellites all in support of its dream to become a ―top ten‖ space fairing nation. Table 2 illustrates when each member of the "space launch club" joined. Russia and China launch satellites for much of the global space-faring community. Ultimately, support for cooperation and collaboration increases when the perceived utility and diplomatic prestige derived from cooperation increases . In general, the more countries participate, the higher will be the utility. Nevertheless, not all countries are equal, and their individual utility value depends on world politics. For example, the utility of having Russia join the [International Space Station (ISS)] program increased significantly after the breakup of the Soviet Union, when relations with a new Russia were at the forefront of United States foreign policy. To the extent that a symbol of cooperation with a given nation is valuable, utility will be delivered . As such, Indian participation in joint space exploration would send a strong signal to the world of good U.S.-Indian relations . This would simultaneously increase Indian prestige by demonstrating their technological prowess. Similarly, Chinese participation in joint space exploration would signal growing cooperation between the two nations...These diplomatic incentives may come at a cost for the cooperating nations; for example, China would likely have to make concessions in the form of more stringent technology export controls and/or better observance of human rights standards. If space exploration is successfully used as a diplomatic tool to exert such “soft power ,” its utility increases in proportion to the degree that it is successful in implementing a policymaker’s agenda. 26 A demonstration 4 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis of the utility of diplomatic prestige gained from space cooperative endeavors can be seen in the ApolloSoyuz space link-up (1975) and Space Shuttle Mir docking (1995) missions, though not for reasons contained in the public pronouncements by the participants Their true and complex diplomatic utility was not made apparent for many years. As described by James Oberg: “It was the very heights of the Cold War,” (Apollo astronaut) Stafford recalled, “with thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at each country.” Then from outer space a streak of sanity appeared: “Yet both superpowers had great accomplishments in space, so we decided to work together.” Only with the Soviet program at a standstill did Moscow agree to fly a joint orbital mission. Its fallback position was that if it couldn’t be Number One in space, it could at least pose as the equal partner of the new Number One, the United States. It was better than letting on how far behind its space program had fallen. 27 Political sustainability. International cooperation has the peculiar, wonderful, and sometimes wasteful capacity to increase the political will to sustain and fund space programs and associated budgets. As noted, cooperation provides a space fairing state the basis to draw on additional resources when its own are not adequate to achieve desired space goals and visions. Cooperation also enables a program to weather attempts to be reined in even when faced with contentious and devastating costgrowth or budget realities (which most space programs invariably face). Thus, within the United States, a program often wins a bit of sanctuary from cancellation threats or significant budget reductions to the extent that Congress and the administration feel compelled to not break, stretch, or withdraw from international agreements. Political good will is generated by funding these programs. To find an example of the power of this good will, one only need look to the politics surrounding NASA’s manned programs. Money has been allocated to the program even when the perceived justification for its expansive program has collapsed. Now the new internationalist U.S. President doesn’t care much for the NASA manned mission, and has even less understanding of its science mission. In any event critics concede that the President sees value in the votes its engineering and contractor community represents, key especially in vote rich states such as Florida which serve as a nexus for manned U.S. launches. Similarly, some reason the political and diplomatic integration of Russia into the ISS program may well have saved the ISS and Space Shuttle programs from cancellation. 28 Once cooperation has commenced, canceling a program becomes inconsistent with political sustainability as long as the utility cost associated with the loss of diplomatic benefits and the negative effects on reputation of terminating an international agreement is larger in magnitude than the utility cost that must be paid to maintain the system… The corollary to this is that there is a high cost to be paid by any nation that chooses to unilaterally withdraw from an existing cooperative endeavor. This cost comes in the form of damage to the departing nation’s reputation or credibility. In general, any unilateral action sends a signal that the actor is an unpredictable and therefore an unreliable and possibly disrespectful partner. This tends to sabotage the possibility of future cooperation . As such, there is a long-term benefit to maintaining cooperation, even when the immediate cost may seem to call for terminating it. 29 If significant cooperation has never occurred, its commencement is thought to be a defining event, delivering specific political rewards and diplomatic utility. This is why the recent pronouncements on space cooperation made by President Obama and Chinese officials during his November 2009 visits are being watched with special interest. The same attention is being paid to the overtures made with the Indian government and its space community.

C. Impact—Strong relations with India key to democracy spread, economic growth, regional stability Burns 05 [R. Nicholas, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, September 8, “The United States and India: An Emerging Entente?,” The DISAM Journal, last accessed 6/30/11, http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2028_1/Burns.pdf] TD

A strong democratic India is an important partner for the United States. We anticipate that India will play an increasingly important leadership role in 21st century Asia, working with us to promote democracy, economic growth, stability and peace in that vital region . By cooperating with India now, we accelerate the arrival of the benefits that India’s rise brings to the region and the world. By fostering ever-closer bilateral ties, we also eliminate any possibility that our two nations might overlook their natural affinities and enter into another period of unproductive estrangement, as was so often the case in the past half century.

5 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis And, Democracy solves extinction Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, 95 [Larry, professor of sociology and political science at Stanford University, December 1995, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives,” last accessed 10/10/10, http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/Promoting%20Democracy%20in%20the%201990s %20Actors%20and%20Instruments,%20Issues%20and%20Imperatives.pdf] TD

OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavi a nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through incr easingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corr upted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to prolife rate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and open ness . LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

6 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – UNIQUENESS

The U.S. currently cooperating with India on space exploration has caused high US-Indian relations Embassy of India, Washington D.C. 08 [2008, “India - US Space Cooperation,” Embassy of India, Washington D.C., last accessed 6/22/11, http://www.indianembassy.org/india-us-space- cooperation.php] TD

Indo-US cooperation in the space arena dates back to the very beginning of the Indian space programme. The very first sounding rocket, a Nike-Apache launched from Thumba on November 21, 1963 was a US made rocket that carried instruments to conduct ionospheric experiments over the earth's magnetic equator that passes over Thumba. Several more such rockets were launched later for various scientific missions. India conducted the Satellite Instructional Television Experiment (SITE) in the mid 1970s with NASA. SITE involved deployment of Direct Reception TV sets in about 2400 villages across six states of India to receive educational programmes via ATS-6, covering agriculture, family planning, health and hygiene, etc. The experiment was hailed as the world's largest sociological experiment. This was followed by the establishment of the multipurpose Indian National Satellite (INSAT) System in the 80s. All the four satellites under INSAT-1 series were built by a US Company to India's specifications and three of them were put into orbit by US launch vehicles including INSAT-1B, orbited by the US space Shuttle Challenger. Today, INSAT has become one of thes largest domestic satellite systems in the Asia Pacific region, with all satellites designed and built in India. The latest satellite in the series, INSAT-4CR was launched on September 2, 2007 using GSLV from Sriharikota giving further boost to INSAT capability, especially for Direct-To-Home (DTH) television broadcast. In the field of remote sensing, India was one of the first countries to establish a reception station for receiving data from NASA's Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS), later renamed as LANDSAT. This facilitated India to gain experience in the reception, processing and application of space-based remote sensing data. Today, India has the world's largest constellation of civilian remote sensing satellites to provide data in a variety of spatial resolutions and spectral bands which is being received by several ground stations from all over the world including USA, that meet the requirements of various applications in resource management including water, food & agriculture. Indian Earth Observation system is expected to continue to provide operational products and services enabling applications in several areas spanning from cartography to climate. India is a member of the international COSPAS-SARSAT programme for providing distress alert and position location service through LEOSAR (Low Earth Orbit Search And Rescue) satellite system. Under this programme, India has established two Local User Terminals (LUTs), one at Lucknow and the other at Bangalore. The Indian Mission Control Centre (INMCC), is located at ISTRAC, Bangalore. Apart from the operational missions of IRS and INSAT, ISRO has also initiated dedicated space science missions such as SROSS-C for atmospheric studies and AstroSat mission for astronomical observation in UV and X-rays. Anuradha, an Indian experiment for cosmic ray studies was part of NASA’s third Spacelab mission. As a first step in planetary exploration, Chandrayaan-1, for remote sensing of the moon from 100 km lunar polar orbit was initiated. Data obtained from this mission will improve our current understanding of the origin and evolution of the Moon. American cooperation in India's first unmanned lunar mission, Chandrayaan-I, which was successfully launched from Shriharikota on 22nd October, and inserted into Moon’s orbit on 8th November , marks the beginning of a new era of trust and partnership between the two countries in the field of space exploration . The mission to the moon carries two NASA payloads - a Miniature Synthetic Aperture Radar to map ice deposits in the moon's surface and a Moon Mineralogy Maper to assess mineral resources of the Moon The inclusion of two US Instruments on this spacecraft has provided further fillip to Indo-US cooperation in the space arena . India, along with seven other countries, has signed a landmark agreement with the United States (NASA) to carry out lunar exploration. The agreement was signed at American space agency NASA's Ames Research Centre on 28th July 2008. ISRO is also planning a second version named Chandrayaan-2 to land a motorized rover on the moon in 2011/2012. The strides that the US and India can make together as partners in space will advance tele- medicine, tele-education, and disaster preparedness and management which in turn help development of mankind in a global perspective. 7 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis Relations are high but still testy – only the AFF pushes the relations over the edge Parameswaran 10 [Prashanth, a research assistant at the Project 2049 Institute, a Washington D.C.-based think tank that covers Asian security issues, June 14, “The Future of U.S.-India Relations,” World Politics Review, last accessed 6/24/11, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/5779/the-future-of-u-s-india-relations] TD

Judging by the atmospherics on display during last week's inaugural U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, the bilateral relationship between the two countries appears to be on solid footing. U.S. Under Secretary for Public Affairs William Burns called the relationship "one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century," while U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of a joint responsibility to "determine the course of the world." U.S. President Barack Obama even made a surprise visit at the dialogue's reception, and announced that he would visit New Delhi in November. Yet this flowery rhetoric masks the complex realities of what has been and continues to be a testy relationship between Washington and New Delhi. Even today, Indians worry that the United States is cozying up to Pakistan and China at their expense, while some in Washington charge that India is too caught up with its "neighborhood" concerns to assert its influence on the world stage. If the two countries hope to forge a stronger partnership in the 21st century, they will have to navigate past sharp disagreements and bridge wide perception gaps.

The DA serves as a CP solving the case – the US is moving toward cooperation and consultation that will solve the case Handberg, Professor and Chair of PoliSci @ UCF, 10 [Roger, January 11, “The future of American human space exploration and the “Critical Path”,” The Space Review, last accessed 6/22/11, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1543/1] TD

The United States at least temporarily moves from the position of dominant partner to that of dependent. This status will be uncomfortable but doable as a stopgap. The more critical issue is the declining willingness of presidents and congresses to fund long-term space programs, especially human exploration, because it is significantly more expensive than unmanned missions. How NASA is able to fund such programs in the absence of strong political support remains a difficult question. The degree of difficulty has grown over the years but has not yet returned to the levels of congressional antagonism as in 1993 when the ISS came within one vote of cancelation on the House floor while its budgetary competitor, the Superconducting Super Collider, was terminated. There are no easy answers but obviously one approach may be for the United States to fully opt into international partnerships led by a consortium of states with the US as one partner among others. Participation by each state would vary from mission to mission, but would allow continued US support for a manned space program. Such alliances can be critical for sustaining such programs despite the annual congressional and presidential appropriations process that provides repeated opportunities for budget cuts and stretch outs. Politically, international partners become arguments for continued US participation; otherwise, the US loses standing in the international community. What this means is that the US must become comfortable with such close cooperation, as unilateral decisions with no prior consultation with partners will end. The advantage is that true cooperation translates into greater equality in terms of budget share—the US will no longer operate as the funder of last resort with the unpleasantness that situation generates. One downside is that projects will move more slowly (although in truth no one may notice, given the delays common presently) due to the need for effective consultation among the partners before programs are initiated and necessary changes are made. Such partnerships provide a mechanism for incorporating different states into the program based on actual interest and capabilities.

8 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis India and the US cooperating on space exploration now Embassy of the U.S., New Dehli, 07 [February 28, “U.S. - India Joint Working Group on Civil Space Cooperation,” Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Washington, DC, last accessed 6/28/11, http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/pr030907.html] TD

The Joint Working Group engaged in a broad range of discussions and endorsed the following conclusions: Space exploration and research will enable dramatic advances in knowledge of the basic nature and dynamics of our planet and the universe around it. Successful international cooperation in space research proceeds from the understanding that scientific information should be shared as widely and quickly as possible to enable its fullest use for research purposes in the interests of the public good. The two sides look forward to India's Chandrayaan-1 lunar mission in March 2008, which will greatly increase our knowledge of Earth's natural satellite. NASA and ISRO have agreed upon cooperative programs for this mission that will further both countries' goals for space exploration, and will set the stage for future cooperation. Space exploration is a source of inspiration and discovery in which many nations of the world have chosen to partake. The U.S. has set for itself a Vision for Space Exploration. NASA has invited opinions from India and other countries to define a strategy that details how Lunar exploration fits into the broader global effort to explore space. Additional opportunities for cooperation exist in the field of space science, including astrophysics, robotic exploration of the solar system, and the investigation of the relationship between the Earth and the Sun. Earth observation data and information yield a broad range of societal benefits. The U.S. and India, through cooperation between their technical agencies, including NOAA, NASA and the USGS for the U.S. and ISRO for India, have embarked upon a number of collaborative activities in the application of Earth observations and look forward to continued collaboration in this area. One area that Earth observations can be applied to is disaster management. The Earth and its inhabitants are vulnerable to long-term processes and sudden events, from climate change to natural disasters, without regard to national boundaries. Space observations play a vital role in developing an understanding of these vulnerabilities and mitigating their consequences.

India and US have agreed on future cooperation and space exploration UPI 08 [United Press International, 2008, “India, U.S. sign space agreement,” PHYSORG.com, last accessed 6/28/11, www.physorg.com/pdf121263994.pdf] TD

U.S. and Indian officials have signed an agreement for cooperation in space exploration. The signing ceremony took place Friday at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin and Indian Space Research Organization Chairman G. Madhavan Nair signed the framework agreement, which replaces a 1997 agreement for research in Earth and atmospheric science. The two countries already have a joint project . NASA has supplied two of the 11 instruments carried by Chandrayaan-1, India's first lunar probe. The Chandrayaan is to be launched this year. "This agreement will allow us to cooperate effectively on a wide range of programs of mutual interest," Griffin said. " India has extensive space-related experience, capabilities and infrastructure, and will continue to be a welcome partner in NASA's future space exploration activities."

India and US have vowed future cooperation in space exploration Burns 05 [R. Nicholas, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, September 8, “The United States and India: An Emerging Entente?,” The DISAM Journal, last accessed 6/30/11, http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol%2028_1/Burns.pdf] TD

Space Cooperation The two leaders also looked forward to increasing cooperation in space. To that end, the recently created U.S. and India Working Group on Civil Space Cooperation will build closer ties in space exploration, satellite navigation and launch. 9 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis US-India cooperating now on space exploration Foust, Editor and Publisher of the Space Review and Spacetoday.net, 2/11/08 Jeff, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1056/1 6/22/11 D.R.

Near the end of his speech before the Space Transportation Association last month, NASA administrator Mike Griffin was asked to assess the state of America’s competition in the realm of human spaceflight (see “Defending Constellation”, The Space Review, February 4, 2008). He responded, predictably enough, with his concern that China would get back to the Moon before the US. He also praised Russia for continuing with its program through the turmoil of recent years, and said that he expected that Russia would also eventually send humans beyond low Earth orbit. Griffin then threw out one more statement about another spacefaring nation, one that—as yet—has no human spaceflight capability: “India is not going to allow on the Asian continent for a Chinese capability that they don’t have.” That statement is an acknowledgement that the next government to launch humans into space is likely not going to be Europe or Japan—which have the technical capability but currently lack the political will—but instead India, which is rapidly developing both the technologies and political support needed for such a project. And should India succeed, it will be with very different—although as yet uncertain—ramifications for the US. “I can confidently say that that vision of Dr. Sarabhai has been fulfilled,” Nair said, referring to the founder of the Indian space program and his emphasis on practical applications. “Today, we are at a turning point. We are looking at what’s next.” For the last few years India’s space program has been in a state of transition. Since its inception in the early 1960s, India’s space efforts have been focused on practical applications. The nation eschewed not just human spaceflight but also robotic space exploration in favor of applications like communications and remote sensing that promised practical benefits to the Indian people (see “The other rising Asian space power”, The Space Review, December 18, 2006). Space was seen primarily as a means to raise the standard of living of a relatively poor nation, not as a tool of geopolitical prestige. That approach has largely been a success for India. In a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington on January 30, G. Madhavan Nair, chairman of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), recapped the accomplishments of his agency in support of the Indian people. Indian remote sensing satellites have been used in roles ranging from disaster management to helping identify sources of drinking water in dry regions of the country. The nation’s fleet of communications satellites beams television programming into millions of homes, and also supports telemedicine and distance learning applications. India’s space program “is highly need-based, harnessing the high technology for space… to benefit the common man,” Nair said. There is, though, a growing belief in India that this “need-based” approach, which dates back to the founder of the Indian space effort, Vikram Sarabhai, needs to evolve. “I can confidently say that that vision of Dr. Sarabhai has been fulfilled,” Nair said. “Today, we are at a turning point. We are looking at what’s next.” The process for determining that next phase is already underway, with Nair describing a “brainstorming session” by the Indian scientific community. “They all came to the unanimous conclusion that space is going to be the next frontier of humankind,” he said. “It’s not only just looking at the planet Earth and trying to understand it and look for new resources in a very efficient manner for improving the life of other people, but space exploration will also play a very major role.” The first step in that new emphasis on space exploration is approaching launch. Chandrayaan-1, the first Indian spacecraft to go the Moon, is scheduled for launch in April. The orbiter is carrying a suite of instruments from India as well as international partners, including two from the US : a mineralology mapper and a synthetic aperture radar. Chandrayaan-1 is the first in what Nair envisions as a series of lunar missions for ISRO. “We are trying to look at what next, perhaps not only orbiting around the Moon but landing on the Moon and then trying to put some rovers, picking up samples, analyzing and relaying back,” he said. India has already signed an agreement with Russia to cooperate on the development of Chandrayaan-2, a mission Nair described as featuring both an orbiter and a lander. That mission would be launched in 2011 or 2012, he said . He added that he is open to additional international cooperation for that and other missions: “if there is an overwhelming interest in such missions, we won’t mind having another launch of another Chandrayaan, maybe Chandryaan-3.” Then there is India’s growing interest in human spaceflight. While Nair did not address that in his prepared remarks, he was asked about ISRO’s plans in that area during a question-and-answer session that followed. “Right now we are in the conceptual study phase,” he said. “Of course, we recognize that the capability to have a man in space is very important to future exploration.” The design study is nearing completion, after which time ISRO plans to approach the government for funding. Once approved, Nair said it would take the agency seven or eight years to carry out the program and place humans in orbit. Such an effort won’t come cheaply. While less than $10 million has been spent to date on human spaceflight studies, Nair estimated that the total development cost of a human spaceflight program for India would be about $2.5 billion. That’s a pittance for NASA, which spends more than that each year on the shuttle program, but is far larger than ISRO’s entire annual budget, which, despite recent increases, is still well under $1 billion a year. “We believe that international cooperation, rather than competition, is going to be the norm for the futur e,” said Nair. Should India make that investment, it would likely become the fourth country in the world with the ability to send humans into space (although it may be beat by one or more private ventures developing human orbital spaceflight systems .) That would further open the door to international cooperation—or competition—with countries like the US. India already has a long record of cooperation in space matters with the US , Russia, and Europe, although not with China: Nair noted in his speech that the only cooperation currently between India and China—rivals for primacy in Asia—is the sale of Indian remote sensing data to the Chinese government. While Griffin hinted in his comments last month that India might rise to be another challenger to the US in space, right now the two countries are on a path towards cooperation , not competition. Just two days after Nair’s CSIS speech, he and Griffin signed a “framework agreement” outlining how NASA and ISRO can cooperate in future space ventures. “This agreement will allow us to cooperate effectively on a wide range of programs of mutual interest,” Griffin said in a statement announcing the agreement. “India has extensive space-related experience, capabilities and infrastructure, and will continue to be a welcome partner in NASA’s future space exploration activities.” This cooperation has paralleled improving relations between the US and India. “When I was in charge of South Asia policy in the State Department, space was basically taboo,” said 10 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis

Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asia Program at CSIS, in remarks introducing Nair. During that period, the late 1980s and early 1990s, the taboo was linked to concerns about the transfer of advanced technologies, which meant, she said, “basically anything involving getting stuff from Earth up was off-limits.” While technology transfer concerns still exist, overall relations between the two nations have improved, which Schaffer credited to several factors, including the end of the Cold War, India’s economic growth, and the growing prominence of the Indian-American community in the US. “Fifteen years after the Cold War officially ended,” she said, “we have arrived at a point where the Indian and US governments, I think, have put in place much of the bilateral infrastructure we need for a more serious partnership in today’s world.” All this suggests that, unlike China (which is clearly perceived as a rival to the US in space, even if fears of a new space race are overblown) and Russia (which is currently a partner in the ISS, but is increasingly looking to flex its muscles in space as it tries to revive its status as a superpower), India’s relationship with the US in space is likely to be far more cooperative than competitive, something Nair agrees with in general. “We believe that international cooperation, rather than competition, is going to be the norm for the future.”

11 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – LINKS [UNILATERAL ACTION]

Unilateral space exploration drains relations – only multilateral cooperation solves Briggs, USAF Major, 10 [Michael Joseph Deane, March 2010, “POLICY RECOMMENDATION FOR THE UNITED STATES REGARDING THE WEAPONIZATION OF SPACE,” Air Command and Staff College, last accessed 6/22/11, https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe- 670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_74940330-8f9e-408a-9548-284e75c5de39/display.aspx] TD

While policies of neutrality and non-cooperation with the international community may offer a more permissive environment for unfettered space development, the political and economic price is too high as a long term national space strategy. Unilateral operations have served the United States well over the last several years in terms of freedom of action and maneuver, but the political environment in 2010, along with emerging terrestrial threats to national security, requires the United States to take on a more cooperative approach to many foreign policy issues, space governance included . The objective of a carefully executed space strategy will be cooperative engagement with the international community with the United States acting as the leader in space exploration and governance. The current skeletal body of space law will be expanded with concrete language, avoiding ambiguous verbiage that can lead to wide interpretation differences. Through cooperation and active engagement, US national interests will be protected and possibly furthered with space allies sharing resources, funding, intellectual property, and other essentials required for space development. Technological innovation will not be stifled, but positively vectored in a direction consistent with international norms, and US interests.

12 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis Unilateral space exploration spurs resentment and crushes relations multilateralism solves Hayden, USAF Colonel, 04 [Dale L., April, “THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE AND ITS IMPACT ON U.S. NATIONAL SPACE POLICY,” Airpower Research Institute, last accessed 6/23/11, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cadre/ari_2004-01.pdf] TD

Given how highly interdependent the world has become, the U.S. really has no feasible alternative to multilateralism. Furthermore, this approach is the best strategy for policymakers as it has the highest probability for long-term success. Wayne S. Smith, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C., concludes, “In an age of instant communications, multinational and global flows of capital, the idea that even the powerful United States can decide for itself is illusory.” It is in the national self-interest for the U.S. to build international bridges in the arena of space operations . The factors that will drive multinational cooperation —cost, limited direct influence over international players through military or economic action, international treaties and organizations, the proliferation of multinational companies and an overall desire by the U.S. to be perceived as a team player—rely on international cooperation and global interdependence. Before delving deeper into why America should follow multilateralism, it is best to look closely at the reasons it will not follow the other three models. The technological example set forward by the British Royal Navy during the latter half of the nineteenth century presents an interesting example for U.S. policymakers, but scientific knowledge is difficult to contain. At the close of World War II, the U.S. was the only nuclear-capable nation. Despite the tight security placed upon America’s nuclear secrets, fifty-five years later nations from Iraq to North Korea, India and Pakistan have the ability to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. In 1960, only two nations were members of the elite space-faring club; today, that number has risen to at least seven, plus the ESA, and could well double within the next generation, as technology proliferates across the globe. 31 Furthermore, if technological development is an issue, any group willing to expend the funds can purchase a satellite on orbit from numerous commercial or governmental agencies. If funding is an issue, any number of services can be shared or directly purchased in such areas as communication or surveillance. As we have seen, commercial companies, such as SPOT, provide high-resolution imagery for public consumption at a nominal cost. Technological edges cannot be safeguarded or guaranteed in perpetuity, particularly in a global environment. Once the bottle is opened, it is impossible to get the genie back inside. A second alternative policy, unilateralism, does preserve freedom of action in the short term; the question, however, is whether U.S. policy should be based upon short-term gain over long-term benefits; whether independence trumps cooperative action which fosters adherence to the rule of law and strengthens international organizations . Unilateral action often reinforces the view of an American “cowboy” approach to foreign policy, generating resentment that makes it more difficult for the U.S. to deal cooperatively with the international community on other issues of common interest (e.g., U.S./European relations concerning Iraqi disarmament). This growing anti-American sentiment is represented by mass demonstrations in Europe and the Middle East in February 2003 against potential American military action against Iraq, and numerous public demonstrations in South Korea protesting the decades-old American military presence. While a multilateral approach takes more time to implement, it provides benefits across the international spectrum, including trade, investment, intelligence sharing, and space operations. It does this by building an atmosphere of trust and a greater willingness to engage in dialogue and to cooperate on maters of mutual national interest . Stephen Miller, director of the International Security Program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, states that U.S. policy must change dramatically to accommodate the exigencies of the war against terrorism. He subscribes to the belief that the world did in fact change following the attack on 11 September 2001; above all else, he claims that September 11 and its aftermath must spell the end of U.S. unilateralism. He notes that while strong intelligence ties exist with allies and close friends, the U.S. may wish to point those collaborative efforts more directly at the growing terrorist threat and to use existing networks in different ways. Miller proposes that the best hope U.S. policymakers have to influence the international community is to draw the major states into networks of cooperation and consultation . Compromise need not be seen as a sign of weakness, but rather as a means of moving toward an objective with the cooperation of others, thus at a lower cost to the United States.

13 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis The plan links – doesn’t participate in the shared vision and bring India in at the earliest stages of planning, draining relations Abbey and Lane 05 [George, Baker Botts Senior Fellow in Space Policy at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. He directs the Space Policy Program, which facilitates discussions on the future of space policy in the United States. From 1995 until 2001, he was Director of the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. He holds the NASA Distinguished Service and the Outstanding Leadership and Exceptional Service Medals. He also served as a member of the Operations Team awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for their role in the Apollo 13 Mission and Neil, the Malcolm Gillis University Professor at Rice University. He also holds appointments as Senior Fellow of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, where he is engaged in matters of science and technology policy, and in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. Prior to returning to Rice University, he served in the federal government as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, from August 1998 to January 2001, and as Director of the National Science Foundation and member (ex officio) of the National Science Board, from October 1993 to August 1998. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, serving as a member of both the Academy’s Council and the Committee on International Security Studies, 2005, “United States Space Policy,” American Academy of Arts and Sciences, last accessed 6/27/11, http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/wp_aaas_spacePolicy.pdf] TD

T his is not an invitation to partnership. Partnership, of course, does not exclude national objectives, but it does require a sharing of vision, objectives, and commitments, at the earliest stages of planning. Otherwise, the United States cannot expect other nations to participate enthusiastically and to provide the necessary staffing and funding . Based on the authors’ conversations, it is clear that scientists, engineers, and policy makers around the world perceive that the United States has no interest in bringing other nations into the planning process, though it expects them to take on the operation of the space station and to provide assistance for other U.S.-led space efforts when asked. Given the present limited U.S. capability to undertake a major program such as returning humans to the Moon and sending them, eventually, to Mars, it is clear that international cooperation is necessary for these missions. Furthermore, even if the United States had all the necessary resources,why would it make sense to go it alone in the scientific and human exploration of space? For international cooperation to be a realistic possibility the United States will have to take a very different approach to prospective partnerships, in tone and in substance. Whatever path the United States chooses to follow with its policies, America does not have a future in space—human exploration, space science, or commercial space activities—without considerable international cooperation . The degree of cooperation that will be necessary will not be possible under current export control and other restrictive policies. The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle programs, as well as many of the most successful robotic science missions, were accomplished with considerable international involvement and the free exchange of data and technical information. Neither of these programs could have been successful under any other conditions. The creation of complex systems, which operate in an integrated fashion in order to support human life in a hostile environment, r e quires an international partnership, with open discussions and sharing of information and technology.

14 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis US unilateralism kills Indian relations and increase Indo-Pak tensions Baruah 10 – Amit //Head of BBC Hindi (09 03, “Push for Mulitpolar World Need Not be Confrontationist”, http://www.hindu.com/2003/10/19/stories/2003101903231000.htm) D.R.

NEW DELHI OCT. 18. The External Affairs Minister, Yashwant Sinha, said today that it was "important to differentiate" between American power and unilateralism. "It is not necessary that one leads to the other ," he claimed. Delivering the Ninth Field Marshal K.M. Cariappa Memorial Lecture, Mr. Sinha said, "Nor is it advisable that U.S. power be countered by outmoded concepts of balance of power...the Cold War proved the futility of such confrontation." "The U.S. Secretary of State, (Colin) Powell, in a recent speech, emphasised the need for partnership to replace confrontation, and I have no difficulty in endorsing his view. India's vision of a multipolar world is one of partnership and not confrontation," he stated. "The concept of multipolarity sometimes is mistaken for a policy of creating poles in opposition to each other. These are prescriptions that have in them seeds for re-creating the confrontationist model of the Cold War. They do not serve India's interests." In a reference to Iraq, Mr. Sinha said the limitations of unilateralism were all too evident. "There is a yearning for peace and prosperity the world over." Speaking on the theme of "India and the Emerging World Order", he said India had demonstrated to the world that it was conscious of its responsibilities as a "nuclear weapon state" and had refrained from brinkmanship despite the "gravest of cross-border provocations ". "There is a greater understanding of the compulsions behind our nuclear tests and a realisation that a secure and stable India will be an asset to the emerging world order," Mr. Sinha said. "Non-proliferation itself must discard outmoded concepts and redirect efforts on sources of true proliferation concerns. Its success as a collective effort would obviate (the) need for regime change to ensure non-proliferation." Without naming Pakistan, he said who was friend and foe in the battle against terrorism was a critical question that needed an answer. "If foes were allowed to masquerade as friends, the forces of global terrorism will never yield." "The battle against global terror has led to (a) compelling review of classical notions of state sovereignty. The international community has to find accepted ways to deal with states, which are incapable - wilfully or otherwise - to exercise their sovereign responsibilities..." "Non-democratic regimes, fostering values of intolerance, fundamentalism, extremism and its favourite child - terrorism — are certainly not the building blocks of world order. In fact, they are the biggest roadblocks to its attainment," Mr. Sinha said. He called for sweeping and comprehensive reform of the international system as represented by the United Nations. "Reconfiguration and reform of the Security Council is essential, not just to reflect changed realities but also to manage the collective security challenges of the future. This needs to be followed by reform of the economic sinews of international relations." Pointing out that India was today a net creditor to the International Monetary Fund, Mr. Sinha added that New Delhi had informed a large group of nations that we no longer require their bilateral aid. "If globalisation is the trend, then multilateralism is its life-sustaining mechanism, for no process will survive without a genuine spirit of multilateralism, underlined by the belief that global problems require global solutions globally arrived at. Otherwise, the world faces the risk of repeating the mistakes of the past. " India believes that it is well-placed to both contribute to globalisation as well as reap its benefits. If in the last decade, we adjusted our internal reforms to conform to the needs of globalisation, the time has come to seek a reform of globalisation itself," Mr. Sinha added.

15 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis DOD as agent of the plan undermines bilateral cooperation Garretson 10 – , Peter, Lieutenant Colonel USAF National Space Society Board of Directors (“Sky’s No Limit: Space Based Solar Power The Next Step in the Indo-U.S. Strategic Partnership?”, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf) D.R.

The low technical readiness, high development costs, accompanying technical and financial risk, long- payback time, and present lack of anchor customers are substantial barriers to entry, and mean it is unlikely for corporations interested in SBSP to be able to enter the market and be successful . Corporations will shrewdly look to the government to reduce the risk. 2 Chapter 474 Peter A. Garretson Government provided incentives, such as solar feed-in tariffs, transferrable tax credits, and anchor customer contracts such as the UltraMega-Power Plant scheme will certainly raise corporate interests, but recent business case analysis suggest that it is unlikely a corporation can absorb the very large non- recurring development costs and be able to close the business case. 3 A multilateral COMSAT-like consortium is a significant investment that will probably not seem justifiable before there has been significant, technological risk reduction, technology demonstration and an assured business plan is in place. The criteria I will establish for moving to a for-profit international consortium is when there is a demonstrated business plan, a clear consensus on international regulatory regime, and a relevant demonstration of the technology in a sub-scale but directly scaleable manner, in its native environment, over the actual distances, at the actual frequencies, with meaningful levels of power and power density. An international demo project is within reach of present engineering and megascience budgets, and can be done with existing launch vehicles, but needs to be preceded by a process to arrive at a design consensus. The US and India have demonstrated via a number of recent steps that they are ready for a deeper partnership inclusive of sensitive and strategic technology in space, energy and R&D. MTCR is not insurmountable in the longer term, but an early concentration on launch is likely to be more difficult than an early concentration on satellite design. Mechanisms do exist for cooperative military R&D and both military R&D establishments have displayed some level of interest and utility for power beamed to forward and remote bases. The military technical base should definitely be leveraged, but an exclusively military focus will detract from other meaningful bilateral goals and not fully capture the potential benefits for the bilateral relationship .

Only bilateral cooperation necessary to sustain further space exploration by the U.S. – only the DA functioning as a CP can solve human exploration of space Handberg, Professor and Chair of PoliSci @ UCF, 10 [Roger, January 11, “The future of American human space exploration and the “Critical Path”,” The Space Review, last accessed 6/22/11, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1543/1] TD

What is becoming clear is if the United States is to continue its human exploration program, international partners are going to be critical for any large-scale, long-duration human exploration effort. The thrill is gone as evidenced by the increasing difficulty encountered in mustering political support for NASA’s human aching orbit, but space exploration means going places where there exists no immediate commercial market. The costs are enormous given the likely economic returns . You can subsidize commercial flights but that removes them from economic rationality if the market approach is to work . It is better to keep the two separate because both lose in the exchange.

16 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis SQUO consultation on space programs is happening – plan breaks from that cooperative framework U.S. Department of State 09 [July 20, “Fact Sheet on U.S.–India Agreements and Achievements,” America.gov, last accessed 6/27/11, http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans- english/2009/July/20090720155526xjsnommis0.423515.html] TD

At the close of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s meetings with the Government of India today, the two governments issued a joint statement regarding their intentions to accelerate the growth of their bilateral relationship to enhance global prosperity and stability in the 21st century. The two governments also signed agreements and announced commitments as follows: The two governments outlined a Strategic Dialogue that will focus on five principal pillars. Through a coherent structure of bilateral working groups, the two governments will address a wide range of issues with the goal of producing concrete results: i. Strategic Cooperation working groups will address nonproliferation, counterterrorism and military cooperation; ii. Energy and Climate Change working groups will continue our successful energy dialogue and begin discussions on actions to address the challenge of global climate change; iii. Education and Development working groups will enhance our partnership in education and initiate discussions about women’s’ empowerment; iv. Economics, Trade and Agriculture working groups will continue and strengthen our discussions on business, trade and food security; and v. Science and Technology, Health and Innovation working groups will explore new areas for cooperation in leading technologies and in addressing global health challenges .

17 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – LINKS [SSP]

SSP allows for mutual cooperation between India and U.S. increasing relations - plan breaks away from this framework Jha 10 [Saurav, an independent consultant in the energy sector in India, “U.S.-India Space Cooperation Could Power Ties,” World Politics Review, last accessed 6/24/11, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6811/u-s-india-space-cooperation-could-power-ties] TD

Space-based solar power ( SBSP) may soon emerge as one of the leading sectors of strategic cooperation between India and the U. S., with a recently released report (.pdf) authored by U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Peter A. Garretson making the case for it being the next focus of the growing partnership. There are a number of reasons why SBSP may emerge as the hub for strategic industrial coordination between the two countries. First, neither country can meet its energy needs through existing clean-energy technologies, including nuclear power, and various technological advances over the past few decades have made space-based solar power a more realistic possibility. Second , the Obama administration wants to build on the foundations of bilateral relations laid by the Bush administration, and space cooperation presents an increasingly attractive option for doing so. Neither SBSP nor the idea of an international partnership as an enabler for it is new. However, the U.S. only began to view India as a major potential partner in such an endeavor in the second half of the last decade. Not surprisingly, given the nature of U.S.-India relations, it was the U.S. private sector that first highlighted India as an important market for future SBSP developmen t, given that a huge chunk of households in India are not yet connected to a conventional electrical grid. In 2007, an interim U.S. assessment of SBSP (.pdf) identified India as a key prospective partner for collaboration. Over the same period, the Indian space program also moved beyond its traditional focus (.pdf) on remote- sensing satellites for developmental needs to more-ambitious programs, such as the Chandrayaan moon mission. India's 2008 moonshot eventually led to the independent discovery of the presence of water on the moon by American and Indian instruments carried on board. This success had a role in convincing U.S. space policymakers about Indian capabilities in integrating systems from varied sources, thereby boosting the prospects of synchronization of U.S. and Indian space architecture for a potential SBSP collaborative effort. The Chandrayaan mission was an early illustration of the space component of the overarching Indo-U.S. strategic dialogue, "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership," announced in January 2004. Unlike the other two pillars -- security and nuclear cooperation, which already have specific agreements in place -- space continues to be characterized by ad hoc arrangements. Indo-U.S. collaboration is currently characterized by a slew of agreements -- some substantial, others rudimentary -- running on parallel tracks. SBSP could be a point of convergence, as it is an area where significant complementarities between the two countries exist. The two most important are India's edge as a low-cost manufacturer for future SBSP components and its cheap satellite-launch capability. Indeed, NASA may soon begin to outsource a significant chunk of low-Earth-orbit launches to the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). I ndia's attractiveness to U.S. policymakers lies in its promise for reducing costs and increasing returns . Even as NASA has shifted its focus to large, expendable launchers, ISRO continues to back re-usable launch-vehicle technology, which it believes can significantly reduce the cost of satellite launches -- a crucial condition for the sustainability of commercially deployable SBSP. The Chandrayaan mission also demonstrated India's orbit-transfer capability -- a central technical component for geo-stationary and mid- Earth-orbit SBSP concepts. Among the remaining pitfalls to further cooperation, restrictive U.S. controls on high-tech exports -- which target India more than any other major nation besides Pakistan and China -- represent the most significant. Specifically, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) represent the greatest areas for concern. Garretson's report touches on these issues with regard to SBSP, asserting that an exception could be made in the case of ITAR along the lines of similar arrangements in the past. According to Garretson, India would still have to sign the MTCR, in order to assuage U.S. concerns over nonproliferation and intellectual-property rights, given that any SBSP partnership will involve the transfer of cutting-edge technologies. However, India already complies with these regulations to a greater extent than some

18 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis

[Jha continued—no text deleted]

19 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis [Jha continued—no text deleted] existing MCTR members do, so an India-specific agreement could be possible. Interestingly, a new report from the Center for New American Security argued that meaningful cooperation on SBSP requires the immediate removal of ISRO from the U.S. Entity List, which designates targets of proliferation concerns (.pdf). Policy heavyweights Karl Indefurth and Raja Mohan also recently advocated for making space the focus not only of the impending Obama visit, but of U.S.-India relations. And U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu stated (.pdf) that the U.S. will prioritize "the partnership between the two countries to advance clean energy, drawing on India's world class science resources," during Obama's visit. SBSP has already been explicitly identified at the highest levels of the Indian government as a strategic priority. With commentators in both countries identifying the dovetailing of space and energy cooperation as the "next big thing" in Indo-U.S. relations, there are now signs that the push on both sides is lining up with all of these circumstantial "pull" factors. There is an expectation that Obama's visit will see movement on removing controls on the sale of high- tech items as a prelude to an agreement on space cooperation, with an SBSP component as a prominent focus. SBSP allows India to keep its space program focused on developmental priorities , such as energy access, while pushing the technological envelope further than ever before . Studies show that SBSP is feasible, but its ultimate deployment will require an unprecedented bilateral effort . That effort could drive an Indo-U.S. partnership that, in Obama's words, would define the 21st century.

20 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – LINKS [WEAPONIZATION/MILITARIZATION]

India wants a weapons-free outer space GSN 11 [Global Security Newswire, January 20, “India Urges Strengthening Outer Space Treaty,” GSN.com, last accessed 7/8/11, http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20110120_5990.php] TD

The former head of India's air force yesterday called on the international community to amend the international Outer Space Treaty to further prohibit the militarization of space, Asian News International reported (see GSN, July 14, 2010). "India would like to appeal to [the] international community to see what holes must be plugged" in the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, retired Air Marshal S. Krishnaswamy said in a speech at a New Delhi symposium on outer space. "We also need a strong policing force in the U.N. If somebody crosses the line, we need to bring [them] down quickly," he told the audience. Member nations to the treaty "undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner." "The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all states parties to the treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes," according to Article 4 of the agreement. "The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited." However, the treaty by implication permits some military operations such as the movement through space of intercontinental and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, Krishnaswamy said. "The authors of the treaty have left some gaps in the treaty. And probably with a sense of purpose. After all, law is very clever," he said. Additionally, the pact fails to adequately the deployment of conventional weapons in space, according to the former air chief said. "The treaty also allows testing of all weapons in space and floating military bases," Krishnaswamy said. "There is no ban on antisatellite, antimissile weapons as the treaty says outer space is free for all nation states." "We all should get together and work for peaceful use of space," he argued. "If something bad (from space) happens, it will be devastating. Indeed, the Earth will burn off" (Asian News International/OneIndia.com, Jan. 19).

India strongly opposes weaponizing space – reversion on this policy crushes relations Srivastava 11 [Siddharth, New-Dehli based journalist, April 16, “ India hones its missile shield,” Asia Times, last accessed 7/8/11, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MD16Df01.html] TD

In a parliamentary statement clarifying its position on the militarization of space, New Delhi has said, "India is strongly opposed to any attempt to place weapons in space or conducting any unconventional weapons tests in space as it would pose a perennial threat to all space systems regardless of their use for civilian or military purposes."

21 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis India desires a weapons free outer space – plan is a reversion on this joint outlook Saran 09 [Shri Shyam, SEPM at the Brookings Institute, March 23, “Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement: Expectations and Consequences,” Indian Embassy @ EU, last accessed 7/8/11, http://www.indembassy.be/speeches_statements/march/mar23.html] TD

Anti-Satellite Weapons: India is one of a handful of countries with significant space capabilities. We have a large number of communications and resource survey satellites currently in orbit. Although this does not fall strictly within the nuclear domain, the need to ensure the peaceful uses of outer space, is important for nuclear stability and international security. We welcome President Obama’s intention to join multilateral efforts to prevent military conflict in space and to negotiate an agreement to prohibit the testing of anti-satellite weapons. This is an area of convergence on which we would be happy to work together with the U.S. and contribute to a multilateral agreement.

22 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – LINKS [LUNAR MISSIONS]

US-India cooperation on moon exploration key to strong relations Bagla 11 [Pallava, February 16, “India May Join U.S. MoonRise Mission,” ScienceMag.com, last accessed 7/8/11, http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/02/india-may-join-us-moonrise- mission.html] TD

NEW DELHI—India hopes to join the United States on a sample return mission to the moon, according to K. Radhakrishnan, chair of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). He announced that India's policy group, the Space Commission, decided on 12 February to give the go-ahead for work on a possible contribution to MoonRise, a U.S. effort to land a probe on the moon's surface, scoop up 1 kilogram of material, and return it to Earth for analysis. India would provide an orbiter similar to its observation satellite Chandrayaan-1, which in 2009 helped clinch evidence of water's presence on the moon. The new Indian instrument would circle the moon for a few years and aid in communications and imaging. ISRO hopes to invest $38 million on developing this 400 to 500 kg instrument, which would travel into space on a U.S. Atlas rocket. The mission leader, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, is planning for a launch in 2016, but has not yet selected the MoonRise instruments. The goal is to learn more about the geology and origins of the moon. According to NASA, the mission will "focus on the giant South Pole-Aitken (SPA) basin on the far side, which lies between the moon's South Pole and Aitken crater. ... The SPA basin is the oldest, deepest observable impact basin on the moon and ranks among the largest recognized impact structures in the solar system," (shown in the image). ISRO's involvement has more than technical significance: It would underline a change in Indo-U.S. security relations. Until recently, U.S. labs and companies were prohibited from exchanging technologies with ISRO, in an attempt to limit their use for military purposes. But the two countries have been moving closer in recent years, and barriers have been coming down. In November, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and U.S. President Barack Obama met in New Delhi and agreed to become strategic partners. The countries may be ready to join hands on a major space mission.

23 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – LINKS [TECHNO-NATIONALISM]

Plan’s techno-nationalism misperceived by India Freese 11 [Joan Johnson, a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., May 18, “The U.S.-India Space Partnership: Who Gets What?,” Bangladesh Chronicle, last accessed 7/8/11, http://bdchronicle.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=506:the-us-india- space-partnership-who-gets-what&catid=1:latest-news] TD

Indians also argue that space activities, both civilian and military, are purely part of a natural evolutionary process along the path to development. This allows India to pursue a nationalistic space race in Asia, and especially with China, while at the same time flatly declaring that there is no Asian space race, and specifically not with China. This "techno-nationalism" involves the recognition that technological achievement generates strategic influence in areas from economics to power politics and provides a reservoir of that elusive magic called "prestige," however broadly defined. It is a powerful motivator for human spaceflight programs and other high-visibility space efforts. Again, it is hard for Americans to be overly critical of such notions. Soviet scientists were crestfallen when an American civilian planted the U.S. flag on the lunar surface -- which was exactly what Washington intended when it sent three men to land on the moon in 1969. China, too, has been anxious to cash in on the image of technical prowess it displayed after it became only the third nation in nearly 60 years of space exploration to achieve human spaceflight capabilities. Predictably, the Indians deny any desire for a techno-nationalist competition with China or anyone else. More disturbing is that some Indians seem to hold the view that the whole notion of an Asian space race was created by the United States so that the American aerospace industry might sell its products to all sides. There is also a defensive streak in India about the country's human spaceflight aspirations. Many Indians understandably ask why nationalism, so prized around the world, should be off-limits to India. These defenders of Indian pride have a point: There is nothing wrong with nationalism, when understood as a peaceful and nondestructive love of one's own country. But everything has its limits, and other countries have certainly had to consider the degree to which they might let nationalism drive efforts toward big- ticket items like human spaceflight. For now though, because of Indian policymakers' fixation on raising Indian GDP and consequently improving India's statistical standing as a "developed" nation, hard questions about how much India can afford to spend on human spaceflight, as opposed to solving its myriad social welfare issues, end up being rendered basically irrelevant in the Indian political debate.

24 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – IMPACTS [WARMING]

Indian-U.S. cooperation key to solve warming Reddy 11 – , Shavrya //, National Resource Defense Council Contributor on India Relations (14 11, “Stronger Focus on U.S.-India Energy Cooperation Needed on Capitol Hill”, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sreddy/stronger_focus_on_us-india_ene.html) D.R.

Assistant Secretary Blake drew attention to extraordinary progress that India and U.S. were making in terms of energy security. Referring to the JCERDC’s recent $50 million Funding Opportunity Announcement, he noted that this was the “single most comprehensive, well-integrated and significant bilateral clean energy research and development (R&D) effort in U.S. history.” In addition, he highlighted a $2.5 million Indo-U.S. dollar Science and Technology Endowment Fund that will make awards in the areas of health and digital communication technologies. He also mentioned that the U.S. had set up a new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) monsoon desk in India to help get accurate weather information to Indian farmers during the monsoon season in India. Additional insights on the security and defense aspects of the Indo-US relationship were provided by a panel comprising Richard Fontaine, Bruce Riedel, Raymond Vickery and Ambassador Karl. F. Inderfurth. The conference was attended by a wide array of both Indian and U.S. entities. The common thread through all presentations was the recognition of India and the U.S. as strategic partners, and the growing importance of this partnership in the next few decades. Various speakers emphasized why India and the U.S. were critical to each other in counterbalancing China’s rising power. Several of them noted that the U.S. must step up its ties with India and give it the same priority that China has received in the past. All the speakers made note of the commonalities shared by India and the U.S., including democracy, entrepreneurial spirit, the pursuit of knowledge, and common values as well as interests. We were happy to see that thought leaders in both governments and in civil society are thinking about the strategic Indo-U.S. partnership and how both countries can work together more closely to address global challenges. One of the most significant of these, of course, is climate change. To successfully combat this, and ensure energy security and equitable energy access in both countries, leaders from both countries will have to identify clean energy cooperation as having a central role in the bilateral relationship . What we heard last week was a good start, but more voices need to advocate for this on Capitol Hill, more often, and in stronger terms.

And, warming causes extinction Powell 2K (Corey S. Powell, Adjunct professor of Science Journalism at NYU's Science and Environmental Reporting Program; spent eight years on the Board of Editors at Scientific American; worked at Physics Today and at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center where he assisted in the testing of gamma-ray telescopes, October 2000, Discover, Vol. 21, No. 10, 20 Ways the World Could End Swept away)

The Earth is getting warmer, and scientists mostly agree that humans bear some blame. It's easy to see how global warmi ng could flood cities and ruin harvests. More recently, researchers like Paul Epstein of Harvard Medical Sc hool have raised the alarm that a balmier planet could also assist the spread of infectious disease by providing a more suitable climate for parasites and spreading the range of tropical pathogens (see #8). Tha t could include crop diseases which, combined with substantial climate shifts, might cause famine. Effects could b e even more dramatic. At present, atmospheric gases trap enough heat close to the surface to keep things comfortable. Increa se the global temperature a bit, however, and there could be a bad feedback effect , with water evaporat ing faster, freeing water vapor ( a potent g reen h ouse g as ), which traps more heat , which drives carb on dioxide from the rocks, which drives temperatures still higher. Earth could end up much like Venus , where the high on a typical day is 900 degrees Fahrenheit. It would probably take a lot of warming to initiate such a runaway greenhouse effect, but scientists have no clue where exactly the tipping point lies.

25 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis Warming makes future wars inevitable – Earth observation is a pre-requisite to mitigating conflicts Wigbels et. al, 8 [Lyn Wigbels, G. Ryan Faith, Vincent Sabathier, “Earth Observations and Global Change,” July 2008, http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/080725_wigbels_earthobservation_web.pdf]

The stresses on the Earth's systems are growing more severe at an ever-increasing pace, adding to the already significant economic variability arising from current challenges such as weather forecasting and resource management. The effects of these added pressures are already being felt and will have major implications for national security, the economy, natural resource management, and the security of water, food, and energy for decades to come. Today, U.S. public- (civil and national security) and private-sector users who want to understand global change or identify ways to predict, prevent, and mitigate its impacts are all intrinsically reliant on civil Earth observation systems (used in modeling, computation, and decision support tools) and data (collected from sensors on satellites, unpiloted aircraft, buoys, and other platforms). Earth observation products— including satellite weather information—provide, at a minimum, an additional S30 billion to the U.S. economy annually. In the future, Earth observation capabilities will be even more critical for governments and industry to monitor, understand, and adapt more quickly to global change and track and respond to consequences of past, present, and future policy choices. The national security community is increasingly concerned about the impacts of global change leading to instabilities and conflicts within, between, and among nations. This applies to stable as well as volatile regions. The national security community is increasingly working with the Earth observation community to better understand these challenges.

Stats prove global warming is 1000 times more threatening than asteroids Boslough and Harris, 9 [Mark, Sandia National Laboratories, Harris, Space Science Institute, “ U41D-0034: Global Catastrophes in Perspective: Asteroid Impacts vs Climate Change,” https://cfwebprod.sandia.gov/cfdocs/CCIM/docs/AGU-2008-poster_SAND2009-1143P.pdf]

When allocating resources to address threats, decision makers are best served by having objective assessments of the relative magnitude of the threats in question. Asteroids greater than about 1 km in diameter are assumed by the planetary impact community to exceed a "global catastrophe threshold". Impacts from smaller objects are expected to cause local or regional destruction, and would be the proximate cause of most associated fatalities. Impacts above the threshold would be expected to alter the climate, killing billions of people and causing a collapse of civilization. In this apocalyptic scenario, only a small fraction of the casualties would be attributable to direct effects of the impact: the blast wave, thermal radiation, debris, ground motion, or tsunami. The vast majority of deaths would come later and be due to indirect causes: starvation, disease, or violence as a consequence of societal disruption related to the impact-induced global climate change. The concept of a catastrophe threshold comes from "nuclear winter" studies, which form the basis for quantitative estimates of the consequences of a large cal observations and statistical analysis. Much of impact. The probability estimates come from astronomi the impact threat, at its core, is a climate- change threat. Prior to the Spaceguard Survey of Near-Earth id impact was estimated to be 1 in 25,000 (Chapman Objects (NEOs), the chance of dying from an astero & Morrison, 1994). Most of the large asteroids have now been discovered, and none is on an impact trajectory . Moreover, new data show that mid-sized asteroids (tens to hundreds of meters across) are less abundant than previously thought, by a factor of three. We now estimate that the lifetime odds of being killed by the impact of one of the remaining undiscovered NEOs are about one in 720,000 for individuals with a life expectancy of 80 years (Harris, 2008). One objective way to compare the relative magnitude imate change is to estimate the long-term worldwide of the impact threat to that of anthropogenic cl fatality rate. For asteroids, the average is about a hundred deaths per year–about half of which are climate- change related. By contrast, the World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that 150,000 deaths per year are currently attributable to anthropogenic climate change. Both estimates are similarly impacted by uncertainty in our understanding of climate change and statistical attribution of indirect causes. The WHO estimate is a lower bound, because it does not account for the unknown probability of a human-triggered abrupt climate change comparable to the speed or magnitude of the Bolling/Allerod or Younger Dryas boundaries, which are not impact related. Nevertheless, by any objective measure the impact threat is minuscule (by a factor of at least a thousand) compared to the threat from anthropogenic climate change

26 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis Climate change outweighs asteroid impacts Boslough, 10 [Mark, Mitigation Panel Member of Committee to Review Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, Minority Opinion, “Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies,” pp 126-127, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12738]

The original draft of the table entitled “Expected Fatalities per Year, Worldwide, from a Variety of Causes” (Table 2.2 in Chapter 2 of this final report) included the World Health Organization (WHO)1 estimate of 150,000 deaths per year from climate change. The steering committee made a decision to remove the climate data, giving as reasons (1) caution about having any debate on climate change distract from the issue at hand and (2) irrelevance of climate change numbers to the near-Earth object (NEO) threat. The first reason is inappropriate. Data should not be removed from a report to avoid the potential for political controversy. The second reason is incorrect. Climate change is more relevant than the other causes in the table, for several reasons: The portion of the threat above the global catastrophe threshold—which in the model we quote2 constitutes about one half of the expected annual death rate—is primarily a climate change threat. Estimates of deaths from a large impact are largely based on our model-derived scientific understanding of climate change. The 91 deaths per year assumes a catastrophe threshold significantly lower than the current best estimate (3 kilometer-diameter asteroid). It implicitly assumes a high-sensitivity climate and/or strong dependence of death rate on climate change. Asteroids and climate change are the only two threats in the original table that can have abrupt and global consequences, and to which everyone on the planet is exposed, regardless of their lifestyle or personal behavior. They are also both to some extent preventable, and in both cases mitigation requires international agreements and cooperation. The climate change death rate is therefore more appropriate to compare to the asteroid death rate than the other threats are. Climate can and has changed abruptly. Evidence from Greenland ice cores and other paleoclimate data show that these spontaneous changes take place much more frequently than do large impacts and on time scales that can exceed human adaptive capacities.3 Asteroids and climate change are the only two threats in the original table that include global catastrophe as a possibility. T he best estimate of the global catastrophe threshold diameter for an asteroid is 3 km, but according to Alan Harris,4 all NEOs above this threshold, except for long-period comets, have been discovered. The best estimate of the probability of a global catastrophe this century from an asteroid impact is therefore zero. If Earth and its inhabitants are assumed to be much more sensitive to global change, then a low threshold of 1.5 km (a factor of 8 lower in kinetic yield) can be assumed. Harris estimates around 30 undiscovered asteroids larger than 1.5 km. The probability of impact by one of these before the end of the century is 0.0005 percent. However, recent models5,6 suggest a 2 percent probability of global catastrophe from anthropogenic climate change this century, assuming realistic greenhouse gas emissions scenarios and a threshold temperature change or sensitivity of 8°C. If the threshold sensitivity is 4°C, the probability of global catastrophe exceeds 20 percent. With sensitive assumptions, it is therefore 40,000 times more probable that Earth will be faced with an anthropogenic climate change catastrophe than with an asteroid catastrophe . With best assumptions it is infinitely more probable. The WHO climate change estimate of 150,000 deaths per year is a lower bound, because of its conservative assumptions that do not include increasing temperatures since 2000. It also does not consider the probability of global catastrophe from human-triggered abrupt climate change comparable to the speed or magnitude of the Bölling/Allerød or Younger Dryas boundaries, which are not impact related.7 The Harris (2009) asteroid estimate of 91 deaths per year is an upper bound, because it assumes a low catastrophe threshold. The inclusion of these figures for intercomparison is the only way to provide policy makers with an objective basis for the prioritization and allocation of resources that is commensurate with the relative threat from various causes.

27 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – IMPACTS [INDO-PAK WAR]

Relations key to check any Indo-Pak conflict Dugger 02 [Celia W., June 10, “Wider Military Ties With India Offer U.S. Diplomatic Leverage,” New York Times, last accessed 7/8/11, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/10/world/wider-military-ties-with- india-offer-us-diplomatic-leverage.html] TD

Military cooperation between India and the United States has remarkably quickened since Sept. 11, with a burst of navy, air force and army joint exercises, the revival of American military sales to India and a blur of high-level visits by generals and admirals. The fledgling relationship between American and Indian military leaders will be important to Mr. Rumsfeld in talks intended to put to rest fears of war between India and Pakistan. ''We can hope this translates into some influence and trust, though I don't want to overstate it,'' a senior American defense official said in an interview on Thursday. ''I don't want to predict this guarantees success.'' The American diplomatic efforts yielded their first real gains on Saturday when India welcomed a pledge by Pakistan's military ruler to stop permanently the infiltration of militants into Kashmir. India indicated that it would soon take steps to reduce tensions, but a million troops are still fully mobilized along the border -- a situation likely to persist for months -- and the process of resolving the crisis has just begun. India has linked the killing of civilians in Kashmir to a Pakistan-backed insurgency there and has presented its confrontation with Pakistan as part of the global campaign against terrorism. India itself made an unstinting offer of support to the United States after Sept. 11, and Washington responded by ending the sanctions placed on India after its 1998 nuclear tests. With that, the estrangement that prevailed between the world's two largest democracies during the cold war, when India drew close to the Soviet Union and the United States allied with Pakistan, has eased. India, for decades a champion of nonalignment, seeks warmer ties with the United States in hopes of gaining access to sophisticated military technology and help in dealing with Pakistan. From the start of President Bush's term, some influential officials in his administration saw India as a potential counterweight to that other Asian behemoth, China, whose growing power was seen as a potential strategic threat.

Indo-Pak war causes extinction Fai 01 [Dr. Ghulam, the executive director of the Washington, DC-based Kashmiri American Council, July 9, “India-Pakistan Summit and the Issue of Kashmir,” Media Monitors Network, last accessed 7/8/11, http://www.mediamonitors.net/fai6.html] TD

The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of Defense, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles.

28 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – IMPACTS [SINO-TAIWAN WAR] Relations key to prevent a China-Taiwan War Gobarev 2k [Victor M., September 11, “India as a World Power Changing Washington’s Myopic Policy,” CATO Institute, last accessed 7/8/11, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa381.pdf] TD

What would such a policy win for the United States? America would get a strategic partner of the highest caliber. Most important, such a policy would dramatically shift the global, geopolitical, and geostrategic balance in favor of the United States . The geopolitical balance in Asia would be especially tilted in America’s favor. India could help the United States contain expansionist threats from China to maintain order and stability in East and Southeast Asia. In addition, America would move further from the brink of nuclear confrontation with China over the Taiwan issue and other potential sources of friction. China would be less able to contemplate a confrontation with either its neighbors in East Asia or with the United States if Beijing had to worry about India’s response. Benefits to U.S. national security interests would occur on a global scale if the United States and India became strategic partners. Most notably, there would be no chance for an anti-U.S. Russia-India- China alliance. Preventing that outcome alone would be a huge geopolitical success for the United States. Further, effectiveness of U.S. intelligence and special operations against major international terrorist groups located in Afghanistan and Pakistan would significantly increase thanks to direct U.S.- Indian cooperation. In response to eliminating sanctions and further opening our market to Indian goods, India would likely decrease import tariffs, securing easier access for American goods there. The American economy would benefit from enhanced trade and investment with India. A foreign policy and national security strategy based on Washington’s willingness to accept India’s world power status, including accepting New Delhi in the nuclear club, is the only realistic way for a breakthrough in U.S.-Indian ties. The current bankrupt U.S. policy will merely extend stagnation in relations to the point of irrevocably losing India. The potential perils of Washington’s current shortsighted policy are equally enormous.

Sino-Taiwan conflict draws in the U.S. – extinction Strait Times 2k [June 25, “No one gains in war over Taiwan,” Strait Times, last accessed 7/8/11, Lexis] TD

THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO 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

29 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis 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.

30 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – IMPACTS [HEGEMONY/SPACE DEBRIS]

Cooperation could help minimize and prevent space debris Glover 10 [Jessica, a Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Research Intern at the Center for a New American Security. She holds an M.A. in Middle East Studies from the George Washington University Elliot School of International Affairs, November 11, “For U.S.-India Cooperation, Space is the Next Frontier,” Center for New American Security, last accessed 6/24/11, http://www.cnas.org/blogs/naturalsecurity/2010/11/us- india-cooperation-space-next-frontier.html] TD

Beyond this, encouraging India to play a leading role in the development of space technology can arguably help better define and enshrine norms surrounding the use of outer space. Potentially, such a leadership role could include encouraging stewardship of free access in outer space – minimizing orbital debris that could threaten the placement of future satellites and discouraging behaviors in space that contribute to orbital debris creation.

Debris will destroy our satellites- they are key to hegemony and readiness Imburgia 11{Lieutenant Colonel Joseph S. Imburgia, (B.S., United States Air Force Academy (1994); J.D., University of Tennessee College of Law (2002); LL.M., The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center & School, U.S. Army, Charlottesville, Va. (2009)) is a Judge Advocate in the United States Air Force and is presently assigned as a legal exchange officer to the Directorate of Operations and International Law, Defence Legal, Australian Defence Force, Canberra, Australia. He is a member of the Tennessee and the Supreme Court of the United States bars, and he is a member of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law. Prior to becoming a Judge Advocate, Lieutenant Colonel Imburgia was a Targeting Officer, United States Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., “ Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the Junk”, http://www.google.com/url? sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.vanderbilt.edu%2Fpublications%2Fjournal-of- transnational-law%2Fdownload.aspx%3Fid%3D6574&rct=j&q=Joseph%20S.%20Imburgia%20is%20usaf%20University%20of %20Tennessee%20College%20of %20Law&ei=m9wITqmzFsfV0QHt4KnbCw&usg=AFQjCNEglOEqH_3OfmcbgE6HXwiHKrBz8g&sig2=NRXHp8brVZYLK QSpoUqqFA&cad=rja}RC

These gloomy prognostications about the threats to our space environment should be troubling to Americans. The United States relies on the unhindered use of outer space for national security.151 According to a space commission led by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, “[t]he [United States] is more dependent on space than any other nation.”152 According to Robert G. Joseph, former Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security at the State Department, “space capabilities are vital to our national security and to our economic well-being.”153 Therefore, a catastrophic collision between space debris and the satellites on which that national security so heavily depends poses a very real and current threat to the national security interests of the United States. Since “the [1991] Gulf War, the [United States] military has depended on satellites for communications, intelligence and navigation for its troops and precision-guided weapons .” 154 Satellites are also used for reconnaissance and surveillance, command and control, and control of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles .155 According to the United States Space Command’s Fact Sheet: Satellites provide essential in-theater secure communications, weather and navigational data for ground, air and fleet operations and threat warning. Ground-based radar and Defense Support Program satellites monitor ballistic missile launches around the world to guard against a surprise missile attack on North America. Space surveillance radars provide vital information on the location of satellites and space debris for the nation and the world. Maintaining space superiority is an emerging capability required to protect our space assets. With the modern speed of warfare, it has become difficult to fight conflicts without the timely intelligence and information that space assets provide. Space-based assets and space-controlled assets have created among U.S. military commanders “a nearly insatiable desire for live video surveillance, especially as provided from remotely piloted vehicles like the Predator and now the Reaper.”157 Moreover, military forces have become so dependent on satellite communications and targeting capabilities that the loss of such a satellite would “badly damage their ability to respond to a military emergency .”158 In fact, the May 2008 malfunction of a communications satellite demonstrates the fragile nature of the satellite communications system.159 The temporary loss of a single satellite “effectively pulled the plug on what executives said could [have been] as much as 90 percent of the paging network in the United States.”160 Although this country’s paging network is perhaps not vital to its national security, the incident demonstrates the possible national security risks created by the simultaneous loss of multiple satellites due to space debris collisions.

U.S. hegemony solves nuclear war. 31 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis

Zalmay Khalilzad 95(Dep. Secretary of Defense) Spring 1995 The Washington Quarterly.}RC

A world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and receptive to American values--democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, renegade states, and low level conflicts. Finally, U S leadership would help preclude the rise of another global rival, enabling the U S and the world to avoid another cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange.

Relations are key to take a step toward the removal of orbital debris – that’s Glover. Since the aff kills relations, that in turn kills hegemony, since they don’t allow debris clean-up which is necessary in order to impede satellite destruction necessary to our readiness and hegemony – that’s Imburgia. The end result is a nuclear war that draws in all major powers and results in extinction – that’s Khalilzad.

32 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – IMPACTS [TERRORISM]

Relations key to ramp up counter-terrorism operations Armitage et. al., 10 [Richard L., President, Armitage International, Co-Chair, R. Nicholas Burns, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics, Harvard University, Co-Chair, Richard Fontaine Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security, October 10, “Natural Allies, A Blueprint for the Future of U.S. India Relations,” Center for New American Security, last accessed 6/30/11, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_Natural %20Allies_ArmitageBurnsFontaine.pdf] TD

The United States and India are strategic part- ners with a shared interest in security throughout Asia. While the two countries are unlikely ever to become formal treaty allies, security ties between India and the United States already form a key pillar of the new relationship. Military-to-military ties have expanded significantly, counterterror- ism cooperation has increased and dialogue on regional security issues has improved. The United States now holds more military exercises with India than with any other country . The United States and India should build on this foundation, moving toward a greatly expanded security relationship in which the two militaries aim to achieve a greater degree of cooperation in equipment and doctrine. Counterterrorism . The United States and India share a resolve to stop violent extremism and the threat it poses to our open and democratic way of life . Counterterrorism cooperation accelerated rapidly after the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks and was formalized in a memorandum of understand- ing between the two governments in July 2010. The United States and India should continue to enhance this cooperation by sharing information about key threats, coordinating their approaches to terrorist threats throughout the South Asia region and undertaking other joint actions to protect our democracies.

And, Terrorism causes extinction Sid-Ahmed, political analyst, 04 [Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26- September 1, 2004, last accessed 10/10/10, Issue no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm] TD

What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? E ven 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.

Terrorists have weapons now the only thing preventing the usage is the current, sustainable CT preventions due to high relations – any digression in relations causes a failed CT operation means terrorists will risk their lives for the nuclear weapons and deploy them – that’s Armitage. If the operation succeeds that results in the immediate extinction of humans because of a third world war that goes nuclear and causes worldwide lethal radiation, but even if it fails, tensions will rise and cause an arms race throughout the world.

33 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – IMPACTS [EAST ASIAN STABILITY]

Relations high now – engaging India would allow for peaceful Asia Twining 10 [Dan, a senior fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund, November 12, “Are U.S.-India relations oversold?,” Foreign Policy, last accessed 6/29/11, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/12/are_us_india_relations_oversold] TD

The biggest disappointment of President Barack Obama's Asia trip was his failure to strike an agreement on the Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement in Seoul. His b iggest success was his embrace of a transformative partnership with India. The president can now claim ownership of a relationship that has been on the rocks since he took office, and he deserves considerable credit for arguing that India's rise and success as a future democratic superpower is a core interest of the United States. The president's vision of a far-reaching partnership with India -- to manage global diplomatic and security challenges, tie the two countries together in a mutually beneficial economic embrace, and promote freedom and rule of law in Asia and beyond -- was bracing. Obama's warm reception by the Indian parliament, commentariat, and public bodes well for future ties between the world's oldest and the world's largest democracies. In New Delhi, Obama made a strong case for strengthening Indo-U.S. ties -- and to create an "indispensable" partnership that would help define the course of the 21st century: Now, India is not the only emerging power in the world. But the relationship between our countries is unique. For we are two strong democracies whose constitutions begin with the same revolutionary words -- the same revolutionary words -- "We the people." We are two great republics dedicated to the liberty and justice and equality of all people. And we are two free market economies where people have the freedom to pursue ideas and innovation that can change the world. And that's why I believe that India and America are indispensable partners in meeting the challenges of our time… The United States not only welcomes India as a rising global power, we fervently support it, and we have worked to help make it a reality… [P]romoting shared prosperity, preserving peace and security, strengthening democratic governance and human rights -- these are the responsibilities of leadership. And as global partners, this is the leadership that the United States and India can offer in the 21st century. Obama's expressed ambitions for Indo-U.S. ties came just in time to check a growing chorus in Washington of pessimism toward the relationship. Most prominent among the skeptics is George Perkovich, the esteemed vice president for studies of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, whose foundational book on India's development of nuclear weapons was an inspiration for this author, and many others, to embrace the study of India. Dr. Perkovich was an India expert long before it was popular, so his arguments carry great weight. That is why his recent Carnegie report arguing that India cannot be the partner the United States wants it to be -- and that ambitions of the kind Obama expressed for the relationship are actually harmful to it -- deserves attention. In brief, Perkovich argues for a more "realistic" Indo-U.S. relationship that treats India in many ways as the impoverished, non- aligned, defensive, and even hostile country it once was. India does not want to be an Asian balancer, the report maintains; alleged U.S. efforts to maneuver India into position as a counterweight to China will only create discord between Asia's giants and upset China's peaceful rise. Indian and U.S. interests diverge on a host of important issues, from climate change to Iran. The best thing India can do for the world is not partner with the United States to fuel its rise and shape an international system tilted toward freedom, but instead to make its own economy an example for other developing powers. The United States' embrace of India is actually detrimental (for instance, by alienating China and Pakistan, or by upending the established global nuclear order) or only marginally useful. By this logic, both countries therefore should scale back their visions for global partnership, and Washington should invest more in relations with Beijing and other emerging powers rather than lavish such policy attention on India. At the end of the day, India will set its own course, often in ways that do not align with U.S. interests -- and Americans will need to live wi Eminent Indian strategist C. Raja Mohan implicitly takes on this argument in an important new paper for the German Marshall Fund. Rather than being only a peripheral or even harmful influence on India's great power future, Mohan argues that the nature of U .S. engagement with India will decisively shape its ability to lead the subcontinent to peace and prosperity; contribute to stability and balance in Asia; develop a framework for use of force abroad; participate constructively in the making of a new international order; and recast its own international identity . Mohan convincingly argues that India's embrace of the enlightenment tradition in its domestic politics, and the country's geopolitical interests and ambitions, align it with the Western-led global community of democracies -- not with its Third World and anti-Western fellow travelers of yesteryear, and not with the BRICS -- as China is emerging as India's global competitor. In light of this shift in Indian power, identity, and aspirations, Mohan provocatively maintains that India may be considered a "Western" power rather than an Asian one -- and that intensive U.S. engagement will fundamentally impact India's own diplomatic, developmental, and strategic choices. Renowned India expert Ashley Tellis also weighs in on this debate with a superb report for the Carnegie Endowment making a grand strategic case for an Indo-U.S. partnership that shapes an Asian balance conducive to the interests of both countries, anchors an international system that is peaceful and pluralistic rather than hierarchic and conflict-ridden, promotes prosperity and an open international economy, and catalyzes the dynamism and prosperity of Indian and American societies in mutually reinforcing ways. Tellis cites a National Intelligence Council estimate that India will be the world's third most powerful state by 2026 to argue convincingly that smart American engagement with New Delhi is necessary now to frame a partnership with a country whose impact on the international system is already dramatic. (As Obama put it, India is not just rising -- it has risen.) And rather than diverging, Indian and U.S. interests across the spectrum -- from defeating terrorism to maintaining equilibrium in Asia to securing the freedom 34 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis of the global commons to strengthening a liberal international economic and political order -- are strikingly convergent, and will only become more so as India's capabilities and strategic horizons expand. But it is Senator John McCain who said it best: India and the United States share common values… It is for this reason that we are confident that the ongoing rise of democratic India as a great power -- whether tomorrow or 25 years from now -- will be peaceful, and thus can advance critical U.S. national interests. Furthermore, it is because of our shared values that we view the rise of India as inherently good in itself. At a time when many have become enamored with an authoritarian model of state capitalism and its ability to generate wealth and power, there can be no greater demonstration that political pluralism, free markets, and the rule of law are a morally and materially superior way to organize diverse sxocieties than the success of democratic India. Who can believe in "Asian values" or doubt the universality of democratic capitalism in a world where India exists? Therefore, contrary to the old dictates of realpolitik, we seek not to limit or diminish India's rise, but to bolster and catalyze it -- economically, geopolitically, and yes, militarily. In short, the United States has a compelling stake in the success of India.

Nuclear War CIRINICONE 2K (Joseph, director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Foreign Policy, “The Asian Nuclear Reaction Chain,” March)

The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble . Moreover, the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile defenses. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to pla y guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs; South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. Five of these states have nuclear weapons; the others are capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's actions can trigger reactio ns throughout the region, which in turn, stimulate additional actions. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation, bringing regional and global economic and political instability and, perhaps , the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945.

Relations are they key component to Indian prosperity in the region as well as regional security – that’s Twining. India needs a bolstering nation to ensure the continued peace in the region, but any collapse in the alliance, like the plan causes, will instigate self-preservation, causing all nations to engage in an arms race and perform pre-emptive strikes on each other – that’s Cirinicone.

35 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis US-Indian relations key to stability in East Asia and American offshore balancing Tellis 06 [Ashley J., Spring, “The Evolution of U.S.-Indian Ties Missile Defense in an Emerging Strategic Relationship,” International Security, Volume 30, Number 4, pgs. 149-150, ProjectMuse] TD

This effort has received a strong fillip as a result of recent political develop-ments. On March 25, 2005, the Bush administration announced a major new policy approach toward South Asia, which included the dramatic announce-ment of its intention “to help India become a major world power in the twenty-first century.” By further asserting that the administration “under-stand[s] fully the implications, including military implications, of that state-ment,” senior officials gave notice that the United States would support Indian requests for “transformative systems in areas such as command and control, early warning and missile defense.”111 This commitment, which marks a fur-ther deepening of the U.S.-Indian bilateral relationship (now under way since the beginning of George W. Bush’s first term in office), suggests a strong deter-mination to stay the course guided by the president’s understanding of the geopolitical challenges likely to confront the United States in the twenty-first century.112 In this context, assisting the growth of Indian power is judged to be essential to U.S. interests because it permits Washington to “pursue a balance of power strategy among those major rising powers and key regional states in Asia which are not part of the existing U.S. alliance structure—including China, India, and a currently weakened Russia,” a strategy that “seeks to pre- vent any one of these [countries] from effectively threatening the security of another [or that of the United States] while simultaneously preventing any combination of these [entities] from ‘bandwagoning’ to undercut critical U.S. strategic interests in Asia.”113 As a result of the process growing out of this newest bout of deepened engagement, the United States and India signed a new framework for enhancing defense cooperation on June 28, 2005, that com- mitted both sides to “expand collaboration relating to missile defense.”114 This pledge was exemplified by Washington’s decision to release the Patriot ATBM (PAC-III) for sale to India, even as planning proceeds apace for a series of fur-ther bilateral consultations, joint exercises, and technical exchanges on this subject.115

36 Georgetown 2011-12 India NEG/AFF Answers Tanner Davis INDIA DA – IMPACTS [INTEROPERABILITY]

High relations and cooperation key to interoperability Embassy of the U.S., New Dehli, 07 [February 28, “U.S. - India Joint Working Group on Civil Space Cooperation,” Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Washington, DC, last accessed 6/28/11, http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/pr030907.html] TD

Continued progress is being made in promoting interoperability among existing and future U.S. and Indian civil space based positioning, navigation, and timing systems to create a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). A joint statement detailing areas for future joint work in GNSS was adopted by the JWG. The two sides exchanged information on a range of space and other policy issues and noted the ongoing efforts to conclude new bilateral agreements designed to open up new opportunities for cooperation. At the end of the session, the J WG received information from U.S. and Indian commercial groups on ways and means to promote commercial ties in the space sector.

37 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] DA ACTS AS CP – ONLY CP SOLVES

Without international cooperation on space exploration, the policy will fail Friedman 11 [Lou, recently stepped down after 30 years as Executive Director of The Planetary Society. He continues as Director of the Society's LightSail Program and remains involved in space programs and policy, February 14, “American leadership,” The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1778/1] TD

The US can’t do everything alone. Climate monitoring, Earth observation, space weather prediction, and ultimately asteroid deflection are huge and vital global undertakings that require international participation. That is also true with exploration projects sending robots and human to other worlds. American leadership in these areas is welcomed and used by other countries, even as they develop their own national programs. The US government should make more of this and not treat it as an afterthought—or even worse, prohibit American leadership as the House of Representatives is doing this week by banning any China collaboration or cooperation. (The proposed House continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011 prohibits OSTP or NASA funds to be used for anything to do with China.)

38 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] DA ACTS AS CP – SOLVES SSP

US and India currently cooperating on SSP – only close cooperation, like that in the SQUO, can effectively work Morring 10 [Frank, Jr., senior editor covering space for Aviation Week and coordinates space coverage across all bureaus and publications, November 5, “Indian, U.S. Experts Team On Space Solar Power,” Aviation Week, last accessed 6/27/11, http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp? channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/11/05/04.xml&headline=null&prev=10] TD

Former Indian President A.P.J. Kalam has lent his name to a new cooperative effort by experts in the U.S. and India to advance space solar power (SSP) as a way to improve life on Earth. Kalam, 79, is a space pioneer who served as the 11th president of India. He and his former associates at the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) have teamed with the Washington-based N ational S pace S ociety (NSS) for an initiative aimed at accomplishing the work necessary to field a system of large satellites that would collect solar energy and beam it safely to Earth’s surface. “ A large mission like space solar power will need the combined efforts of many nations,” Kalam said Nov. 4 in a conference call from India. “I am certain that harvesting solar power in space can upgrade the living standard of the human race.” U.S. Allies Kalam was joined on the line by John Mankins, a former exploration chief technologist at NASA who is president of the Space Power Association, and T.K. Alex, director of the ISRO’s Satellite Center in Bengaluru. Alex, who led development of the Chandrayaan-1 lunar orbiter, will join Mankins as co-principal investigators on the Kalam-National Space Society Energy Initiative. The group plans a bilateral meeting in Huntsville, Ala., next May to establish a course of action and organizational structure. While NSS CEO Mark Hopkins says that meeting will be organized around Indian and U.S. participants, plans call for broadening the effort to include other nations — notably Japan, which has done advanced work in space solar power. Kalam says the topic may be included during President Barack Obama’s upcoming summit with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, but a more likely route to the top levels of spacefaring nations will come in presentations at future G-8 and G-20 economic summits. Ideally, different nations will contribute SSP components based on their particular skills, he says. For India and the U.S., cooperation in technology development also can work, he adds. Indian infrastructure Alex says India already has a significant terrestrial solar power industry based in the country’s north. The nation also is working in multi-junction solar arrays which, while not as advanced as similar technology in the U.S., could lead to the solar-power conversion efficiency needed to make SSP practical. Similarly, Kalam cited India’s work in reusable launch vehicle technology as a way to hold down the cost of getting SSP payloads to orbit, and said that work could go faster if the U.S. and India collaborate . Mankins cited a “10-10-10” rule for a first prototype in geostationary orbit that could be a goal for the new bilateral initiative.

39 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] SSP allows relations breakthrough for India and the US Glover 10 [Jessica, a Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Research Intern at the Center for a New American Security. She holds an M.A. in Middle East Studies from the George Washington University Elliot School of International Affairs, November 11, “For U.S.-India Cooperation, Space is the Next Frontier,” Center for New American Security, last accessed 6/24/11, http://www.cnas.org/blogs/naturalsecurity/2010/11/us- india-cooperation-space-next-frontier.html] TD

As President Obama continues his tour through Asia this week, including Monday’s remarks in India, foreign policy-watchers have suggested a number of ways to improve and revitalize the India-U.S. relationship – including our very own CNAS colleagues. Importantly, President Obama himself emphasized the interplay between technology, new energy, and greater security during his address to the Indian Parliament. The final frontier – outer space – is one arena where some experts see potential collaboration between the United States and India. A November report issued by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) in India, The Sky’s No Limit laid out the potential for U.S.-Indian efforts on space based solar power (SBSP). If such technology can be developed, SBSP could be a remarkable future source of clean energy. The concept centers on placing satellites in geosynchronous orbit, capturing solar rays before their energy is diluted by the Earth’s atmosphere, turning this captured energy into microwave energy, and literally beaming it down to Earth-based receivers that could transform it into electricity. The IDSA report outlines, on page 67, four reasons why promoting India-U.S. cooperation on space based solar power makes sense at this juncture: Firstly, India is the only major state where a Head of State has not only suggested space solar power as a goal for its space agency, but also expressed an interest in international cooperation. Second, as already noted above, there is considerable momentum in the Indo-US strategic partnership, with key components–space , energy , climate change , high tech, aviation, and dual use strategic technologies and defence cooperation– already in place with vibrant dialogue . Third, India’s need for power and development is acute , likely considerably more acute than other potential partners which makes it potentially a more motivated partner, and a linked effort also promises a tremendous ultimate market potential. Fourthly, the success of space solar power will depend partly on low-cost manufacture. In the time frame when space solar power will come of age, perhaps 15 years in the future, even as other manufacturing and labour markets age and face decline, India is projected to be in the midst of its demographic dividend , with the largest working age population of any country on earth. Despite real concerns over cost and feasibility, as well as a noted lack of legal frameworks surrounding potential international cooperation, a report advising the U.S. Department of Defense in 2007 regarded India as a potential partner for future development of SBSP alongside Japan and the European Space Agency. Beyond this, encouraging India to play a leading role in the development of space technology can arguably help better define and enshrine norms surrounding the use of outer space. Potentially, such a leadership role could include encouraging stewardship of free access in outer space – minimizing orbital debris that could threaten the placement of future satellites and discouraging behaviors in space that contribute to orbital debris creation. .

40 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] SSP allows for an increase in bilateral relations with India Garretson 10 [Peter A., August, “Sky’s No Limit,” Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, last accessed 6/24/11, http://www.idsa.in/sites/default/files/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf] TD

This paper sought to evaluate space-based solar power, a highly scalable, revolutionary renewable energy technology, in the context of the Indo-US bilateral strategic partnership, and determine if US and Indian interests and amities were sufficiently aligned to allow forward motion on such a project, and if so, what would be an actionable form for policymakers. It is the conclusion of the researcher that SBSP does appear to be a good fit for the US domestic, Indian domestic and bilateral agendas, and there is adequate political space and precursor agreements to begin a bilateral programme, should policymakers desire it. Given that SBSP appears to fit the articulated Indian criteria for suitability of energy source and to offer a better long-term energy security solution, and that the evaluation of the current energy-climate situation is so unhopeful, with a lack of promising and scalable solutions emerging, a no-regret, due-diligence effort in space-based solar power seems a justified and strategic investment. An actionable, three-tiered programme, with threshold criteria/goals, has been proposed, moving from basic technology and capacity building to a multi-lateral demo, and ultimately to an international commercial public-private-partnership entity to supply commercial power in the 2025 timeframe. The launch of such a potentially revolutionary programme can begin with a simple statement exchanged between the two heads of state, or articulated in a joint statement. An aggressive bilateral space solar power programme , at its minimum, will create a forum and networked cadre for discourse on advanced energy, space and climate technologies that can be recycled to nearer term problems, while visibly demonstrating an interest in global challenges. But at its maximum, such a programme might be a way out of India’s (and the world’s) climate-energy dilemma, as well as a $103-trillion opportunity and opportunity for India to use its successful space programme to transcend the middle income trap while shaping a future83 peaceful space regime. It will certainly constitute not only a “big ticket item” that will link the technical bases of the world’s largest democracies, but also become one of the grandest and most ambitious humanitarian and environmentalist causes that will be sure to excite a generation as did the Apollo programme in the worthy purpose articulated by the founder of the Indian Space Programme Dr. Vikram Sarabai, “we must be second to none in the application of advanced technologies to the real problems of man and society.” In what more meaningful way can two of the space-faring democracies contribute to the challenges of this generation than finding a solution to energy and climate security “in the third dimension”, and capturing it within the dynamism of their strategic partnership?

41 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] SSP allows for joint cooperation between India and US – coop will spillover to other countries Chadha 10 [Mridul, pursuing a master's degree in Renewable Energy Engineering and Management at The Energy and Resources Institue (TERI University), November 10, “US, India Launch Space-Based Solar Energy Initiative,” Ecopolitology, last accessed 6/24/11, http://ecopolitology.org/2010/11/10/us- india-launch-space-based-solar-energy-initiative/] TD

Just before President Obama started his India tour the Indian Space Research Organisation and US' National Space Society launched a joint forum to enhance partnership in harnessing solar energy through space-based solar collectors . Called the Kalam-NSS Initiative after the former Indian President Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, the forum will lay the groundwork for the space-based solar power program which could see other countries joining in as well. The idea of a multilateral space-based solar energy program was initiated by an Indian Defense Ministry think tank, Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses. A report prepared by Peter Garretson, a US Air Force lieutenant colonel called up on the governments of India and the United States to initiate this pathbreaking project and make the space-based solar energy a commercially viable business venture by 2025. Addressing the press at the National Press Club in New Delhi, Dr Kalam said, "By 2050, even if we use every available energy resource we have: clean and dirty, conventional and alternative, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, coal, oil, and gas, the world will fall short of the energy we need." One of the biggest advantages of space-based solar energy is that it is not intermittent in nature as ground-based solar energy resource. An array of solar panels stationed in a geostationary orbit around the world will receive sunlight for 99 percent time of the year. Plus there are no losses due to atmospheric interferences. This partnership between the two countries is likely to gain pace and strength as the United States has now removed some tech nology-transfer restrictions which were imposed on some scientific research organisations in India after the 1998 nuclear tests. Organisations like the ISRO and Bharat Dynamics will now have access to some sensitive and unique technology. Researchers speaking at the press conference referred to this initiative as a landmark deal which would benefit both the countries . For the US, the deal would potentially create thousands of jobs as it is likely to contribute majority of the hardware for the project. For India, the project would mean enormous amounts of clean energy which it could use to electrify its rural areas and drive its economy.

42 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] DA ACTS AS CP – SSP NET-BENEFIT

DA as a CP allows for cooperation in norms, shared finances, gloabl marketing, and forestalling fears of economic domination and military use – all DAs to the plan Gibbons, former Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, 81 [John H., August, “Solar Power Satellites,” National Space Society, last accessed 6/29/11, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/1981-OTA-SolarPowerSatellites.pdf] TD

There could be important economic and political advantages to developing SPS as a multinational rather than a unilateral system . These include cooperation in establishing legal and regulatory norms, shared risk in financing the R&D and construction costs, improved prospects for global marketing, and forestalling fears of economic domination and military use. Although a multinational effort would face inevitable organizational and political difficulties, the strong potential interest of energy-poor, non-U. S. participants in increased electrical supplies could help make a multinational venture more feasible than a unilateral one by the United States. Global electricity demand may quadruple by 2030, and will be especially strong in developing countries. Western Europe and Japan would be likely partners for a joint project. Depending on the size and expense of the system used, a number of the more rapidly developing but less developed countries might also be interested in participating at lower levels of involvement. The Soviet Union is carrying on an aggressive space program that may give them an independent capacity to develop SPS, but little is known about their long-range space or energy plans. Real or perceived competition with the Soviet Union could spur a U.S. commitment to SPS. The development of fleets of launch and transfer vehicles (for SPS), as well as facilities for living and working in space, would enhance this Nation’s military space capabilities. Such equipment would give the possessor a large breakout potential for rapid deployment of personnel and hardware in time of crisis, though for nonemergency situations the military would prefer to use vehicles designed specifically for military purposes. SPS itself could be used for military purposes, such as electronic warfare or providing energy to military units, but is technically unsuited to constitute an efficient weapon. Weapons-use of SPS would be prohibi ted by current bilateral and mul t i lateral treaties. The satellite portion of SPS is vulnerable to various methods of attack and interference but the likelihood of its being attacked is only Slightly greater than for major terrestrial energy systems. The military effects of SPS will depend largely on the institutional framework within which it is developed; international involvement would tend to reduce the potential for use of SPS by the military sector .

43 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] DA ACTS AS CP – SOLVES NEOS [ASTEROIDS]—[TURNS CASE]

DA turns case – successful NEO projects can’t be done unilaterally Friedman, Former Executive Director and Founder of the Planetary Society, 10 [Lou, October 27, “Projects: Space Information,” The Planetary Society, last accessed 6/29/11, http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/space_information/20101027.html] TD

I am personally uneasy about NASA being the lead agency to consider mitigation, even though at the moment they know more about the subject than other parts of government. But mitigation involves consideration of nuclear weapons, and deflection of asteroids can be considered a weapon system. Having that as part of NASA’s mission needs some debate (especially if it detracts from space exploration). Inter-agency discussion can help resolve who should be lead; thus, the Administration’s recommendations are a valuable step forward. But it is not enough of a step. Any consideration of NEOs should be international. No nation can consider deflection of a potentially hazardous object unilaterally. It’s my view that spacefaring nations should organize an ad-hoc task force, which someday might evolve to a treaty organization (analogous to NATO) to address policies, protocols and plans for dealing with the threat of a potentially hazardous object hitting Earth. The United States could, and should, lead by proposing such a task force. We need consideration soon, not because an impact is likely soon, but, because the threat of an impact is likely soon. The Administration’s letter to Congress should have also called for an international task force, clearly stating that NEO detection, observation, investigation, analysis, mitigation and potential deflection are global issues.

44 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] Current cooperation solves case – NEOs require multilateral involvement UN General Assembly 05 [February 21-March 4, “Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space,” UN General Assembly, last accessed 6/28/11, http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/pdf/limited/c1/AC105_C1_L280Add2E.pdf] TD

1. In accordance with General Assembly resolution 59/116, the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee considered agenda item 10, “Near-Earth objects”, under the three-year work plan adopted at its forty-first session (A/AC.105/823, annex II). Pursuant to the work plan, in 2005, international organizations, regional bodies and others active in the field of near-Earth object research were invited to report on their activities. 2. The Subcommittee had before it a note by the Secretariat (A/AC.105/839) containing information on research in the field of near-Earth objects carried out by the European Space Agency and the Spaceguard Foundation. 3. The representatives of China, the Czech Republic, Malaysia, the United Kingdom and the United States made statements on the item. 4. The Subcommittee heard the following scientific and technical presentations on the item: (a) “Introduction to near-Earth objects”, by the representative of the United Kingdom; (b) “Near-Earth object activities of the European Space Agency”, by the representative of ESA; (c) “How to deal with a real near- Earth object impact possibility: the case of 2004 MN4”, by the representative of the Spaceguard Foundation; 2 (d) “Report on the work of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on the near-Earth objects hazard”, by the representative of OECD; (e) “OECD study on near- Earth objects: the United Kingdom perspective”, by the representative of the United Kingdom; (f) “Proposals on the creation of the ‘Citadel’ international planetary defence system”, by the representative of the Russian Federation; (g) “Comet/asteroid impacts and human society”, by the representative of the International Council for Science (ICSU); (h) “The near-Earth object programme in the Republic of Korea”, by the representative of the Republic of Korea. 5. The Subcommittee noted that near-Earth objects were asteroids and comets with orbits that crossed the orbit of the planet Earth. 6. The Subcommittee noted that, although the probability of collisions of nearEarth objects with the Earth was very low, near-Earth objects nonetheless could pose a threat to the Earth. 7. The Subcommittee noted that collisions of near-Earth objects with the Earth had occurred in the past and that the largest and most recent collision had occurred when the Tunguska meteorite had fallen on the territory of Russia in 1908. 8. The Subcommittee noted that the most effective tools for the management of the risk posed by near- Earth objects were early detection and precision tracking. The Subcommittee noted the current and future work being conducted and planned by member States and observers of the Committee, through ground- based and space-based research, to discover and track near-Earth objects. The Subcommittee also noted that a number of member States were establishing specialized facilities for the observation of near- Earth objects. 9. The Subcommittee noted that some member States had implemented or were planning to implement fly-by and exploration missions to near-Earth objects. The Subcommittee also noted a number of international missions to near-Earth objects. 10. The Subcommittee noted that, given sufficient warning time, countermeasures to either fragment or deflect an incoming near-Earth object were possible. The Subcommittee also noted that such activities would require a large and coordinated international effort. 11. The view was expressed that a technical study outlining the history of nearEarth objects and the possibility of risk mitigation should be conducted. 12. The Subcommittee agreed to revise the work plan under this item for 2006 and 2007, as contained in annex II, para. […], to the present report. 13. The Subcommittee agreed that international cooperation in monitoring near-Earth objects should be continued and expanded . 14. The view was expressed that, in 2006, the reports of member States, international organizations and regional bodies should focus on information on space missions, as well as on national or broader collaborative activities on the search for and follow-up of near-Earth objects. 3 15. The view was expressed that member States could include the threat of nearEarth objects in their disaster-preparedness planning.

45 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] DA ACTS AS CP – SOLVES LUNAR EXPLORATION/SPACE HEG

International cooperation on moon explorations allows for increasing hegemony and soft power Friedman 11 [Lou, recently stepped down after 30 years as Executive Director of The Planetary Society. He continues as Director of the Society's LightSail Program and remains involved in space programs and policy, February 14, “American leadership,” The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1778/1] TD

Am erican leadership in space is much more desired that resented —except when it gets used unilaterally, as in the past Administration’s call for “dominance in cislunar space.” Asian countries (China, Japan, India) are especially interested in lunar landings; Western countries, including the US, much less so. However, cooperating with Asian countries in lunar science and utilization would be both a sign of American leadership and of practical benefit to US national interests. Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin has been a leader advocating such cooperation. At the same time American leadership can be extended by leading spacefaring nations into the solar system with robotic and human expeditions to other worlds.

Lunar exploration and mining allows for an increased US-Indo strategic partnership Kline 06 [Jennifer, July 20, “U.S.-India Space Cooperation Reaches New Heights, Despite Lingering Proliferation Concerns,” James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, last accessed 6/23/11, http://cns.miis.edu/other/kline_060720.htm] TD

In an environment colored by the controversy surrounding the U.S.-India nuclear agreement and by difficult continuing negotiations over a bilateral agreement to permit India to launch third-country satellites containing U.S. components or technology, the U.S.-India initiative on lunar exploration stands out as a potential breakthrough in high-technology collaboration between the two countries. [21] In November 2005, the U.S. Department of State signed two Technical Assistance Agreements (TAAs) - the relevant U.S. export licensing documents authorizing two U.S. scientific instruments to be carried as payloads on the Indian Chandrayaan-I Lunar Mission. The two U.S. instruments are the M3 (Moon Mineralogy Mapper) and the MiniSAR (Miniature Synthetic Aperture Radar). The scope of the experiments conducted and the sharing of responsibilities and data collected on this mission were determined in the MOUs signed on May 9, 2006. [22]

46 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] DA ACTS AS CP – SOLVES COMMERCIALIZATION

Only the SQUO of commercialization and free market involvement with India solves—key to capacity building, economic growth, job creation, life quality U.S. Department of State 09 [July 20, “Fact Sheet on U.S.–India Agreements and Achievements,” America.gov, last accessed 6/27/11, http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans- english/2009/July/20090720155526xjsnommis0.423515.html] TD

At the close of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s meetings with the Government of India today, the two governments issued a joint statement regarding their intentions to accelerate the growth of their bilateral relationship to enhance global prosperity and stability in the 21st century. The two governments also signed agreements and announced commitments as follows: The two governments outlined a Strategic Dialogue that will focus on five principal pillars. Through a coherent structure of bilateral working groups, the two governments will address a wide range of issues with the goal of producing concrete results: i. Strategic Cooperation working groups will address nonproliferation, counterterrorism and military cooperation; ii. Energy and Climate Change working groups will continue our successful energy dialogue and begin discussions on actions to address the challenge of global climate change; iii. Education and Development working groups will enhance our partnership in education and initiate discussions about women’s’ empowerment; iv. Economics, Trade and Agriculture working groups will continue and strengthen our discussions on business, trade and food security; and v. Science and Technology, Health and Innovation working groups will explore new areas for cooperation in leading technologies and in addressing global health challenges. During their joint press conference today, Secretary Clinton and Indian Minister of External Affairs S. M. Krishna signed an agreement jointly creating a $30 million endowment to be used for joint research and development, innovation, entrepreneurial, and commercialization activities in science and technology. The agreement builds on a strong history of U.S.-India collaboration in science and technology and will strengthen and expand cooperation by stimulating capacity building, contributing to economic growth, encouraging opportunities for job creation, and improving the quality of life for citizens of India, the U.S. and the rest of the world. Separately, today, the two governments signed a Technology Safeguards Agreement and associated side letters pertaining to the use of U.S.-licensed components on spacecraft launched from Indian facilities. Practically, the agreement will facilitate the launch of U.S.-licensed spacecraft components and safeguard protected technologies and data of both countries. The side letters commit the United States and India to enter into consultations regarding the market for commercial space launch and satellite services.

47 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] DA ACTS AS CP – SOLVES LAUNDRY LIST

Mission to Mars, commercialization, human exploration, satellite development all require international cooperation Abbey and Lane 05 [George, Baker Botts Senior Fellow in Space Policy at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. He directs the Space Policy Program, which facilitates discussions on the future of space policy in the United States. From 1995 until 2001, he was Director of the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. He holds the NASA Distinguished Service and the Outstanding Leadership and Exceptional Service Medals. He also served as a member of the Operations Team awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for their role in the Apollo 13 Mission and Neil, the Malcolm Gillis University Professor at Rice University. He also holds appointments as Senior Fellow of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, where he is engaged in matters of science and technology policy, and in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. Prior to returning to Rice University, he served in the federal government as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, from August 1998 to January 2001, and as Director of the National Science Foundation and member (ex officio) of the National Science Board, from October 1993 to August 1998. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, serving as a member of both the Academy’s Council and the Committee on International Security Studies, 2005, “United States Space Policy,” American Academy of Arts and Sciences, last accessed 6/27/11, http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/wp_aaas_spacePolicy.pdf] TD

This is not an invitation to partnership. Partnership, of course, does not exclude national objectives, but it does require a sharing of vision, objectives, and commitments, at the earliest stages of planning. Otherwise, the United States cannot expect other nations to participate enthusiastically and to provide the necessary staffing and funding. Based on the authors’ conversations, it is clear that scientists, engineers, and policy makers around the world perceive that the United States has no interest in bringing other nations into the planning process, though it expects them to take on the operation of the space station and to provide assistance for other U.S.-led space efforts when asked. Given the present limited U.S. capability to undertake a major program such as returning humans to the Moon and sending them, eventually, to Mars, it is clear that international cooperation is necessary for these missions. Furthermore, even if the United States had all the necessary resources,why would it make sense to go it alone in the scientific and human exploration of space? For international cooperation to be a realistic possibility the United States will have to take a very different approach to prospective partnerships, in tone and in substance. Whatever path the United States chooses to follow with its policies, America does not have a future in space—human exploration, space science, or commercial space activities—without considerable international cooperation . The degree of cooperation that will be necessary will not be possible under current export control and other restrictive policies. The International Space Station and the Space Shuttle programs, as well as many of the most successful robotic science missions, were accomplished with considerable international involvement and the free exchange of data and technical information. Neither of these programs could have been successful under any other conditions. The creation of complex systems, which operate in an integrated fashion in order to support human life in a hostile environment, requires an international partnership, with open discussions and sharing of information and technology.

48 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] US and India currently cooperating – earth observation, lunar missions, satellites, land mining Embassy of the U.S., New Dehli, 07 [February 28, “U.S. - India Joint Working Group on Civil Space Cooperation,” Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Washington, DC, last accessed 6/28/11, http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/pr030907.html] TD

The Joint Working Group engaged in a broad range of discussions and endorsed the following conclusions: Space exploration and research will enable dramatic advances in knowledge of the basic nature and dynamics of our planet and the universe around it. Successful international cooperation in space research proceeds from the understanding that scientific information should be shared as widely and quickly as possible to enable its fullest use for research purposes in the interests of the public good. The two sides look forward to India's Chandrayaan-1 lunar mission in March 2008, which will greatly increase our knowledge of Earth's natural satellite. NASA and ISRO have agreed upon cooperative programs for this mission that will further both countries' goals for space exploration, and will set the stage for future cooperation. Space exploration is a source of inspiration and discovery in which many nations of the world have chosen to partake. The U.S. has set for itself a Vision for Space Exploration. NASA has invited opinions from India and other countries to define a strategy that details how Lunar exploration fits into the broader global effort to explore space. Additional opportunities for cooperation exist in the field of space science, including astrophysics, robotic exploration of the solar system, and the investigation of the relationship between the Earth and the Sun. Earth observation data and information yield a broad range of societal benefits. The U.S. and India, through cooperation between their technical agencies, including NOAA, NASA and the USGS for the U.S. and ISRO for India, have embarked upon a number of collaborative activities in the application of Earth observations and look forward to continued collaboration in this area. One area that Earth observations can be applied to is disaster management. The Earth and its inhabitants are vulnerable to long-term processes and sudden events, from climate change to natural disasters, without regard to national boundaries. Space observations play a vital role in developing an understanding of these vulnerabilities and mitigating their consequences. The two sides look forward to future launches of U.S. and Indian satellites that will improve global Earth observations and provide opportunities for further cooperative projects. Plans are being made to establish a ground station in India for the U.S. National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, and to investigate potential collaboration on medium resolution land-imaging systems. One area for further collaboration is the possible use of Indian Resourcesat data to address expected gaps in data from U.S. Landsat satellites. Additional activities, including collaborations between U.S. and Indian scientists and coordination of observations from U.S. and Indian spacecraft, are under consideration. In additional to bilateral cooperation, international multilateral fora serve as important areas for discussion and policy coordination on a range of issues. These range from the wide-ranging deliberations of the Group on Earth Observations and the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites, to specialized forums on spacecraft standards and protocols, to avenues for coordination and planning for space missions and scientific research.

49 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] DA ACTS AS CP – SPENDING NET-BENEFIT

Solely international cooperation on space exploration reduces the economic burden Broniakowski, et. al. 09 [D.A., Ph.D. in Engineering Systems, G. Ryan Faith, an independent technology consultant and Adjunct Fellow for Space Initiatives at the CSIS, Vincent G. Sabathier, senior fellow and director of the Human Space Exploration Initiative at the CSIS, 2006, “The Case for Managed International Cooperation in Space Exploration,” CSIS, last accessed 6/22/11, http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/060918_managed_international_cooperation.pdf] TD

It is common knowledge that international cooperation in space exploration has the potential to reduce a partner’s costs by spreading the burden to other nations. Although additional overhead costs increase the overall cost of any international cooperative endeavor, these costs are spread among partners. As per- partner cost decreases, per-partner utility increases. Space exploration has proven to be an expensive activity. Indeed, the more that any given administration and Congress must spend to maintain and/or expand the functionality of a program like the ISS, the less utility will be derived. Therefore, a nation will have an incentive to engage in international cooperation when doing so can reduce that nation’s costs . This is particularly true for nations whose space exploration budget is insufficient to execute their space exploration goals. Aside from the United States, and possibly China, international cooperation is necessary for all other space-faring nations simply due to the large costs involved.

50 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] COOPERATION KEY

US and Indian cooperation necessary for future space successes Spries 09 [Shelby G., Times Aerospace Writer, November 17, “India wants a space center, too,” Huntsville Times, last accessed 6/28/11, http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/local.ssf?/base/news/1258452933213170.xml&coll=1] TD

Huntsville's U.S. Space & Rocket Center has shown legions of children and adults how space exploration can be used to improve life on Earth, and now India wants to duplicate that inspiration by building its own teaching museum, the nation's chief diplomat said Monday. "There are hundreds of students from India who come to this city to study and live and work, and we plan to start a similar center that would inspire those in our country who may not have the opportunity to make the journey to" Huntsville, said Meera Shankar, ambassador of India, during a visit to the Davidson Center for Space Exploration for an Alabama India Business Partnerships special dinner. India formally established a space agency - the Indian Space Research Organization - in 1969, giving it almost as much history in space as the United States. A teaching facility, similar to Space Camp, would inspire future astronauts from India, Shankar said. This doesn't mean India wants to take on the frontier of space alone, she said. Cooperation is a must in space exploration because of costs and other challenges such as the number of skilled workers around the world, Shankar said. In October 2008, India launched Chandrayaan-1, the nation's first lunar probe sent to make detailed studies of the moon's surface. Chandrayaan-1 carried with it two American instruments looking for minerals and water. "It was through this joint effort that water was discovered to be on the moon. That's how important cooperation is, and will be, to any future space exploration endeavors ," Shankar said. "Nations must work together for peaceful exploration of space and bring those benefits back to Earth for all to enjoy."

51 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] UNILATERALISM BAD – KILLS GLOBALIZATION

Turn – unilateralism will crush globalization Baruah 10 – Amit //Head of BBC Hindi (09 03, “Push for Mulitpolar World Need Not be Confrontationist”, http://www.hindu.com/2003/10/19/stories/2003101903231000.htm) D.R.

"Reconfiguration and reform of the Security Council is essential, not just to reflect changed realities but also to manage the collective security challenges of the future. This needs to be followed by reform of the economic sinews of international relations." Pointing out that India was today a net creditor to the International Monetary Fund, Mr. Sinha added that New Delhi had informed a large group of nations that we no longer require their bilateral aid. " If globalisation is the trend, then multilateralism is its life-sustaining mechanism, for no process will survive without a genuine spirit of multilateralism, underlined by the belief that global problems require global solutions globally arrived at. Otherwise, the world faces the risk of repeating the mistakes of the past. "India believes that it is well- placed to both contribute to globalisation as well as reap its benefits. If in the last decade, we adjusted our internal reforms to conform to the needs of globalisation, the time has come to seek a reform of globalisation itself," Mr. Sinha added.

52 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – ALT CAUSE

Space exploration is the top priority for US-Indian relations ESA 07 [European Space Agency, May 30, “Key meeting on long-term space exploration,” ESA News, last accessed 6/30/11, http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMARH9RR1F_index_0.html] TD

Space exploration is a top priority for many space agencies around the world and many other space organisations are interested by the growing number of cooperation opportunities. ESA and ASI have therefore decided to jointly organise a series of regular meetings with the aim of contributing to the discussion on cooperation, and providing an opportunity for exchange of information and coordination. One first tangible outcome of this collective effort by the many space organisations from Europe, North America, Asia and Australia, is a document laying down the common vision of the space exploration leaders. 'The Global Exploration Strategy: the Framework for Coordination', which is the title of this collective paper, will be extensively addressed at the Workshop's opening session, and will form the basis for the ensuing discussions that will focus on the implementation of a coordination mechanism. ExoMars rover - artist's view Europe’s Aurora Exploration Programme, the US Vision for Space Exploration, Japan’s plans for future exploration activities, as well as ambitious automatic missions being prepared by nations like Russia, India and China, offer numerous opportunities for scientific and technological cooperation. The very nature of space exploration with its long-term goals and political and technological challenges call for a more structured international cooperation approach.

53 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – NORMAL MEANS [GENERIC]

Cooperation with India is not normal means Moltz 2006 - associate professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey James Clay Moltz The presentation by Dr. Correll explored the still relatively untilled soil of possible U.S.-Indian cooperation in space. While noting past U.S. concerns about nuclear proliferation, Dr. Correll urged rapid expansion of U.S. space ties with India as a means of cementing the bilateral relationship and developing a valuable new cooperative partner. He suggested such specific areas of cooperation as communications satellites, military-to-military ties, robotic Moon missions, and ground tracking (including possible use of Indian ground stations to correct ‘‘drift’’ in U.S. Global Positioning System satellites). Dr. Correll argued that—if properly managed—space cooperation could become the ‘‘jewel in the crown’’ of the emerging U.S.- Indian strategic partnership. Today, he lamented, there is little evidence of dynamic U.S. proposals in this area

54 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – NORMAL MEANS [SSP] There is no normal means for ssp Garretson 10 – , Peter, Lieutenant Colonel USAF National Space Society Board of Directors (“Sky’s No Limit: Space Based Solar Power The Next Step in the Indo-U.S. Strategic Partnership?”, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf) D.R.

A DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION OF VARIOUS RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES AND STAKEHOLDERS; OF VARIOUS MODELS FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATON, SPACE, ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT This paper incorporates a fairly comprehensive discussion of the important stakeholders, technology providers and relevant models in formulating a policy approach to SBSP. This is a major portion of the contribution of the paper and should be quite useful to someone in the US trying to understand the Indian system, or someone in India trying to understand the complexities of the US energy/space/defence/dual-use/ export control system, as well as to policy entrepreneurs, who are seeking useful models of bilateral/multilateral cooperation, or infrastructure/ energy development. However, to appeal to a broader audience, who may not desire to read through this survey, I have moved those sections to the appendix section. The various stakeholders and models discussed ahead can be further referenced in detail there. Judgements of the Researcher First, a programme like space solar power is strategic in that it crosses many bureaucratic lines of authority and requires broad and different expertise, and many benefits are external to the organisation. However SBSP is currently weak in terms of an organised constituency. The lens through which it is seen matters greatly —is this a space project, an energy project, a climate-change / geo-engineering project, a strategic cooperation technology project ? While it is all these things, it is my judgement that it is best framed as an energy security/renewable energy/climate security project. Therefore, those agencies responsible for energy and climate should be in charge, with space and defence as suppliers. Corporations 1 try to maximise their payback in a short time with minimal risk. The low technical readiness, high development costs, accompanying technical and financial risk, long-payback time, and present lack of anchor customers are substantial barriers to entry, and mean it is unlikely for corporations interested in SBSP to be able to enter the market and be successful. Corporations will shrewdly look to the government to reduce the risk. 2 Chapter 474 Peter A. Garretson Government provided incentives, such as solar feed-in tariffs, transferrable tax credits, and anchor customer contracts such as the UltraMega-Power Plant scheme will certainly raise corporate interests, but recent business case analysis suggest that it is unlikely a corporation can absorb the very large non-recurring development costs and be able to close the business case. 3 A multilateral COMSAT-like consortium is a significant investment that will probably not seem justifiable before there has been significant, technological risk reduction, technology demonstration and an assured business plan is in place. The criteria I will establish for moving to a for-profit international consortium is when there is a demonstrated business plan, a clear consensus on international regulatory regime, and a relevant demonstration of the technology in a sub-scale but directly scaleable manner, in its native environment, over the actual distances, at the actual frequencies, with meaningful levels of power and power density. An international demo project is within reach of present engineering and megascience budgets, and can be done with existing launch vehicles, but needs to be preceded by a process to arrive at a design consensus. The US and India have demonstrated via a number of recent steps that they are ready for a deeper partnership inclusive of sensitive and strategic technology in space, energy and R&D. MTCR is not insurmountable in the longer term, but an early concentration on launch is likely to be more difficult than an early concentration on satellite design. Mechanisms do exist for cooperative military R&D and both military R&D establishments have displayed some level of interest and utility for power beamed to forward and remote bases. The military technical base should definitely be leveraged, but an exclusively military focus will detract from other meaningful bilateral goals and not fully capture the potential benefits for the bilateral relationship. A bilateral programme is likely to enjoy the best support if kept at the highest level. A higher level direction will also allow the leveraging of the talents and capabilities of multiple agencies.75 Figure 2 Proposed Model Chapter 577 Sky’s No Limit In the proposed model, there is an enabling government policy followed by three consecutive stages or tiers of value producing activity. Certain specified criterion of success is required for graduation to the larger investment in the subsequent stage. This maximises interim gain and minimises risk and cost. Stage 0: Framework An enabling bilateral framework is created to provide high level s a n c t i o n , 1 resourcing, and organisation. The components of this framework are: Inclusion of the goal of realising the potential of green 24-hour energy from space in a joint statement. An enabling information exchange agreement An enabling project agreement An organisational framework for collaboration If there is a desire to pursue 55 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] simultaneous development of lowcost access to orbit, then the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) assurance document must also be signed Stage 1: Technology Initiative and Workforce Development. The goal of Stage 1 is to stimulate the technology base, push key enabling technologies and create a supporting work force and technical base. This stage would seek to broadly involve respective government a g enc i e s and l abs , uni v e r s i t i e s , and dome s t i c and mu l t i -na t iona l corporations. Organisation and Functioning of Stage 1: Due to the broad and interdisciplinary nature of the project, it is desirable to make use of the entire tech base of both nations. Therefore, the researcher has selected what is called a project or initiative model in the US and what is called a technology mission in the Indian context. In each, a central agency directs an overall research agenda and distributes funds to a number of different providers to reduce risk and cultivate expertise. In the proposed model, the coordinating offices are kept at a high level, commensurate with the potential impact and equities of the various bilateral dialogues on climate change, energy and space, and above the level of contributing agencies. For the US, international oversight can be managed out of the US Department of State’s Office of Ocean Environment and Science (OES), 278 Peter A. Garretson with the operational mechanism for project management and distribution of funds belonging to the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E). 3 ARPA-E in turn provides funding to a number of different providers, both in and out of the government, toward the directed ends specified below. On the Indian side, the high level oversight is provided by the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change, with the operational mechanism for project management being through the Solar Energy Centre as a special amendment to the National Solar Mission. To effectively marshal the talents and capabilities of the entire tech base, it is conceived that within the US, a multi-agency initiative, not unlike the National Nano Technology Initiative, will coordinate and leverage existing funding and related projects within government agencies, standard contracts, cooperative research and development agreements (CREDA) and other transaction authority (OTA) with cooperative corporations, and multidisciplinary university research initiatives (MURI) to leverage and connect universities. Such procedures have similar analogues in the Indian system, with the National Solar Mission as one mechanism, and the smart materials programme being an example of multiple participating agencies, with funding distributed from a central source on a merit basis. 4 An estimated total budget of $10-30 million might be required to fully address all desired goals of Phase 1. It is also desirable to construct an independent oversight to evaluate the progress toward the goal . In the US, this responsibility should be organised under the aegis of the National Research Council ( NRC ), and in India through the Prime Minister’s Delivery Monitoring Unit, perhaps via the Principal Scientific Advisor’s (PSA) office. A number of possible organisational models are possible and the researcher finds no compelling reason why it cannot be a different top agency on either side, or a slight divergence in model for fund distribution . For instance, one alternative will be simply to provide an additional “fenced off ” budget within the new Joint S&T Endowment. This stage will likely follow the ITER model of a consortium, with national signatories,

56 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – CHINESE AGGRESSION TURN

Relations key to check Chinese aggressions Reddy 11 – , Shavrya //, National Resource Defense Council Contributor on India Relations (14 11, “Stronger Focus on U.S.-India Energy Cooperation Needed on Capitol Hill”, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sreddy/stronger_focus_on_us-india_ene.html) D.R.

Assistant Secretary Blake drew attention to extraordinary progress that India and U.S. were making in terms of energy security. Referring to the JCERDC’s recent $50 million Funding Opportunity Announcement, he noted that this was the “single most comprehensive, well-integrated and significant bilateral clean energy research and development (R&D) effort in U.S. history.” In addition, he highlighted a $2.5 million Indo-U.S. dollar Science and Technology Endowment Fund that will make awards in the areas of health and digital communication technologies. He also mentioned that the U.S. had set up a new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) monsoon desk in India to help get accurate weather information to Indian farmers during the monsoon season in India. Additional insights on the security and defense aspects of the Indo-US relationship were provided by a panel comprising Richard Fontaine, Bruce Riedel, Raymond Vickery and Ambassador Karl. F. Inderfurth. The conference was attended by a wide array of both Indian and U.S. entities. The common thread through all presentations was the recognition of India and the U.S. as strategic partners, and the growing importance of this partnership in the next few decades. Various speakers emphasized why India and the U.S. were critical to each other in counterbalancing China’s rising power. Several of them noted that the U.S. must step up its ties with India and give it the same priority that China has received in the past. All the speakers made note of the commonalities shared by India and the U.S., including democracy, entrepreneurial spirit, the pursuit of knowledge, and common values as well as interests. We were happy to see that thought leaders in both governments and in civil society are thinking about the strategic Indo- U.S. partnership and how both countries can work together more closely to address global challenges. One of the most significant of these, of course, is climate change. To successfully combat this, and ensure energy security and equitable energy access in both countries, leaders from both countries will have to identify clean energy cooperation as having a central role in the bilateral relationship. What we heard last week was a good start, but more voices need to advocate for this on Capitol Hill, more often, and in stronger terms.

57 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – INDIA MILITARIZATION TURN

No turns – the claims are speculative and they are unwarranted – India-U.S. cooperation only produces beneficial results, no miltarizing Bommakanti 08 [Kartik, Research Asistant, at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses(IDSA), New Delhi, India, April 10, “Are MIRVs and Satellite Integration and Dispensation Mutually Inclusive?,” Center for Defense Information, last accessed 7/8/11, http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/IndiaMIRV.pdf] TD

Given the dual-use nature of space technology, what can one make of the claims that increased civilian space cooperation between the United States and India will result in transfer of technology that may bring integration and delivery capabilities warheads into India’s arsenal? The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is poised to send two instruments aboard India’s Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) in 2008. Raising concerns about India-U.S. civilian space cooperation, one analyst, Jennifer Kline, reached the suggestive conclusion that technical “know-how” about satellite integration capabilities will enable India to MIRV its ballistic missiles: While there is little concern that the inclusion of the M3 and Mini-SAR on the Chandrayaan-I will result in a technology transfer of any great significance, there remain lingering apprehensions among some Washington-based missile experts about the potential transfer of “tacit knowledge” skills in the form of payload integration assistance for the lunar mission that might later be exploited for military functions. The principal concern is that if U.S. system integration specialists work with Indian engineers to demonstrate the best method for integrating payloads into space vehicles, then critical tacit knowledge skills that can only be learned by "doing" will transfer into the hands of the Indian engineers. This know-how is also relevant to certain military activities, such as integrating multiple nuclear warhead payloads into inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In the late 1990s, a major controversy erupted when two U.S. firms, Loral and Hughes Aircraft, were found to have transferred tacit knowledge of this kind to China during discussions aimed at overcoming technical obstacles to the successful launch of their satellites on Chinese space launch vehicles. Similarly, any U.S. assistance in preparing the Indian lunar mission with regard to automated deployment structures in space could conceivably help India develop penetration aids for its ballistic missiles, which might reduce the effectiveness of U.S. missile defense systems. Indeed, the possibility that transferred U.S. technology might be utilized for improving Indian ICBMs or for expanding Indian capacity to construct ICBMs remains a major source of controversy in the U.S.-India space cooperation deal. 11 This point is often regurgitated and incidentally became one reason for suspending American commercial satellite launches from Chinese space launch vehicles in the late 1990s. Just as there was no substantive reason for suspending cooperation with China then, there is nothing to be concerned about current or expanded India-U.S. space cooperation either.

58 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – LINK TURN

No turns—only bilateral cooperation on space exploration allows mutual soft power to flourish – plan can’t solve Whiting 02 [Stephen N., June 2002, “POLICY, INFLUENCE, AND DIPLOMACY: SPACE AS A NATIONAL POWER ELEMENT,” Air Power University, last accessed 6/23/11, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/saas/whiting.pdf] TD

The second component of space assets’ diplomatic power is the ability to induce international actors toward desired behaviors, or away from undesirable behaviors, through the granting or termination of technology partnerships. Although this power is fundamentally coercive in nature, it is generally perceived as a relatively benevolent form relying on the promise of benefits to the target state rather than threatening punishment. Called “persuasive influence” by Lt Col Gregory M. Billman, he defines it as “action taken…to benefit another side in some way. Noteworthy is the lack of threatening force to effect a change in an entity’s behavior.” Interestingly, “Cooperative uses of the armed forces have occurred far less frequently than have coercive uses .” As such, this is an area ripe for investigation. Since, by its very nature, the ability to negotiate and carry out technology partnerships occurs over long time periods (measured in years and decades rather than weeks and months), this facet of space assets” diplomatic power is normally only effective during peacetime. Further, since the nature of a partnership implies an ability by both parties to contribute to their mutual goals (although the contributions may not be equal), space technology partnerships are most effective among first and second world countries with some industrial or scientific capacity capable of being oriented toward space technologies.

59 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – PERM SOLVES THE LINK

The perm must have both the US and India pursue the plan INDEPENDENTLY not cooperatively to create one project Faith , et. al., an independent technology consultant and Adjunct Fellow for Space Initiatives at the CSIS, 09 [G. Ryan, Broniakowski, D.A., Ph.D. in Engineering Systems, Vincent G. Sabathier, senior fellow and director of the Human Space Exploration Initiative at the CSIS, 2006, “The Case for Managed International Cooperation in Space Exploration,” CSIS, last accessed 6/22/11, http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/060918_managed_international_cooperation.pdf] TD

The ISS program, along with most international civil space endeavors, carries with it an element of diplomatic cachet and control. Th e participation of other nations in the program increases the diplomatic influence of participating nations and, therefore, the diplomatic utility derived from coop eration. In general, the more countries participate, the higher will be the utility. Nevertheless, not all countries are equal, and their individual utility value depends on world politics. For example, the utility of having Russia join the ISS program increased significantly after the breakup of the Soviet Union, when relations with a new Russia were at the forefront of United States foreign policy. To the extent that a symbol of cooperation with a given nation is valuable, utility will be delivered. As such, Indian participation in joint space exploration would send a strong signal to the world of good U.S.-Indian relations. This would simultaneously increase Indian prestige by demonstrating their technological prowess. Similarly, Chinese participation in joint space exploration would signal growing cooperation between the two nations. The use of the ISS for a partnership between either of these nations would drastically increase its utility to those who support friendly relations. On the other hand, those who oppose closer U.S. relations with India or China are likely to oppose their entrance into the ISS program or into any other joint space exploration program. These diplomatic incentives may come at a cost for the cooperating nations; for example, China would likely have to make concessions in the form of more stringent technology export controls and/or better observance of human rights standards. If space exploration is successfully used as a diplomatic tool to exert such “soft power,” its utility increases in proportion to the degree that it is successful in implementing a policymaker’s agenda. Similarly, the departure of a particular nation (or, if the United States chooses to cease participating, of all nations) will reduce U.S. utility to the extent that the aggregate symbol of cooperation is valued.

60 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – PLAN SPURS CO-OP

“Its” requires the plan to be unilateral – that’s a distinction in the literature Gibbons, former Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, 81 [John H., August, “Solar Power Satellites,” National Space Society, last accessed 6/29/11, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/1981-OTA-SolarPowerSatellites.pdf] TD

There could be important economic and political advantages to developing SPS as a multinational rather than a unilateral system . These include cooperation in establishing legal and regulatory norms, shared risk in financing the R&D and construction costs, improved prospects for global marketing, and forestalling fears of economic domination and military use. Although a multinational effort would face inevitable organizational and political difficulties, the strong potential interest of energy-poor, non-U. S. participants in increased electrical supplies could help make a multinational venture more feasible than a unilateral one by the United States. Global electricity demand may quadruple by 2030, and will be especially strong in developing countries. Western Europe and Japan would be likely partners for a joint project. Depending on the size and expense of the system used, a number of the more rapidly developing but less developed countries might also be interested in participating at lower levels of involvement. The Soviet Union is carrying on an aggressive space program that may give them an independent capacity to develop SPS, but little is known about their long-range space or energy plans. Real or perceived competition with the Soviet Union could spur a U.S. commitment to SPS. The development of fleets of launch and transfer vehicles (for SPS), as well as facilities for living and working in space, would enhance this Nation’s military space capabilities. Such equipment would give the possessor a large breakout potential for rapid deployment of personnel and hardware in time of crisis, though for nonemergency situations the military would prefer to use vehicles designed specifically for military purposes. SPS itself could be used for military purposes, such as electronic warfare or providing energy to military units, but is technically unsuited to constitute an efficient weapon. Weapons-use of SPS would be prohibi ted by current bilateral and mul t i lateral treaties. The satellite portion of SPS is vulnerable to various methods of attack and interference but the likelihood of its being attacked is only Slightly greater than for major terrestrial energy systems. The military effects of SPS will depend largely on the institutional framework within which it is developed; international involvement would tend to reduce the potential for use of SPS by the military sector.

61 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name]

62

***AFF ANSWERS Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] NON-UNIQUE

Relations low now due to Bush technicalities – India won’t cooperate due to autonomy Perkovich, vice president for studies and director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 10 [George, 2010, “TOWARD REALISITC U.S.-INDIA RELATIONS,” Carnegie Endowment, last accessed 6/29/11, http://carnegieendowment.org/files/realistic_us_india_relations.pdf] TD

The Bush administration, building on momentum imparted by its predecessor and by successive Indian governments, sought to “transform” the U.S.–India relationship. Both sides recognized that an alliance was too much to imagine, but they were determined to build a durable strategic partnership that would elevate their bilateral relationship to the top tier of each country’s foreign policy priorities. However, the rhetoric of “transformation” that attended the pathbreaking nuclear cooperation agreement between the two countries inspired unrealistic expectations. It implied a greater convergence of interests and priorities than is realistic. Bush administration officials, in their eagerness, hubris, and preoccupation with balancing Chinese power, tilted in the nuclear deal and in their rhetoric farther to the Indian side than U.S. interests could sustain. They inspired India and built the trust of its elites, but in the manner of someone of ering a deal too good to be true. Indeed, the courtship of the relationship between the early Bush administration and the Vajpayee government was too romanticized to be sustained as a long-term relationship . Inevitably, Bush’s and Vajpayee’s successors would have to settle into a more prosaic relationship that would more realistically rel ect competing priorities and interests. For Washington’s part, expectations, policies, and rhetoric would need to be rebalanced to better rel ect America’s multiple interests and those of the international system it attempts to lead. In searching for a more realistic and sustainable balance, the Obama administration has disappointed India and invited attack from partisans of the Bush approach. Yet India’s “‘nonaligned spirit’ . . . limits the degree to which it can align itself with U.S. foreign policy interests,” according to Kanwal Sibal. “On most strategic issues, Indian and U.S. positions remain apart.” New Delhi and Washington share core interests on policies toward China and Pakistan, but they will dif er on how to pursue them. In global negotiations on trade and climate change, U.S. domestic political and economic considerations impede it from accommodating India’s equitable demands, while on the latter issue India’s short-term priorities threaten its own, and the common, interest. A realistic and balanced strategy would still cherish India. h e United should still act to bolster India’s economic development wherever possible, including by accommodating Indian positions on trade and climate change that are compatible with other major developing countries. The United States should bolster India’s capacity to prevent terrorism, defend its borders, and secure international seaways, reai rming India’s non-aggressive intentions and interest in peaceful relations with China and Pakistan. If, in these domains, and more broadly in policies to address twenty-i rst century international challenges, the United States can advance the ef ectiveness of global governance, it will create a better environment for Indians to make themselves more prosperous and secure. Autonomy is the imperative of Indian political culture and strategy ; leaders in Washington should recognize and respect this without distorting India’s expectations or those of the American political class.

63 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] Obstacles prevent any advancement in US-Indian relations Karl 10 [David J., president of the Asia Strategy Initiative, a consultancy based in Los Angeles. He served as project director of the Task Force on Enhancing India-US Cooperation in the Global Innovation Economy, jointly sponsored by the Pacific Council on International Policy and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, August 31, “U.S.-India relations: problems posed by Afghanistan and Iran,” East Asia Forum, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/08/31/us-india-relations-problems-posed-by-afghanistan-and- iran/] TD

A second concern is the tightening US sanctions against Iran . With New Delhi feeling that the Obama administration has upset its interests in Afghanistan, India is enhancing its relations with Iran due to Indian dependence on Iranian oil resources . The close India-Iran relationship has long troubled Washington . For its part, the Indian government has complained that US sanctions that penalise companies helping the Iranian petroleum sector adversely affect Indian enterprises seeking to develop oil and natural gas fields in Iran. A few days after the sanctions were signed into law by President Obama, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao explained that ties with Tehran are a ‘fundamental component’ of Indian foreign policy and noted there has been a ‘convergence of views’ on important issues. And referring to the new US sanctions, she stressed that sanctions can have direct and adverse impacts on Indian companies and India’s energy security .PJ Crowley, the US State Department spokesman, reacted to Rao’s address by stating that ‘business as usual’ with Iran by America’s friends and partners was no longer acceptable . Afghanistan and Iran will test the nascent US-India strategic entente just as President Obama arrives in New Delhi. What should be an opportunity to articulate the next chapter in the bilateral partnership could well spell out its limits .

64 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] ALT CAUSE TO STABLE RELATIONS

Alt cause to stable relations - U.S. Afghan policy Bajori a 10 [Jayshree, Senior Staff Writer @ CFR, November 8, “A Closer U.S.-India Embrace,” Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/publication/23332/closer_usindia_embrace.html] TD

President Barack Obama wrapped up his three-day visit to India with agreements worth $10 billion in U.S. exports, expected to generate over fifty-three thousand U.S. jobs. He also pleased New Delhi by backing India's long-standing ambition (BBC) for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. In a speech to the joint session of the Indian parliament, he stressed: "India is not simply emerging; India has emerged."High on Obama's agenda was the effort to increase U.S. exports to India. Despite such growing economic ties between the two countries, several obstacles (ForeignPolicy) to trade and investment remain. Obama answered a longstanding Indian demand by eliminating one of those obstacles: He announced relaxed export controls (FT) to India for sensitive technology and removed India's defense and space-related organizations from the U.S. Entity List.He also tried to allay the concerns of Indian businesses on outsourcing. "There still exists a caricature of India as a land of call centers and back-offices that cost American jobs," he said, "but these old stereotypes, these old concerns, ignore today's realities" (Hindu Business Line). Bangalore-based entrepreneur Narayan Ramachandran recommends the United States should concentrate on jobs in which it has a comparative advantage (Livemint), such as nuclear technology, avionics, aircraft manufacturing, and clean technology. While the two governments seem eager to build their alliance, they differ on issues from climate change to an international trade regime. But the biggest challenge to the relationship , says CFR's Adjunct Senior Fellow Evan Feigenbaum, is disagreement over Obama's policies toward Afghanistan and Pakistan. Indian expert C. Raja Mohan writes on ForeignPolicy.com that the challenge for India is to get the "United States to pressure the Pakistani army to end its promotion of extremism in Afghanistan and India." While in Mumbai, Obama conceded Pakistan's progress on countering terrorism was slower than desired and stressed that any peace between India and Pakistan would be a result of their bilateral efforts. The United States "cannot impose a solution to these problems" (AP), Obama said. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ruled out any productive engagement with Islamabad as long as Pakistan's "terror machine is as active as ever before."

65 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] RELATIONS RESILIENT

Relations resilient – too many ties Indo-Asian News Service 10 [June 4, “India, US vow to cooperate on terror,” Indo-Asian News Service, last accessed 7/8/11, Lexis] TD

Washington, June. 4 -- With US President Barack Obama according relations with "responsible global power" India "highest of priorities", the two countries have vowed to work together to meet the challenges of 21st century. Pledging cooperation over a broad spectrum ranging from counter- terrorism to trade, they agreed as strategic partners to "continue to consult each other closely on regional and global developments and remain sensitive to each other's interests." "They confirmed that global institutions of governance should reflect contemporary realities and enhance effectiveness, in order to meet the challenges of the new century," said a joint statement issued after the first ever India-US strategic dialogue. The strategic dialogue had helped lay the groundwork for Obama's visit to India in early November for the fourth substantive bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it said pledging to "intensify discussions on how to further deepen and broaden their cooperation". External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who led the strategic dialogue, expressed their shared view that the dialogue "and the bilateral mechanisms therein provide an important platform for strengthening the US-India partnership, offering a strategic vision for enhanced future cooperation". In addition to advancing global security and stability, both recognized that their two countries had enormous opportunities to deepen their cooperation in trade and investment, science and technology, infrastructure investment, environmental sustainability, climate change mitigation, energy security, education, agriculture, food security, healthcare and empowerment of people, it said. The joint statement noted that Obama "welcomed" the Indian delegation and emphasized his commitment to strengthening the growing US-India partnership. The India-US strategic dialogue "is propelled by the dynamic momentum achieved in the their relationship over the last decade and is in pursuance of the global strategic partnership for a better world" that Manmohan Singh and Obama reaffirmed during their meetings in November 2009 and April 2010 in Washington. Clinton and Krishna also "pledged to deepen people-to-people, business-to-business, and government-to-government linkages between the world's oldest and largest democracies, for the mutual benefit of both countries and for the promotion of global peace, stability, economic growth and prosperity." Both recalled that the "India-US partnership rests on the firm foundation of common ideals as well as security and economic interests," the statement said. "The guiding principles upon which both nations were founded - democracy, mutual respect, individual liberty, rule of law, and an appreciation for the strength we derive from being pluralistic societies - make the India-US bond strong, resilient, and uniquely important for building a peaceful, prosperous, inclusive and sustainable world." The high-powered Indian delegation included Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal, Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Minister of State for Science and Technology Prithviraj Chavan.

Relations resilient – 6 warrants Garretson 10 [Peter A., August, “Sky’s No Limit,” Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, last accessed 6/24/11, http://www.idsa.in/sites/default/files/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf] TD

Despite the concerns of sceptics, the Indo-US strategic partnership seems to rest on very sound fundamentals that are not likely to change over several decades. First, is a shared cultural history in colonialism, with the attendant struggle for freedom, and the important influence of the enlightenment thought, British political organisation, commerce and trade routes and prominence of the English language in matters of science, state-craft and commerce. Second, the significant and growing bilateral trade. Third is the asymmetric but aligned economic needs–where India needs investment today to maintain a high rate of growth for development and cohesion, and the US is looking for high growth places to invest, and places that provide both a market for its own goods and a costcompetitive manufacturing base to manufacture the ideas it conceives and finances. Fourth is the large and politically active diaspora that is actively seeking to build closer ties. Fifth is a shared interest in limiting the damage of those extremists that undermine pluralism and sew extremism and violence. Finally, both wish to take part in the the economic rise of a vibrant Asian market where a normative rule set prevails that allow all members to benefit from the use of global commons and work on collective problems and human security is possible. Within this framework, both nations see the need to make space for and engage China as it evolves as a responsible stakeholder with greater transparency, but to ensure that accommodation takes place respecting important equities of themselves and their neighbours, and is free of any element of coercion. 66 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] IMPACT TURN – CHINESE AGGRESSION [1/2]

Improved US-Indian relations causes dangerous Chinese aggression over border disputes Bidwai 07 [Praful, July, “Ties With China Sour as Alliance With US Grows,” Transnational News, last accessed 6/30/11, http://www.tni.org//archives/act/17111] TD

NEW DELHI, Jul 6 (IPS) - Indian decision-makers are coming under growing pressure to narrow their foreign policy options as New Delhi deepens its "strategic partnership" with Washington. Of particular importance here are India’s complex relations with its giant neighbour, China. Days before the United States sent its aircraft carrier USS Nimitz to southern Chennai port on a high- profile controversial visit meant to underline its strategic proximity with India, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice taunted India on its long-standing policy of non-alignment. Rice told a meeting of the U.S.-India Business Council in Washington: Non-alignment may have "made sense during the Cold War when the world really was divided into rival camps", but has now "lost its meaning"; the time has come for India to "move past old ways of thinking". "Underlying the message was a broader hint", says Srikanth Kondapalli, from the Centre for East Asian Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University. "The hint is that India must pursue the logic of its growing strategic closeness with the U.S. and severely reorder its entire general foreign policy orientation in line with Washington’s priorities." "Rice’s speech was an attempt to ideologically wean India away from China and their combined past of Afro-Asian solidarity. Coupled with recent U.S. actions, it could drive a wedge in Sino-Indian relations,’’ Kondapalli said. India’s foreign ministry reacted to Rice’s statement by asserting that as a founding member of the Non- Aligned Movement, India is still committed to it; non-alignment remains relevant "in promoting South- South cooperation and the democratisation of the international system." However, the deeper implications of Rice’s statement were not lost on New Delhi as it struggles to manage its relationship with China, which is souring thanks to India’s growing proximity with the U.S. "In recent years, China has felt increasingly upset at India’s growing closeness to the U.S. and its staunchest Asia-Oceanic allies, Japan and Australia", says Kondapalli. " This resentment , coupled with certain domestic factors, have taken the form of Beijing laying a claim to Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian state bordering Tibet, with an area of 84,000 sq km." The most dramatic recent consequence of this assertion was the cancellation of a confidence-building visit to China by Indian civil servants undergoing a training programme. Beijing refused to issue a visa to one of the 107 members of the group because he is from Arunachal, which Beijing says belongs to China. Although this crisis was relatively minor, it revived tensions between India and China over their rival territorial claims, which were thought to have been on the way to a settlement after a quarter- century of talks. India and China fought a war in 1962 over claims on Arunachal Pradesh in India’s northeast, and Aksai Chin, a high-altitude desert near Jammu and Kashmir. The war resulted in a humiliating defeat for India, which is still recalled with rancour. But relations have since improved. The two governments signed a number of agreements in the 1990s, including one on peace and tranquillity along the border and on demilitarisation of parts of it. In 2005, they also agreed to "guiding principles" for a border settlement. India-China trade has grown at an impressive annual rate of 45 percent since 2000 and clocked 26 billion US dollars last year. "However, there is a growing danger that these recent gains will be undone", says Achin Vanaik, professor of international relations and global politics at Delhi University. "That will be a huge setback and raise the price that India pays for courting the U.S.”

67 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] IMPACT TURN – CHINESE AGGRESSION [2/2]

Rising tensions will result in Sino-Indian nuclear war – we outweigh on timeframe, magnitude, and probability Kahn 09 [Jeremy, Masters Degree in IR from London School of Economics and freelance journalist based in New Delhi, October 10, “Why India Fears China,” Newsweek, last accessed 6/30/11, http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/09/why-india-fears-china.html] TD

China claims some 90,000 square kilometers of Indian territory. And most of those claims are tangled up with Tibet. Large swaths of India's northern mountains were once part of Tibet. Other stretches belonged to semi-independent kingdoms that paid fealty to Lhasa. Because Beijing now claims Tibet as part of China, it has by extension sought to claim parts of India that it sees as historically Tibetan, a claim that has become increasingly flammable in recent months. Ever since the anti-Chinese unrest in Tibet last year, progress toward settling the border dispute has stalled, and the situation has taken a dangerous turn. The emergence of videos showing Tibetans beating up Han Chinese shopkeepers in Lhasa and other Tibetan cities created immense domestic pressure on Beijing to crack down. The Communist Party leadership worries that agitation by Tibetans will only encourage unrest by the country's other ethnic minorities, such as Uighurs in Xinjiang or ethnic Mongolians in Inner Mongolia, threatening China's integrity as a nation. Susan Shirk, a former Clinton-administration official and expert on China, says that "in the past, Taiwan was the 'core issue of sovereignty,' as they call it, and Tibet was not very salient to the public." Now, says Shirk, Tibet is considered a "core issue of national sovereignty" on par with Taiwan. The implications for India's security— and the world's— are ominous . It turns what was once an obscure argument over lines on a 1914 map and some barren, rocky peaks hardly worth fighting over into a flash point that could spark a war between two nuclear-armed neighbors. And that makes the India-China border dispute into an issue of concern to far more than just the two parties involved. The United States and Europe as well as the rest of Asia ought to take notice—a conflict involving India and China could result in a nuclear exchange. And it could suck the West in—either as an ally in the defense of Asian democracy, as in the case of Taiwan, or as a mediator trying to separate the two sides. Beijing appears increasingly concerned about the safe haven India provides to the Dalai Lama and to tens of thousands of Tibetan exiles, including increasingly militant supporters of Tibetan independence. These younger Tibetans, many born outside Tibet, are growing impatient with the Dalai Lama's "middle way" approach—a willingness to accept Chinese sovereignty in return for true autonomy—and commitment to nonviolence. If these groups were to use India as a base for armed insurrection against China, as Tibetan exiles did throughout the 1960s, then China might retaliate against India. By force or demand, Beijing might also seek to gain possession of important Tibetan Buddhist monasteries that lie in Indian territory close to the border. Both politically and culturally, these monasteries are seen as key nodes in the Tibetan resistance to Chinese authority. Already Beijing has launched a diplomatic offensive aimed at undercutting Indian sovereignty over the areas China claims , particularly the northeast state of Arunachal Pradesh and one of its key cities, Tawang, birthplace of the sixth Dalai Lama in the 17th century and home to several important Tibetan monasteries. Tibet ceded Tawang and the area around it to British India in 1914. China has recently denied visas to the state's residents; lodged a formal complaint after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited the state in 2008; and tried to block a $2.9 billion Asian Development Bank loan to India because some of the money was earmarked for an irrigation project in the state. All these moves are best understood in the context of China's recent troubles in Tibet, with Beijing increasingly concerned that any acceptance of the 1914 border will amount to an implicit acknowledgment that Tibet was once independent of China—a serious blow to the legitimacy of China's control over the region and potentially other minority areas as well. The reports of Chinese incursions can be read as a signal that it is deadly serious about its territorial claims. The exact border has never been mutually agreed on—meaning one side's incursion is another side's routine patrol— but the Chinese have clearly stepped up their activity along the frontier. The Indian military reported a record 270 Chinese border violations last year—nearly double the figure from the year before and more than three times the number of incidents in 2006, says Brahma Chellaney, an expert in strategic studies at New Delhi's Centre for Policy Research, an independent think tank. Noting that there was a reported incursion nearly every day this summer, Chellaney says this amounts to "a pattern of Chinese belligerence." In June the People's Daily criticized recent moves by India to strengthen its border defenses and declared: "China will not make any compromises in its border disputes with India." It asked if India had properly weighed "the consequences of a potential confrontation with China."

68 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] INTERNAL LINK TURN

Turn—US-Indian space cooperation spurs Chinese aggression – hegemonic checks Brown 09 [Peter J, August 7, “India and US build stronger ties in space,” Asia Times, last accessed 6/29/11, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KH07Df02.html] TD

Greater India-US cooperation in space will likely intensify the competition between India and China over the coming years. If India's space sector suddenly surges ahead as a result, this will do more than lightly annoy Beijing. "[While] high-technology trade and interaction with the US has an inherent sensitivity and strategic component built into it, it [also] signals that Washington is keen to expand and deepen its strategic ties with India ," said Gupta. "And further, to the extent that Beijing remains under de facto high-technology embargoes initiated by the West, [ US space cooperation with India] signals that strategic cooperation in highly sensitive sectors continues, at minimum, to remain weighted against Chinese interests."

And, US-Indian cooperation causes Chinese aggression – encroachment and balancing Twining 10 [Dan, a senior fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund, November 12, “Are U.S.-India relations oversold?,” Foreign Policy, last accessed 6/29/11, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/12/are_us_india_relations_oversold] TD

In brief, Perkovich argues for a more "realistic" Indo-U.S. relationship that treats India in many ways as the impoverished, non-aligned, defensive, and even hostile country it once was. India does not want to be an Asian balancer, the report maintains ; alleged U.S. efforts to maneuver India into position as a counterweight to China will only create discord between Asia's giants and upset China's peaceful rise. Indian and U.S. interests diverge on a host of important issues, from climate change to Iran . The best thing India can do for the world is not partner with the United States to fuel its rise and shape an international system tilted toward freedom, but instead to make its own economy an example for other developing powers. The United States' embrace of India is actually detrimental (for instance, by alienating China and Pakistan, or by upending the established global nuclear order) or only marginally useful. By this logic, both countries therefore should scale back their visions for global partnership, and Washington should invest more in relations with Beijing and other emerging powers rather than lavish such policy attention on India. At the end of the day, India will set its own course, often in ways that do not align with U.S. interests -- and Americans will need to live with that.

69 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] NORMAL MEANS

Normal means is that we will share info with other countries even if the SSP is strictly a US project Flournoy 10 [Don, professor and editor of the Online Journal of Space Communication (www.spacejournal.org) at Ohio University, September 13, “Why Not Space Solar Power?,” Space News, last accessed 6/28/11, http://spacenews.com/commentaries/100913why-not-space-solar- power.html] TD

The 2010 U.S. National Space Policy, which supports a robust and competitive commercial space sector, is good news for those of us working to design and launch the new types of satellites that will collect solar energy in space and deliver it to Earth as a nonpolluting source of electrical power. Among the goals of President Barack Obama’s National Space Policy is expansion of international cooperation on mutually beneficial space activities to “broaden and extend the benefits of space” and “further the peaceful use of space.” As members of the National Space Society, the Society of Satellite Professionals International and the Space Energy Group, we believe space, as a shared resource, can best be explored and developed by a partnership of nations and businesses working together. Since acquiring clean and abundant energy is a common requirement for economic growth and an eventual necessity for the health of all societies, harvesting space solar power is a logical human endeavor when the high frontier is precisely where energy is most plentiful. But achieving success doing large-scale commercial innovation in outer space requires long-range planning, pooling of financial resources, sharing of knowledge and expertise, and the careful framing of a way forward that will earn and sustain the public trust .

Normal means is international cooperation Griffin 07 [Michael D., NASA Administrator, October 29, “Space Exploration: A Measure of American Competitiveness,” The Chicago Council on Global Affaris, last accessed 6/27/11, spaceflight.nasa.gov/outreach/Chicago_Council_on_Global_Affairs.pdf] TD

Today, we collaborate with the Russia, Europe, Japan, China, India, and many other countries in space exploration. In fact, over half of NASA’s robotic science missions, ranging from Earth science, heliophysics (or the study of the Sun’s effects on planet Earth), planetary missions, and NASA’s great astrophysical observatories, involve international partnerships.

Plan is consistent with initiative model which has the USFG fund the overall research agenda but distribution allows cooperation with India Garretson 10 – , Peter, Lieutenant Colonel USAF National Space Society Board of Directors (“Sky’s No Limit: Space Based Solar Power The Next Step in the Indo-U.S. Strategic Partnership?”, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf) D.R.

. A bilateral programme is likely to enjoy the best support if kept at the highest level. A higher level direction will also allow the leveraging of the talents and capabilities of multiple agencies.75 Figure 2 Proposed Model Chapter 577 Sky’s No Limit In the proposed model, there is an enabling government policy followed by three consecutive stages or tiers of value producing activity. Certain specified criterion of success is required for graduation to the larger investment in the subsequent stage. This maximises interim gain and minimises risk and cost. Stage 0: Framework An enabling bilateral framework is created to provide high level s a n c t i o n , 1 resourcing, and organisation. The components of this framework are: Inclusion of the goal of realising the potential of green 24-hour energy from space in a joint statement. An enabling information exchange agreement An enabling project agreement An organisational framework for collaboration If there is a desire to pursue simultaneous development of lowcost access to orbit, then the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) assurance document must also be signed Stage 1: Technology Initiative and Workforce Development. The goal of Stage 1 is to stimulate the technology base, push key enabling technologies and create a supporting work force and technical base. This stage would seek to broadly involve respective government a g enc i e s and l abs , uni v e r s i t i e s , and dome s t i c and mu l t i -na t iona l corporations. Organisation and Functioning of Stage 1: Due to the broad and interdisciplinary nature of the project, it is desirable to make use of the entire tech base of both nations. Therefore, the researcher has selected what is called a project or initiative model in the US and what is called a technology mission in the Indian context. In each, a central agency directs an overall

70 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] research agenda and distributes funds to a number of different providers to reduce risk and cultivate expertise.

71 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] MILITARIZATION LINK TURN

Turn—India desires BMD development Srivastava 11 [Siddharth, New-Dehli based journalist, April 16, “ India hones its missile shield,” Asia Times, last accessed 7/8/11, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MD16Df01.html] TD

"Our BMD program has matured, and it is really ready now for integration into the air defense assets of the country. India is next only to the US, Russia, France and Israel, which have the BMD capability," said V K Saraswat, scientific adviser to the defense minister and also the head of the apex state-run Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) that is coordinating the effort. In a statement, the DRDO said that the test "was a copybook launch and all events and mission sequence took place as expected". Earlier, the DRDO said that it would have Phase-I missiles of the BMD system, capable of neutralizing 2,000-km range missiles, ready for deployment by 2011- 12. Phase-II will look to thwart threats from missiles up to 5,000 km, particularly from China. Over the past few years, India has conducted "exo-" and "endo-atmospheric" missile interceptor tests even as threat perceptions with China and Pakistan have gone up. The first test was held in November 2006, when an exo-atmospheric hypersonic interceptor missile successfully destroyed an incoming missile at an altitude of around 40-50 km, demonstrating a BMD capability similar to the Israeli Arrow-2 system. The second test, similar to the American Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) system, was held in December 2007, wherein an "endo-atmospheric" interceptor successfully took on the "enemy" missile at a 15-km altitude. However, in the context of China test-firing in space, India has also made it apparent that it is open to extending the BMD program to space. "Our country does not have a policy to attack anybody in space. But as part of the BMD program, we have all the technology elements required to integrate a system through which we can defend our satellites or take care of future requirements," Saraswat recently said. In a parliamentary statement clarifying its position on the militarization of space, New Delhi has said, "India is strongly opposed to any attempt to place weapons in space or conducting any unconventional weapons tests in space as it would pose a perennial threat to all space systems regardless of their use for civilian or military purposes." Yet, given the different security and strategic realities, India has also been seeking out foreign powers for BMD expertise to fine- tune its own efforts. This is also in the context of the DRDO's dubious achievement and delayed delivery record in developing indigenous weapons. Observers agree that international expertise will enhance India's BMD abilities and hasten the program.

72 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – SQUO SOLVES

India will never cooperate with the US – self-interest Twining 10 [Dan, a senior fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund, November 12, “Are U.S.-India relations oversold?,” Foreign Policy, last accessed 6/29/11, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/12/are_us_india_relations_oversold] TD

In brief, Perkovich argues for a more "realistic" Indo-U.S. relationship that treats India in many ways as the impoverished, non-aligned, defensive, and even hostile country it once was. India does not want to be an Asian balancer, the report maintains; alleged U.S. efforts to maneuver India into position as a counterweight to China will only create discord between Asia's giants and upset China's peaceful rise. Indian and U.S. interests diverge on a host of important issues, from climate change to Iran. The best thing India can do for the world is not partner with the United States to fuel its rise and shape an international system tilted toward freedom, but instead to make its own economy an example for other developing powers. The United States' embrace of India is actually detrimental (for instance, by alienating China and Pakistan, or by upending the established global nuclear order) or only marginally useful . By this logic, both countries therefore should scale back their visions for global partnership, and Washington should invest more in relations with Beijing and other emerging powers rather than lavish such policy attention on India. At the end of the day, India will set its own course, often in ways that do not align with U.S. interests -- and Americans will need to live with that .

73 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – COOPERATION KEY

Unilateralism causes bandwagoning and increases US leadership Hayden, USAF Colonel, 04 [Dale L., April, “THE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE AND ITS IMPACT ON U.S. NATIONAL SPACE POLICY,” Airpower Research Institute, last accessed 6/23/11, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cadre/ari_2004-01.pdf] TD

America also has a long history of unilateral action. Where American interests are at stake, the U.S. has shown a willingness to go it alone, dating back to the negotiations for independence from Britain, the attack on the Barbary pirates in 1805, the capture of the American Southwest from Mexico and the Philippines from Spain, through and beyond the Cold War with action in Granada, Panama and Haiti. Out of the American Western experience and its own Civil War came an approach to how it viewed the world. Stories of the exploits of Daniel Boone, Davy Crocket, and Abraham Lincoln came the deeply held belief that individual action could make a difference. Protected by two oceans, American foreign policy was essentially isolationist in nature through most of its history. Despite involvement in World War I, American foreign policy reverted to its pre-war stance shortly following the end of hostilities, exhibited by the failure to join the League of Nations. Following World War II, the United States seemed ready to step forward and embrace its newfound role on the international scene as it led the world in founding the United Nations. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman projected an understanding that American interests were best served by fashioning an international system that would promote the rule of law, conflict resolution, and standards of social justice. The emergence of the Cold War, however, immediately hindered the U.S. movement toward a vision of internationalism, leading to a world centered around two armed camps. With the end of the Cold War, many Americans again doubted the benefit of international engagement, as it refused to pay its arrears to the United Nations, refused to ratify key international conventions, came forward with a series of unilateral sanctions against countries with which it disagreed (e.g., Cuba and the Helms-Burton Act), and politicians like isolationist Ross Perot and Patrick Buchanan gained national followings. Moving contrary to international opinion on the Kyoto Protocol, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treat, the International Criminal Court, and the Biological Weapons Convention, many could conclude that unilateralism will be the American foreign policy signature of the twenty-first century.5 Many Americans have long mistrusted the United Nations and other such organizations for their lethargy and inability to make a difference, pointing to actions like those in Bosnia and Kosovo where it has been American troops that ensured peace. In the 2000 presidential elections, George W. Bush ran on a platform denouncing nation building, something some Americans described as a wasted effort in a world that does not appreciate what they did during World Wars I and II, much less today. Unilateral action can provide results favorable to U.S. national interests; the capture of Manuel Noriega during the invasion of Panama under President Bush and regime change in Haiti under President Clinton are but two examples. Policymakers have also seen that when America acts unilaterally, critics often follow. While few European nations supported the U.S. decision to move forward with a missile defense system, many European aerospace companies seeking ways to grow in tough economic times, are now pressing their governments to show interest in an initial missile defense system. Some firms have also secured their governments’ approval to begin exploratory talks with Boeing Corporation on a possible European role in the U.S. missile defense effort. Philippe Couillard, president of European Aeronautic, Defence and Space Company Launch Vehicles, Les Mureaux, which makes ballistic missiles and Ariane rocket segments, acknowledged that missile defense is one of several space-based defense efforts that European governments cannot ignore indefinitely.6 In the arena of space operations, the U.S. has also exhibited a propensity to act unilaterally. In the post-World War II environment, it was easy for policymakers to justify the “us versus them” approach. American pride and national interests were at stake as President John F. Kennedy proclaimed in 1961 that the U.S. would have a man on the moon before the end of the decade, never mind a U.S. astronaut had not yet orbited the earth. It was no mistake that the U.S. space program was a unilateral effort and that only Americans have ever walked on the moon. Will America choose to go it alone in space operations as it did during the Cold War? The signals are mixed with Boeing and Lockheed-Martin having developed their next generation commercial boosters principally without foreign involvement; a trend also exhibited among other space-faring nations, while increasing international cooperation exists with the International Space Station. Policymakers must determine if unilateral action, which preserves American sovereignty and which makes possible rapid independent response to any given threat , is the most appropriate model in a global society with an increasing number of international organizations and interdependency.

74 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – SOLVES SATELLITES ***don’t read this if you are reading a link turn…THAT WOULD BE A DOUBLE TURN

Cooperation with India allows for unrestrained space race by other nations to use Indian launches Speier 05 [Richard, private consultant on nonproliferation and counterproliferation issues, “U.S. SATELLITE SPACE LAUNCH COOPERATION AND INDIA’S INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE PROGRAM,” National Policy Education Center, last accessed 6/24/11, http://www.npolicy.org/userfiles/image/s%20ICBM%20Program_pdf.pdf] TD

Do not assist India’s space launch programs. The United States should not cooperate either with India’s space launches or with satellites that India will launch. India hopes that satellite launches will earn revenues that will accelerate its space program—including rocket development. U.S. payloads for Indian launches—such as the envisioned cooperative lunar project—risk technology transfer (see recommendation #3) and invite other nations to be less restrained in their use of Indian launches.• The United States should resume discouraging 206other nations from using Indian launches, while encouraging India to resume the practice of launching satellites on other nations’ space launch vehicles.• Given the frequent reports of Russian cryogenic rockets being used in the Surya, the United States should work with Russia to ensure that Russian space cooperation with India does not undercut U.S. restraint.• Because there is no meaningful distinction between India’s civilian and military rocket programs, the United States should explicitly or de facto place ISRO back on the “entities” list of destinations that require export licenses. • Congress should insist that the United States explain its “red lines” regarding space cooperation with India. If these lines are not drawn tightly enough, Congress should intervene.

75 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – DEMOCRACY IMPACT

India persistently refuses to assist the US in the spread of democracy – imperialism Perkovich, vice president for studies and director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 10 [George, 2010, “TOWARD REALISITC U.S.-INDIA RELATIONS,” Carnegie Endowment, last accessed 6/29/11, http://carnegieendowment.org/files/realistic_us_india_relations.pdf] TD

Yet, while India’s democratic character is intrinsically of tremendous value, it serves little instrumental purpose for U.S. interests. The United States traditionally proselytizes democracy around the world and would very much welcome the credibility that Indian leaders could give it in developing countries if they teamed up. But Indian leaders do not try to convert others to democracy. Promoting democracy is too redolent of the missionary colonialism that Indians still culturally resist, and it is anathema to the state sovereignty that India still prioritizes. India’s admirable long-term struggle to perfect its own democracy is the most important contribution it can make to the larger cause of democracy promotion around the world. Washington should not disappoint itself by trying to enlist India in larger American projects to reform the world.

76 Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name] [Name] AT – SPACE DEBRIS IMPACT

More space launches will increase debris—since the neg defends the squo which allows for sat launches proves that their impact is inevitable Imburgia 11{Lieutenant Colonel Joseph S. Imburgia, (B.S., United States Air Force Academy (1994); J.D., University of Tennessee College of Law (2002); LL.M., The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center & School, U.S. Army, Charlottesville, Va. (2009)) is a Judge Advocate in the United States Air Force and is presently assigned as a legal exchange officer to the Directorate of Operations and International Law, Defence Legal, Australian Defence Force, Canberra, Australia. He is a member of the Tennessee and the Supreme Court of the United States bars, and he is a member of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law. Prior to becoming a Judge Advocate, Lieutenant Colonel Imburgia was a Targeting Officer, United States Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., “ Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the Junk”, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F %2Flaw.vanderbilt.edu%2Fpublications%2Fjournal-of-transnational-law%2Fdownload.aspx%3Fid %3D6574&rct=j&q=Joseph%20S.%20Imburgia%20is%20usaf%20University%20of%20Tennessee %20College%20of %20Law&ei=m9wITqmzFsfV0QHt4KnbCw&usg=AFQjCNEglOEqH_3OfmcbgE6HXwiHKrBz8g&sig2=NR XHp8brVZYLKQSpoUqqFA&cad=rja}RC

This ASAT mission, however, was not the United States’ first. Although most of America’s space debris “comes from the upper stages of [satellite] launch vehicle s,”123 until 2002, the United States was also responsible for over 250 pieces of space debris, ten centimeters or larger, that it created during a 1985 ASAT test.124

All space missions produce debris West et. al 8{Jessica, Dr. Wade Huntley, Dr. Ram Jakhu, Dr. William Marshall, Andrew Shore, John Siebert, Dr. Ray Williamson, “Space Security 2008”, http://www.spacesecurity.org/SSI2008.pdf”) RC

All space missions inevitably create space debris — rocket booster stages are expended and released to drift in space and exhaust products are created

Satellites produce space debris David, National Space Club Press Award, 9 [Leonard, Space News, http://www.spacenews.com/civil/orbital-debris-cleanup-takes-center-stage.html, 9/25] JS

Adding to the problem is the proliferation of tiny satellites , such as cubesats. “ These little satellites, while they are neat, while they are cheap, while they do great stuff … they are increasing orbital debris — and it’s uncontrolled orbital debris,” said John Lyver, an orbital debris expert in NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance in Washington. Joseph Rouge, director of the Pentagon’s National Security Space Office, said a debate is under way as to when the point will be reached that there are so many collisions between space junk that incidents grow exponentially — a phenomenon referred to as collisional cascading.

77

Load more

  77

Copy Link