• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

UTD - 2010 1

He 3 - Master UNT

***HELIUM 3 AFF- SCHOLARS ...... 2

***NEUTRON DETECTION / TERROR ADV*** ...... 14 Terror ADV - UQ...... 15 Terror ADV – He3 Key...... 20 No end to the shortage is in sight...... 22 Terror ADV – Impacts...... 24 AT: Won’t Use Nukes...... 25 He3 k2 Prolif...... 26 He3 K2 Oil Detection...... 27

***Hegemony (China)*** ...... 27 China ADV – XT – Space Race UQ...... 28 XT – Moon = Space Weapons...... 33 China ADV – UQ – US Losing...... 35 China UQ - Space Weapons Inevitable...... 38 China ADV – Weaponization = Conflict...... 39 China ADV – Cooperation Key...... 41 China ADV – REE...... 43 Moon k2 Hegemony...... 46 Moon Race = Escalation...... 51 Russia UQ – He3...... 53

***Warming*** ...... 55 Warming ADV – 1AC...... 56 Warming ADV – UQ...... 59 Warming ADV – He3 Solves...... 62 Warming ADV - Impacts...... 67

***Energy DEPENDENCE*** ...... 71

***India ADV – 1AC*** ...... 73

***Nuke Waste Add-On*** ...... 77

***Space EXPLO / Mars*** ...... 78

***Overview*** ...... 82

***Economy*** ...... 83

***Solvency*** ...... 83 XT – Property Rights / Legal Regime Key...... 84 XT – Cooperation Key...... 89 AT: China Says No...... 95 A2: US Appropriating Land Illegal...... 96 A2: Breaks Outer Space Treaty...... 99 AT: No Launch Vehicle...... 100 ***Feasibility...... 102 UTD - 2010 2

Moon Mining...... 103 He3 k2 Fusion...... 106 Fusion Possible...... 109 ***AT: Private***...... 114 ***Politics***...... 116 POLITICAL CAPITAL LOW...... 117 POLITICAL CAPITAL HIGH...... 119 NASA K2 POLITICAL CAPITAL...... 120 MOON MINING UNPOPULAR...... 121 MOON MINING POPULAR...... 122 GOP HATES PLAN...... 123 GOP LOVES PLAN...... 124 Moon Unpopular...... 125 McCaul Scenario...... 126 ***NEG***...... 128 AT: Terrorists Getting Nukes...... 129 AT: Fusion Feasible...... 131 AT: Russian Moon Mining...... 134 AT: GW ADV – 1NC...... 136 XT – No Global Warming Now...... 138 XT – Solving Global Warming...... 139 AT: China Adv...... 140 XT—China Cooperation Now...... 141 XT-China Peaceful...... 142 AT: Russia Adv...... 143 XT: Russia Cooperation High...... 144 Russia Link...... 146 Investors Link...... 147 OST CP...... 148 UQ - Space Race – US Win...... 149

Advantage One – Neutron Detection

A. Terrorism

Supplies of Helium 3 are diminishing and its key to global nuclear detection – no other alternative is as reliable. Wald 9 [MATTHEW L. WALD, November 24, 2009, Matthew L. Wald is a reporter at The New York Times, where he has been writing about energy topics for 30 years. Matt has been in the paper’s Washington Bureau since 1995, and has toured more than two dozen power reactors and research reactors, he wrote extensively about the production of materials for nuclear weapons, He holds a B.A. in Urban Studies from Brown University, The International Herald Tribune, “Shortage of ingredient mires bomb detection; Supply of helium 3 has shrunk, rendering new machines unusable,” LexisNexis, LS] The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has spent $230 million to develop better technology for detecting smuggled nuclear bombs but has had to stop deploying the new machines because the United States has run out of a crucial raw material, experts say. The ingredient is helium 3, an unusual form of the element that is formed when tritium, an ingredient of hydrogen bombs, decays. But the government mostly stopped making tritium in 1989. ''I have not heard any explanation of why this was not entirely foreseeable,'' said Representative Brad Miller, Democrat of North Carolina, who is the chairman of a House subcommittee that is investigating the problem. An official from the Homeland Security Department testified last week before Mr.

***HELIUM 3 AFF- SCHOLARS UTD - 2010 3

Miller's panel, the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, that demand for helium 3 appeared to be 10 times the supply. Some government agencies, Mr. Miller said, did anticipate a crisis, but the Homeland Security Department appears not to have gotten the message. The department had planned a worldwide network using the new detectors, which were supposed to detect plutonium or uranium in shipping containers. The government wanted 1,300 to 1,400 machines, which cost $800,000 each, for use in ports around the world to thwart terrorists who might try to deliver a nuclear bomb to a big American city by stashing it in one of the millions of containers that enter the United States every year. At the White House, Steve Fetter, an assistant director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the helium 3 problem was short-term because other technologies would be developed. But, he said, while the government had a large surplus of helium 3 at the end of the Cold War, ''people should have been aware that this was a one-time windfall and was not sustainable.'' Helium 3 is not hazardous or even chemically reactive, and it is not the only material that can be used for neutron detection. The Homeland Security Department has older equipment that can look for radioactivity, but it does not differentiate well between bomb fuel and innocuous materials that naturally emit radiation - like cat litter, ceramic tiles and bananas - and sounds false alarms more often. Earlier this year, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, part of the U.S. Energy Department, said in a report, ''No other currently available detection technology offers the stability, sensitivity and gamma/neutron discrimination'' of detectors using helium 3. Helium 3 is used to detect neutrons, the subatomic particles that sustain the chain reaction in a bomb or a reactor. Plutonium, the favorite bomb-making material of most governments with nuclear weapons, intermittently gives off neutrons, which are harder for a smuggler to hide than other forms of radiation. The declining supply is also needed for physics research and medical diagnostics. Mr. Miller estimated that demand for helium 3 was about 65,000 liters per year through 2013 and that total production by the only two countries that produce it in usable form, the United States and Russia, was only about 20,000 liters .

He3 is foreign to Earth – only mining the moon can solve. Hurtack 2004 (Timothy J.; April 8; English 202c – Section 3 “Helium 3 Fusion and the Development of the Moon” https://www.courses.psu.edu/engl/engl202c_jck14/engineers/timrpt.pdf) As the world’s natural energy supply diminishes, researchers have been looking for new source of clean energy. Helium 3 seems to be the answer. The substance is almost foreign to Earth; however the Sun produces it in large quantities in a natural fusion reaction. The Helium 3 could be transported to Earth and used in a nuclear reaction that produces no radiation or radioactive waste. The only bi-product is oxygen and water. The technology is not advanced enough to make Helium 3 a plausible alternative yet, but new techniques are improving its efficiency every year. Once the technology has developed into a sustaining energy producer, many see Helium 3 as the perfect answer to the world’s future energy needs. Introduction Energy is the driving force behind the Industrialized United States. Coal, petroleum, and natural gas power the industries that drive America. Oil has become a key issue in world affairs, especially after the second war with Iraq. Alternative energy sources have been sought after for the last 30 years, first being fueled by the depletion of coal. During the space race with the Soviets, U.S. astronauts brought back samples of moon rocks that were found to contain the gas Helium 3. Helium 3 research falls in the middle of space colonization, the fight between superpowers for control over special resources. Helium 3 research came to the forefront in 1988 at a convention held by NASA in conjunction with University of Wisconsin-Madison. Helium 3 is significant because it only has 1 neutron instead of two neutrons found in regular Helium. This absence of one Helium 3 Fusion 3 neutron makes the isotope very volatile in a fusion reaction. Scientists discovered Helium 3 in 1939, and astronauts found in on the Moon in 1969. It wasn’t until 1986 that the fusion scientists stumbled across the isotope lunar geologists had been studying for almost twenty years. The unique chemical properties of Helium 3 make it an ideal substance for nuclear fusion because it produces nearly zero radiation. The fusion reaction of Helium 3 has an efficiency of about 80 percent when it is converted into energy. This efficiency is much greater that current hydrogen fusion reactions that also produce large quantities of radiation. Helium 3 is created in large quantities by the sun. In its core, the sun’s huge gravitational pull creates a natural fusion chamber that creates regular Helium into its valuable isotope Helium 3. Standard Helium contains 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Helium 3 still contains 2 protons but loses one of its neutrons. The sun naturally produces the isotope and is propelled into space. Solar winds have been carrying Helium 3 throughout the solar system since the birth of the Sun. These solar winds have been depositing Helium 3 in the soils of the Moon for almost the same amount of time. Scientists have been using satellite technology to begin mapping the lunar surface to UTD - 2010 4

find the large deposits of Helium 3 that are present. Helium 3 fusion reactions produce extreme amounts of energy that can be converted into electricity. Quantities of Helium 3 have been estimated by K. Kulcinski at around 1,100,000 metric tones. Only 30 tons of Helium 3 gas will produce enough energy to power the entire country for an entire year. With new deposits of Helium 3 being dumped on the Moon from solar winds, the supply of Helium 3 would virtually be endless.

Terrorism ensures extinction Dennis Ray Morgan 9, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin Campus - South Korea, Futures, Volume 41, Issue 10, December 2009, Pages 683-693

Years later, in 1982, at the height of the Cold War, Jonathon Schell, in a very stark and horrific portrait, depicted sweeping, bleak global scenarios of total nuclear destruction. Schell’s work, The Fate of the Earth [8] represents one of the gravest warnings to humankind ever given. The possibility of complete annihilation of humankind is not out of the question as long as these death bombs exist as symbols of national power. As Schell relates, the power of destruction is now not just thousands of times as that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; now it stands at more than one and a half million times as powerful, more than fifty times enough to wipe out all of human civilization and much of the rest of life along with it [8]. In Crucial Questions about the Future, Allen Tough cites that Schell’s monumental work, which ‘‘eradicated the ignorance and denial in many of us,’’ was confirmed by ‘‘subsequent scientific work on nuclear winter and other possible effects: humans really could be completely devastated. Our human species really could become extinct.’’ [9]. Tough estimated the chance of human self-destruction due to nuclear war as one in ten. He comments that few daredevils or high rollers would take such a risk with so much at stake, and yet ‘‘human civilization is remarkably casual about its high risk of dying out completely if it continues on its present path for another 40 years’’ [9]. What a precarious foundation of power the world rests upon. The basis of much of the military power in the developed world is nuclear. It is the reigning symbol of global power, the basis, – albeit, unspoken or else barely whispered – by which powerful countries subtly assert aggressive intentions and ambitions for hegemony, though masked by ‘‘diplomacy’’ and ‘‘negotiations,’’ and yet this basis is not as stable as most believe it to be. In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ‘‘Is Nuclear War Inevitable??’’ [10].4 In Section 1, Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, they’ve figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out , all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian ‘‘dead hand’’ system, ‘‘where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed,’’ it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States’’ [10]. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise , stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack , whether from terrorists or a nation state, i t would retaliate with the suicidal ‘‘ S amson option’’ against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East . Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even ‘‘anti-Semitic’’ European cities [10]. In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate , and th e U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads , many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere . Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any accident, mistaken communication, false signal or ‘‘lone wolf’ act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each country would act under the ‘‘use them or lose them’’ strategy and psychology; restraint by one power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity to ‘‘win’’ the war. In otherwords, once Pandora’s Box is UTD - 2010 5

opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, ‘‘everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to satisfy elites’ needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek selfdetermination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors’’ [10]. In other words, as long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used, it is very likely thatmany, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter. B. Proliferation

Helium 3 is key to IAEA inspections and preventing proliferation. Anderson 10 [Thomas Anderson, April 22, 2010, Product Line Leader GE Energy and Reuter Stokes Radiation Measurement Solutions , Written Testimony of Thomas R. Anderson, Before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on “Caught by Surprise: Causes and Consequences of the Helium-3 Supply Crisis,” http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/042210_Anderson.pdf, LS] Oil and Gas Helium-3 neutron detectors are also widely used in oil and gas exploration. These detectors are used in conjunction with a neutron source to locate hydrogenous materials such as oil, natural gas, and water. Neutron measurements in conjunction with inputs from other drill string instruments are used to locate hydrocarbon reservoirs during drilling, and to further delineate the reservoirs during logging operations. The overwhelming majority of nuclear porosity tools used in the oil and gas industry today depend on the unique properties of Helium-3 neutron detectors. Helium-3 neutron detectors have high neutron sensitivity, which enables them to be packaged to fit inside the tool string. The excellent gamma discrimination characteristic of Helium-3 means that background gamma radiation levels do not interfere with the accuracy of the neutron measurements. These detectors must also operate reliably and survive at temperatures up to 200°C under severe vibration and shock levels up to 1,000 times the force of gravity. It is likely that without Helium-3, exploration for new reserves, development drilling of existing fields, and logging of both new and existing wells will be severely curtailed until an alternative technology is developed. Homeland Security The demand for Helium-3 neutron detectors has increased significantly since 9/11. Helium-3 is used as a neutron detector technology throughout the full spectrum of homeland security instruments , ranging from small 3/8” diameter detectors installed in pager-sized systems to six-foot long detectors installed in large area Radiation Portal Monitors (RPM). GE’s Helium-3 detectors are widely used in radiation pagers, handheld instruments, fission meters, backpacks, mobile systems and RPMs that are deployed to search for and detect the illicit trafficking of fissile radioactive materials. Homeland security systems , particularly the RPMs, require a significant amount of Helium-3. GE’s Helium-3 neutron detectors are installed in systems supporting Customs and Border Protection (DHS), the Second Line of Defense (SLD)/Megaports Program (DOE) and the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal (ASP) Program (DHS). We have also manufactured thousands of Helium-3 detectors for other DHS, DOE (NNSA), Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Justice (DOJ), and other local and state security programs.

Proliferation risks extinction. Krieger ‘9 (David, Pres. Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Councilor – World Future Council, “Still Loving the Bomb After All These Years”, 9- 4,https://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2009/09/04_krieger_newsweek_response.php?krieger) Jonathan Tepperman’s article in the September 7, 2009 issue of Newsweek, “Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb,” provides a novel but frivolous argument that nuclear weapons“may not, in fact, make the world more dangerous….” Rather, in Tepperman’s world, “The bomb may actually make us safer.” Tepperman shares this world with Kenneth Waltz, aUniversity of California professor emeritus of political science, who Tepperman describes as “the leading ‘nuclear optimist.’” Waltz expresses his optimism in this way: “We’ve now had 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It’s striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states.” Actually, there were a number of proxy wars between nuclear weapons states , such as those in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, and some near disasters, the most notable being the 1962 Cuban Missile UTD - 2010 6

Crisis. Waltz’s logic is akin to observing a man falling from a high rise building, and noting that he had already fallen for 64 floors without anything bad happening to him, and concluding that so far it looked so good that others should try it. Dangerous logic! Tepperman builds upon Waltz’s logic, and concludes “that all states are rational,” even though their leaders may have a lot of bad qualities, including being “stupid, petty, venal, even evil….” He asks us to trust that rationality will always prevail when there is a risk of nuclear retaliation, because these weapons make “the costs of war obvious, inevitable, and unacceptable.” Actually, he is asking us to do more than trust in the rationality of leaders; he is asking us to gamble the future on this proposition. “The iron logic of deterrence and mutually assured destruction is so compelling,” Tepperman argues, “it’s led to what’s known as the nuclear peace….” But if this is a peace worthy of the name, which it isn’t, it certainly is not one on which to risk the future of civilization. One irrational leader with control over a nuclear arsenal could start a nuclear conflagration , resulting in a global Hiroshima. Tepperman celebrates “the iron logic of deterrence,” but deterrence is a theory that is far from rooted in “iron logic.” It is a theory based upon threats that must be effectively communicated and believed. Leaders of Country A with nuclear weapons must communicate to other countries (B, C, etc.) the conditions under which A will retaliate with nuclear weapons. The leaders of the other countries must understand and believe the threat from Country A will, in fact, be carried out. The longer that nuclear weapons are not used, the more other countries may come to believe that they can challenge Country A with impunity from nuclear retaliation. The more that Country A bullies other countries, the greater the incentive for these countries to develop their own nuclear arsenals. Deterrence is unstable and therefore precarious. Most of the countries in the world reject the argument, made most prominently by Kenneth Waltz, that the spread of nuclear weapons makes the world safer. These countries joined together in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, but they never agreed to maintain indefinitely a system of nuclear apartheid in which some states possess nuclear weapons and others are prohibited from doing so. The principal bargain of the NPT requires the five NPT nuclear weapons states (US, Russia, UK, France and China) to engage in good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament, and the International Court of Justice interpreted this to mean complete nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Tepperman seems to be arguing that seeking to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons is bad policy, and that nuclear weapons, because of their threat, make efforts at non-proliferation unnecessary and even unwise. If some additional states, including Iran, developed nuclear arsenals, he concludes that wouldn’t be so bad “given the way that bombs tend to mellow behavior.” Those who oppose Tepperman’s favorable disposition toward the bomb, he refers to as “nuclear pessimists.” These would be the people, and I would certainly be one of them, who see nuclear weapons as presenting an urgent danger to our security, our species and our future. Tepperman finds that when viewed from his “nuclear optimist” perspective, “nuclear weapons start to seem a lot less frightening.” “Nuclear peace,” he tells us, “rests on a scary bargain: you accept a small chance that something extremely bad will happen in exchange for a much bigger chance that something very bad – conventional war – won’t happen.” But the “extremely bad” thing he asks us to accept is the end of the human species. Yes, that would be serious. He also doesn’t make the case that in a world without nuclear weapons, the prospects of conventional war would increase dramatically. After all,it is only an unproven supposition that nuclear weapons have prevented wars , or would do so in the future. We have certainly come far too close to the precipice of catastrophic nuclear war. As an ultimate celebration of the faulty logic of deterrence, Tepperman calls for providing any nuclear weapons state with a “survivable second strike option.” Thus, he not only favors nuclear weapons, but finds the security of these weapons to trump human security. Presumably he would have President Obama providing new and secure nuclear weapons to North Korea, Pakistan and any other nuclear weapons states that come along so that they will feel secure enough not to use their weapons in a first-strike attack . Do we really want to bet the human future that Kim Jong-Il and his successors are more rational than Mr. Tepperman? UTD - 2010 7

Advantage 2 – China

Asian powers are moving towards the moon raising concerns of technoationalism and weaponisation – US leadership key to prevent escalation. Ford, 7 [Peter, What’s behind Asia’s moon race?, CSM, 10-25-2007, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1025/p06s01-woap.html] As the rocket carrying China's first lunar probe blasted off Wednesday evening, it left in its wake a vapor trail of questions about the nature of Asia's new space race. The continent's giants are jockeying for position beyond the earth's atmosphere. Japan launched its own moon orbiter last month. India plans to send a similar satellite up next year. The dawn of the Asian space age, however, has been darkened by suspicion, instead of cooperation. "This means more competition because of the lingering security concerns all three countries have about one another," says Bates Gill, director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. "Because of the military relevance of space missions and technology, real cooperation will be difficult." The moon shots, all designed to learn more about the lunar atmosphere and surface, have no military purpose, officials in the three new space powers are quick to point out. But in a field where civilian technological advances can easily be put to military use, nations closely scrutinize each of their neighbors' steps forward. India is nervous about China's intentions, especialy in the wake of Beijing's test of an antisatellite missile last January. China worries that Japan's missile defense cooperation with the US might threaten its interests, and resents Washington's determination to remain the world's dominant space power. Japan is rattled by North Korea's ballistic-missile capability. Against that background, Dr. Gill adds, "an Asian NASA sounds a bit far-fetched." That, argues Joan Johnson-Freese, a space expert at the US Naval War College in Newport, R.I., is because the Asian nations' space programs are largely driven by "technonationalism; they generate pride domestically and they demonstrate prowess internationally." The chief scientist for China's moon program, Ouyang Ziyuan, said in an interview earlier this year with the official People's Daily: "Lunar exploration is a reflection of a country's comprehensive national power and is significant for raising our international prestige and increasing our people's cohesion." Space programs also boost high-tech skills. "China needs its lunar and manned flight projects to nurture the aerospace industry and bring along a cadre of young engineers who will develop its space industry, GPS, Earth observation, and communications, along with military applications," says Gregory Kulacki, a China analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. "The main meaning [of the Chinese moon program] on the industrial side is that we have to set up many new abilities in satellitemaking, long-range telemetry, and so on," says Zhang Wei, a senior official with the Chinese National Space Administration. Such challenges are important, too, in India, where the scientific community is seeking new frontiers now that New Delhi's nuclear program is mature. "The only other avenue for growth and development of scientific technology is space technology," says Swapna Kona, an analyst at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi. In Japan, space exploration holds out the promise of autonomy. "Japan needs to secure its own means of launching a satellite," says Akinori Hashimoto, a spokesman for Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. "Now, we cannot launch one whenever we want to and we are concerned about information leakage." China, Japan, and India are all focusing on the moon, says Dr. Kulacki, because it is "close, doable" and a logical first step in interplanetary exploration. Some officials see practical rewards beyond the scientific knowledge to be gleaned by mapping and analyzing the lunar surface. The moon is thought to be rich in Helium-3, for example, which could one day be used for nuclear fusion to create energy. India's Chandrayaan probe will search for Helium-3, the head of India's space research organization said last year. China's Chang'e I orbiter will also sniff for it. "Mineral resources and energy ... will be a very important field that humans will compete for," Mr. Ouyang UTD - 2010 8

told the People's Daily. The 1979 UN Moon Agreement bans ownership of lunar resources, but none of the nations launching lunar satellites, including the US, have ratified it, although India has signed it. India has also been one of the most vociferous opponents of allowing weapons in space. Officials reacted with disquiet to China's destruction of an old weather satellite last January, proving that Beijing could threaten US and other satellites in space warfare. "We are treading a thin line between current defense-related uses of space and its actual weaponization," warned Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee soon after the Chinese missile test. He called on all states to "redouble efforts" toward a treaty guaranteeing the peaceful use of space. China, too, has long called for such a treaty, which Washington rejects, but some analysts now doubt Beijing's sincerity. "Having recognized the futility of trying to get the US on board, and recognizing how weapons in space could be of benefit to China, that has dulled their enthusiasm," suggests Gill. Japan, meanwhile, is shifting its approach to space-based defenses in the face of threats from North Korea. A ballistic-missile test in 1998 over its territory jolted Japan's space program into new life. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party is seeking to redefine the current "peaceful" use of space to mean "non-aggressive" rather than "nonmilitary," as is currently the case. The "Basic Space" bill enshrining this change is expected to pass by next March, freeing the Japanese Defense Ministry to launch spy satellites.

Helium 3 is flashpoint for US-Sino conflict. Emory International Law Review 10 [Emory International Law Review, DIVIDING THE PIE IN THE SKY: THE NEED FOR A NEW LUNAR RESOURCES REGIME, April 1, 2010, Vol. 24, pg. 259-262] Yet, regardless of whether the language is res nullius or res communes, the existence of a vast, unowned, but claimable area of resource-rich land will inevitably spawn political conflict. At first glance, this might appear to be counter-intuitive: the logic of res communes would seem to suggest that when a proprietary claim is disallowed, states would have no reason to have conflicts over an unownable entity.^^^ One example of the success of res communes with respect to conflict resolution is in Antarctica. Prior to the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, the continent was the subject of a series of territorial claims, some dating back as far as the 1840s.'^''^ By the early part of the twentieth century, eight different countries had launched "scientific expeditions," some of which were as much about annexation as exploration.^"^ By 1950, eight claims had been made on the continent,^" and these eight would be the claims that would be locked in place during the 1959 Antarctica Treaty.^"^ This treaty, along with supplementary agreements (altogether comprising the "Antarctic Treaty System") have managed to "avoid[] conflicts over sovereignty . . . prevent[] the militarization of the continent. . . [and] prevent[] an unregulated gold rush in Antarctica."^°^ This success has, at least in part, been attributed to the application of the res communes doctrine to the Antarctic Treaty System.^"' There are two crucial points, however, that differentiate Antarctica from the Moon and that predict the failure of the OST regime once the Moon becomes a resource base that is readily accessible. First, Antarctica is not a true res communes. The Antarctic Treaty did not require states parties to disavow their territorial claims.^'^ Rather, it only barred the modification of the claims that were in existence in 1959.^" States not only still maintain their claims on Antarctic territory, but some have gone as far as to issue postage stamps in the name of their Antarctic territories to reassert the vitality of those claims.^'^ The impact of this perpetuation of territorial claims has been mitigated by other arrangements in the Antarctic Treaty System that severely limit the profitability of states exploiting their claims, such as the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty,^''* which has barred extraction of Antarctic resources until 2048.^'^ Additionally, Antarctica does not have the mineral or resource wealth of the Moon.^'^ For these reasons. Antarctica has not been worth developing, much less fighting over. Contrast this with the current dispute over the resource-rich Arctic—where states are trying to maintain assertions of territorial control to horde the energy resources beneath the seabed^'^—and it is clear that where resources and profits are accessible, conflict surely follows. The historical conflicts over imperialist regimes and colonialism tend to suggest that when powerful states have an interest in amassing something that exists in large, previously un-owned quantities in one location, they will inevitably come into conflict with one another. States have a limited economic interest in the Antarctic, and so they are unlikely to invest military assets and the necessary financing to vindicate or broaden their claim to something that is not generating them any wealth. In contrast, states seem to believe that they have potentially great economic interests in the Moon and, accordingly may have a correspondingly large motivation to have conflicts over it.^" Exploration of the Moon will benefit humanity—on Earth, new technologies will be have to be developed to aid states in the new space race— and on the Moon, providing new opportunities for human growth and expansion ^^^ Whatever name a regime wants to give to the Moon—res nullius or res communes—the Moon represents an UTD - 2010 9

unparalleled opportunity. Imagine a situation where one state was able to not only find large quantities of Helium-3 or some other valuable resource on the Moon but also succeeded in denying access to other states. That, state would enjoy a tremendous economic advantage by cornering the market in some ultra- rare, useful commodity. Resources by their nature breed conflict.^^' As demonstrated above, states will soon be converging on the Moon to reap the benefits that it may provide. Given the recent actions by the United States and China, and the spirit of conquest and competition that seems to be informing the current Moon rush, the vague and generic OST will not be able to sufficiently stop state conflict over the greatest economic opportunity in history.

Conflict over the moon will spread to the Earth. Moltz, 9 - associate professor in the Department of National Security Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School [Clay, Toward Cooperation or Conlict on the Moon? Considering Lunar Governance in Historical Perspective, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Fall, 2009, http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2009/Fall/moltz.pdf] The question of how the moon will be governed once humans return in about a decade and begin to establish permanent bases matters greatly to the future of international security. Already, a range of major powers have plans to participate in the moon’s further scientiic exploration, commercial exploitation, and possible permanent settlement. If we count both manned and robotic activities, this list currently includes the United States, China, Russia, India, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Space Agency, Japan, and South Korea. Other countries are likely to join this list in the coming years. Establishing a peaceful framework for lunar governance will be im portant, because hostile international relations on the moon are likely to lead to conflicts elsewhere in space and, possibly, on Earth. Such patterns regarding new frontiers have plagued the history of international rela tions for centuries. Indeed, despite frequent hopes for cooperation, most unclaimed territories historically have become sources of international conlict rather than serving as peaceful lebensraum. Typically, and consis tent with realist predictions about international politics, states have had a built-in penchant to pursue relative gains over their rivals and therefore have sought to seize and defend new resources to their own advantage. On the other hand, successful formation of a stable, transnational governance system—a mechanism for sharing or otherwise peacefully allocating the moon’s resources—could open the possibility for mutually beneicial and self-sustaining lunar commerce and settlement, consistent with neo-liberal institutionalist predictions. Such a model could have positive spin-of efects on Earth and set a cooperative pattern for further human explo ration and development of the rest of the solar system, spurring states to pool resources and engage in joint approaches to space’s many challenges. In such scenarios, hopes for “humankind” efforts in space—rather than state- driven rivalries—might be realized, something for which astronauts and cosmonauts UTD - 2010 10

who have visited space have often called. As Per Magnus Wijkman wrote on these issues in 1982, the “interdependence” of all actors in space provides “strong incentives” for the emergence of coop erative solutions. 1

War with China causes extinction Straits Times 6-25-2000

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. Extinction. Hellman, ‘8 [Martin, Professor, Stanford University, “Defusing the Nuclear Threat: A primer” Spring, 2008, http://www.nuclearrisk.org/1why_now.php] There are two primary failure modes of deterrence: a partial one that results in either a nuclear terrorist incident or a limited nuclear war, and a complete failure that results in full-scale nuclear war. Even a small partial failure would be horrific : A 10-kiloton bomb [less than one-tenth the power of many of today's warheads] detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely kill some half a million people , and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever. [Bunn 2003, pages viii- ix] A complete failure of deterrence i s almost beyond imagination and conjures up mythic analogies. In a 1961 speech to a Joint Session of the Philippine Congress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, "Global war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. … If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide." In 1986, former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara expressed a similar view: "If deterrence fails and conflict develops, the present U.S. and NATO strategy carries with it a high risk that Western civilization will be destroyed” [McNamara 1986, page 6]. In January 2007, George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn echoed those concerns when they quoted President Reagan’s belief that nuclear weapons were "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization." [Shultz 2007] DoD and related studies , while couched in less emotional terms, still convey the horrendous toll that a full-scale UTD - 2010 11

nuclear war would exact: "The resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent. Executive branch calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to 77 percen t (i.e., from 79 million to 160 million dead) … a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and 30 million additional people on each side ... These calculations reflect only deaths during the first 30 days. Additional millions would be injured, and many would eventually die from lack of adequate medical care … millions of people might starve or freeze during the following winter , but it is not possible to estimate how many. … further millions … might eventually die of latent radiation effects." [OTA 1979, page 8] The same 1979 OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a concern that assumed a new potentiality when the "TTAPS Report" [TTAPS 1983] noted that the ash and dust from so many nearly simultaneous nuclear explosions and their resultant firestorms might usher in a "nuclear winter" that could erase homo sapiens from the face of the eart h , much as many scientists now believe the dinosaurs were wiped out by an "impact winter" caused by ash and dust from an asteroid impacting the Earth 65 million years ago. The TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that even a limited nuclear exchange , or one between newer nuclear weapons states, such as India and Pakistan, could have devastating long-lasting climatic consequences due to the large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities . In a full- scale nuclear war civilization would almost surely be destroyed, and there a reasonable possibility that no human beings would survive .

Locking the US out of the race to the moon will crush US hegemony and cede space power to China risking world war. Whittington, 3 - writer and space policy analyst [Mark, The coming space race with China, June 23, 2003, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/28/1] This aspiration to extend China’s influence to Earth’s nearest neighbor represents both a challenge and an opportunity for the United States and its allies. China, which has aspirations to become the second superpower, or even to supplant the United States as the sole superpower, seems to have hit upon expansion into the heavens as a means of achieving that goal. Jim Oberg, a former NASA engineer and space policy analyst, has coined the term “space power.” Space power consists of a state’s ability to utilize space for economic, political, and military advantage. China understands that in the 21st century the state which is best able to acquire and exert space power will be most likely to be the greatest superpower of the future. Just as sea power was the key to super power status in the 18th and 19th centuries, and air power in the 20th century, space power is the key for such status in the new century. In the meantime, the United States has no definitive plans to send humans beyond low Earth orbit. Certainly the nuclear propulsion and power technologies being developed by Project Prometheus will have applications for such missions. The myriad of robotic probes being sent to Mars and a proposed sample return mission to the lunar south pole are UTD - 2010 12

understood to be precursors for astronauts to follow. But no one in a position of authority has been willing to say when—or even if—humans will voyage back to the Moon and on to Mars since the collapse of President George H.W. Bush’s Space Exploration Initiative. America’s human space program seems stuck in low Earth orbit and, with the Columbia accident, seems to have only a tenuous hold even there. The prospect of the Chinese landing yuhangyuans on the Moon and even establishing a permanent presence there while America dithers should be a matter of great concern. China is ruled by a fascist government that, despite certain economic reforms, still regularly violates the human rights of its own citizens and threatens other countries with invasion or destruction. China’s ascendancy as the sole superpower, helped along by her space activities, would be a horrific development, threatening freedom and world peace. Even without reference to China’s lunar ambitions, the military implications of Shenzhou should give one pause. The integration of technologies achieved by Shenzhou , including recoverable satellite capability, implies the ability to hit targets in the United States with nuclear warheads with a great deal of accuracy. Also the same low-power propulsion technology used to adjust a spacecraft’s orbit could also be used to alter the path of offensive missiles, helping them evade proposed US anti-missile defense systems, military expert Song Yichang told the state-run China Business Times a few years ago. “We can use this technology to change trajectories in flight, making missiles do a little dance and evade opponents’ attacks,” the newspaper said. China’s space ambitions suggest, and indeed demand, a response from the United States and her allies. In order to avoid being left behind in space, and thus having its position as sole superpower called into question, the United States should jump start its moribund space effort. In effect, the United States should challenge China to a space race. The appeal of such a race is obvious. It could be suggested that more progress was made in perfecting the art of space travel in the eight years between Kennedy’s lunar challenge and the landing of Apollo 11 than in the over thirty years since Apollo ended. Reintroducing the spur of international competition would seem to be a potent idea.

US leadership solves all other impacts – collapse of primacy results in nuclear war Thayer, 2006 (Bradley A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, The National Interest, November -December, “In Defense of Primacy”, lexis)

A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that countries want to align themselves with the United States. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater influence. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies. U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies UTD - 2010 13

such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti- American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces. American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, UTD - 2010 14

killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. THERE IS no other state, group of states or international organization that can provide these global benefits. None even comes close. The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified force once a decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. Let's face it: for the time being, American primacy remains humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills. UTD - 2010 15

Solvency 1AC

The plan: The United States federal government should agree to ratify the Moon Treaty on the condition that parties agree to a lunar resource agreement under article 11 and 18 of the Moon Treaty.

Solvency –

Conditions are key to solve and others will say yes. Bilder, 9 - Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School [Richard, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Option, Fordham International Law Review, 33:2, 2009, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei- redir=1#search="united+states+helium+3+mining+law+review"] Ratifying the Moon Agreement, under conditions which assure that a lunar resource regime acceptable to the United States will eventually be established under articles 11 and 18 of the agreement may be the simplest way of achieving the U.S. objective of providing a stable legal and political environment in support of a long-term commitment to an He-3-based fusion energy program. The arguments in favor of reconsidering the past refusal of the United States to ratify the Moon Agreement are as follows. First, the Moon Agreement is currently the principal "game in town"-the only international instrument specifically designed to deal with issues relating to the exploration of the Moon and the use of its resources. It represents the best efforts and embodies the carefully considered compromises and pragmatic accommodations of some seven years of negotiation by the United States and the principal space powers and other states most concerned. As indicated, the United States fully participated and achieved most of its objectives in this long, drawn-out negotiation. 144 With the arguable exception of article 11, the agreement provides a broadly sensible and noncontroversial set of rules for the conduct of lunar activities already in place. 145 Indeed, the legal subcommittee of COPUOS, at both its most recent 2008 and 2009 meetings, devoted considerable time to a discussion of the reasons for low participation in the Moon Agreement, the benefits of adherence to the agreement, and the possibility of revision of the agreement so as to encourage broader participation. 146 Given this history, the United States could have difficulty persuading other states of the need to embark on a completely new negotiation. Second, whatever their merits at the time, the arguments presented in 1980 in opposition to U.S. ratification of the agreement appear now even less persuasive. As discussed, suggestions that the Moon Agreement-and more particularly its "common heritage" language-establishes a moratorium on lunar mining, precludes a role for private enterprise, or prescribes any particular type of international regime applicable to lunar resource exploitation, particularly some kind of regime dominated by developing nations, find little support in either the language of the agreement or its negotiating history. 147 In particular, it seems clear that, while UTD - 2010 16

article 11 appears to require good faith efforts to negotiate an international regime at such time as resource exploitation becomes likely, it neither mandates that the regime take any particular form-particularly one mirroring the original (pre-1994 implementation agreement) LOSC seabed regime-nor requires state parties to accept any regime with which they are not satisfied. Moreover, the criteria set out in article 11(7) for any such regime appear generally consistent with U.S. objectives. 148 Finally, as indicated, the U.N. General Assembly's adoption of the 1994 implementation agreement modifying the provisions of part XI of the LOSC to which the United States strongly objected, suggests that the international community, particularly the technically advanced countries most concerned and likely to be involved in lunar exploration and development, can now be expected to be receptive to the kind of lunar resource regime the United States would find acceptable. 149 Third, while U.S. ratification of the Moon Agreement would not in itself provide a detailed lunar resource regime acceptable to the United States 150 the United States could, and should, condition or structure such ratification and accession in a way designed to ensure that, either before or after U.S. ratification and accession, an acceptable resource regime will in fact be adopted by the parties to the agreement. Some possibilities for seeking to ensure this result are discussed below. Fourth, to the extent that concerns as to the meaning or ideological implications of the agreement continue to pose a political obstacle to U.S. ratification, such concerns could also be met through appropriate U.S. reservations, declarations, or understandings to its ratification of the agreement.

US must act now - waiting ensures that we lose leverage and never get a deal that ensures investment and equal resource shares – the alternative is to be locked out of any agreement. Bilder, 9 - Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School [Richard, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Option, Fordham International Law Review, 33:2, 2009, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei- redir=1#search="united+states+helium+3+mining+law+review"] There are, however, several reasons suggesting that the U.S. should seek to reach international agreement on such a regime quite soon and even before the possibility and practicality of a permanent moon base and an He-3-based fusion power program are clearly established. First, as discussed, states and enterprises are unlikely to be willing to undertake the substantial effort and investment involved in developing lunar He-3 mining and He-3- based fusion power without the assurance of political and legal stability that only a broadly accepted international agreement can provide. 127 Given the long lead time which will be required if the United States wishes to achieve a viable He-3-based fusion power program in the relatively near future-perhaps within the next half-century or so-it seems sensible for it to begin to take steps to put the necessary legal infrastructure in place fairly soon. Second, the UTD - 2010 17

international climate is arguably now relatively favorable to achieving international agreement on the kind of international lunar resource regime the United States hopes to achieve. Other major players, such as China, the European Union, India, Japan, and Russia, which currently appear to have the capability to participate in the potential exploitation of lunar resources, may well now share an interest with the United States in a more open-access regime and market-based mechanisms. 128 The U.N. General Assembly's adoption of the 1994 implementation agreement nullifying the provisions of part XI of the LOSC to which the United States objected clearly reflects a broader international acceptance of a U.S.-favored approach to the exploitation of deep seabed "common heritage" resources more favorable to the participation of free enterprise, which serves as persuasive precedent for the similar treatment of lunar resources. 129 Indeed, there is now growing support in the United States for U.S. ratification of the LOSC and accession currently seems increasingly likely. 130 In addition, international cooperation among the major technologically-advanced countries in both space and fusion power development is already ongoing under the International Space Station and ITER agreements 1 ' and the Obama administration appears to look favorably on cooperative multilateral rather than unilateral approaches to dealing with broad international issues. 13 2 Moreover, the recent spike in oil prices 1 3 3 and heightened international concern about global warming 134 reinforce the pressing need of the global economy to find ways to meet the world's growing appetite for energy while still decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, and thus to renewed international interest in the development of alternative energy sources such as nuclear fission and fusion. Third, for a variety of reasons, the current influence and "bargaining power" of the United States both as a leader in space and nuclear technology, and more generally as an actor on the world stage, is arguably declining relative to that of China, the European Union, India, Russia, and other countries. 13 5 If this is so, the ability of the United States to negotiate the kind of lunar resource regime it wants may well be greater now than later. Finally, it may be easier to establish the type of lunar resource regime that the United States would prefer while the feasibility of He-3 exploitation and fusion power-and, indeed, the possibility that we may eventually find valuable resources elsewhere in the solar system-is still uncertain and before potentially concerned states have developed important stakes in particular outcomes.

Going it alone guarantees conflict and tanks investment. Bilder, 9 - Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School [Richard, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Option, Fordham International Law Review, 33:2, 2009, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei- redir=1#search="united+states+helium+3+mining+law+review"] However, even if the United States could "go it alone" in this way, there are reasons why it may not wish to do so. First, neither the U.S. government nor U.S. private enterprise is likely to be willing to risk the very substantial investment and long-term effort necessarily involved in seeking to develop He-3-based fusion energy without some assurance that-assuming the very difficult technical and engineering obstacles to developing efficient fusion reactors and UTD - 2010 18

establishing permanent moon bases can be overcome-the requisite supply of lunar He-3 can continue to be obtained without encountering significant legal or political difficulties. Whatever may be the most legally persuasive interpretation of existing international law, other nations or people on Earth may challenge the unilateral appropriation of lunar resources by the United States, especially of a potentially uniquely valuable resource such as He-3. This, certainly, was the international experience in the 1960's when developing nations vigorously protested the prospect that a few technologically advanced countries and their private enterprises might alone appropriate what was at the time assumed to be the mineral riches of the deep seabed. That perception ultimately led to the enunciation of the "common heritage" doctrine, the convening of UNCLOS-3, and the adoption of part XI of the 1982 LOSC."1 8 Only a broadly accepted international agreement is likely to offer the continued legal and political predictability that is essential if a long-term He-3-based fusion energy program is to be undertaken and sustained. 1 1 9 Second, current commitments already obligate the United States to a certain level of international cooperation in space activities. While the Outer Space Treaty and present international law do not expressly bar the unilateral appropriation of lunar resources, they nevertheless impose an obligation on nations to cooperate in outer space activities and to avoid conduct that might give rise to disputes. 120 The United States is also committed to international cooperation in outer space activities under the Outer Space Treaty, the multinational framework for coordination in space exploration entitled "The Global Exploration Strategy,"' 21 and other agreements, such as the International Space Station Agreement, 122 and has similarly committed itself to international cooperation in developing fusion energy through its participation in the recently concluded ITER agreement. 123 U.S. insistence on a right to unilaterally appropriate lunar He-3, without further international agreement, could be controversial and regarded as inconsistent with these precedents. Finally, if countries other than the United States also engage in activities on the Moon, as now appears highly likely, it will be in the interest of each of them to have at least some understandings to provide for cooperation on common problems and keep them from interfering with each other's activities. As the Moon Agreement anticipates, 12 4 if some kind of lunar agreement is in their common interests, it will be difficult for such an agreement to not address the salient and thus far unresolved issue of lunar resources exploitation. Consequently, if the United States determines that it is serious about seeking to develop an He-3- based fusion energy program, it would seem sensible for it to also seek international agreement on a lunar resource regime designed to provide the long-term legal and political stability that such a program will most likely require. UTD - 2010 19

Terror ADV - UQ

Risk of nuclear terrorism is high and they can get weapons Weitz 1/ 25 [Richard Weitz, January 25, 2011, Richard Weitz is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute. His current research includes regional security developments relating to Europe, Eurasia, and East Asia as well as U.S. foreign, defense, homeland security, and WMD nonproliferation policies. Dr. Weitz also is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR), where he overseas case study research, and a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), where he contributes to various defense projects. Before joining Hudson, Dr. Weitz worked for the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Defense Science Board, DFI International, Inc., the Center for Strategic Studies, the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Weitz is a graduate of Harvard College (B.A. with Highest Honors in Government), the London School of Economics (M.Sc. in International Relations), Oxford University (M.Phil. in Politics), and Harvard University (Ph.D. in Political Science).. Dr. Weitz has published in such journals as The National Interest, The Washington Quarterly, NATO Review, Global Asia, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Defense Concepts, Pacific Focus, Small Wars Journal, Political Science Quarterly, and The Journal of Strategic Studies. His commentaries have appeared in the International Herald Tribune, Baltimore Sun, The Guardian, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Times and World Politics Review, where he is Senior Editor. The Nation (Thailand): “struggling to Keep the Nuclear Genie in the Bottle,” LexisNexis, LS]

The processes associated with globalisation – the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies throughout the world, improved means of communication and transportation, and the worldwide diffusion of knowledge through the Internet – have exacerbated nuclear terrorist threats. Consider the following examples: Last November two Armenian men pleaded guilty during a secret trial to smuggling highly enriched uranium into Georgia – fresh proof of the continuing dangers of nuclear-materials smuggling in the former Soviet Union. In March, the pair was arrested in a sting operation for trying to sell the material to Islamic militants. Although a small amount, the uranium was potentially usable in a nuclear warhead or dirty bomb. Similar smuggling incidents were detected in Georgia in 2006 and 2003, suggesting that the former Soviet bloc remains the soft underbelly of nuclear security while world focus is on North Korea and Iran. Another newly revealed nuclear smuggling incident , this time in the Congo, dates from 2008, when a group of Rwandan rebels in the east of the country attempted to sell six containers of purported uranium that dated back to the days of Belgian colonial rule. Uranium from Rwanda's Shinkolobwe mine, which closed in 1960, was sold to the United States by Belgium in 1943. Americans later used the uranium to make the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. Pakistan is another source of nuclear nightmares. The cables published by WikiLeaks reveal frantic American diplomats failing to make Pakistan's nuclear assets more secure. One prominent cable records how, despite years of efforts, Washington has proved unable to induce Pakistani officials to fulfil their legal obligation to return US-supplied high-enriched uranium stored at a Pakistani civilian research reactor. On December 21, 2010, the United States and the Democratic Republic of Congo signed an agreement to prevent trafficking of nuclear and radioactive materials. The United States has completed similar pacts with Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine. Whereas in public US officials have offered reassuring comments about Pakistani nuclear security, the cables warn that growth of Islamist extremism and Pakistan's nuclear-weapons complex is raising the risk that both phenomena could fuse with Islamist terrorists detonating a Pakistani nuclear device – perhaps in Times Square, the target of a failed Pakistani car bomb earlier this year. A conventional explosion in Times Square during theatre hours could cause horrific casualties. But if such a weapon included radioactive materials smuggled from Pakistan, the United States would suffer the most devastating act of terrorism in world history. The resulting losses would be worse than those from the 9/11 attacks. People would avoid contaminated areas, those at risk would seek medical care, and global transportation networks would freeze. Islamist terrorists have launched several attacks against Pakistan's nuclear sites in recent years, including a nuclear-missile storage facility at Sargodha , a nuclear air base at Kamra and a nuclear-weapons assembly site at Wah. Leaked cables cite Russian and US concerns about "insider access" to the country's sprawling nuclear complex, pointing to the obvious risk that some of the 130,000 people working in the Pakistan's nuclear establishment might aid Islamist terrorists to attack Western targets. In February 2009, the US Ambassador wrote that "our major concern is not having an Islamic militant steal an entire weapon but rather the chance someone working in GOP [government of Pakistan] facilities could gradually smuggle enough material out to eventually make a weapon."

***NEUTRON DETECTION / TERROR ADV*** UTD - 2010 20

Terrorists can steal nuclear weapons from Pakistan Goodspeed 6 - 14 [Peter Goodspeed, June 14, 2011, Peter Goodspeed is an award winning reporter with the National Post. He specializes in foreign affairs writing and has worked as a foreign correspondent and foreign editor for 25 years. He has reported from 64 countries and covered 23 conflicts ranging from the Falklands War to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, “Terror attacks 'compromised' nuclear arsenal; Pakistan fears; Assault on storage facilities plausible, article suggests,” LexisNexis, LS] Recent terrorist attacks on military installations suggest the "safety and security of nuclear weapons materials in Pakistan may very well be compromised," says an article published in the Combating Terrorism Center's magazine, Sentinel, at the U.S. Military Academy West Point. "A frontal assault on nuclear weapons storage facilities, which are the most robustly defended elements of Pakistan's nuclear weapons cycle, is no longer an implausible event," writes Dr. Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan Security Unit at the University of Bradford in Britain. Pakistani terrorists have already shown their ability to carry out violent attacks at facilities that were reliably identified as being part of the country's nuclear weapons program , he says. But Pakistan's push to double the size of its nuclear arsenal, by building 12 to 15 nuclear weapons a year over the last three or four years, greatly increases its vulnerability to terrorist attacks on nuclear targets. "As the number of nuclear weapons facilities grows, and the number of those with access to nuclear weapons or related components rises, the complex challenge of assuring the security of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons components will become ever more difficult," Dr. Gregory writes. As many as 70,000 people in Pakistan already have access to or knowledge of some element of the nuclear weapons production, storage, maintenance and deployment cycle, he says. "Some may be willing to collude in various ways with terrorists," he adds. When Pakistan first developed its nuclear program in the 1970s and 1980s, its main concern was attack by India. As a result, most nuclear infrastructure was placed in the north and west of the country or near Islamabad and Rawalpindi, where it is less likely to be overrun by India during a war. But in recent years, Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists have been active in all those areas. Since 2007 they have launched several attacks on nuclear weapons facilities . These include: - November 2007 A suicide bomber killed eight people in an attack on a nuclear missile storage facility at Sargodha, south of Islamabad. - December 2008 A suicide bomb assault on an airbase at Kamra. - August 2008 Teams of suicide bombers staged coordinated attacks on the armament complex at the Wah cantonment, where Pakistan's nuclear weapons are believed to be assembled. Even more worrying , says Dr. Gregory, are recent attacks on some of the country's most secure military sites On May 22, a team of 10 terrorists attacked the Mehran naval aviation base in Karachi. They stormed the high-security base from several places and appeared to know the location of its intruder detection cameras. Using rocket-propelled grenades, explosives and small arms, they destroyed several aircraft, took hostages and occupied the base for nearly 18 hours. The Karachi attack mirrored an equally stunning 2009 raid by radical Islamists on the Pakistan Army's general headquarters in Rawalpindi. In that case, terrorists dressed in military uniforms, driving army vehicles and with a "sensitive map" of the sprawling complex , staged a 20-hour hostage taking in which 20 were killed. " The modalities of this attack add up to a virtual blueprint for a successful attack on a nuclear weapons facility ," Dr. Gregory says. Pakistani terrorist groups have show they can penetrate layers of security, use army uniforms and vehicles with the appropriate licence plates and forge identification cards to deceive military guards, he says. They have also had knowledge of sensitive military information and protocols, and have been able to develop detailed intelligence on their targets weeks before an operation. "Almost certainly [the terrorists] learned their tactics from the SSG [the Pakistan Army's elite commandos , the Special Service Group], which had trained earlier generations of Pakistani/Kashmiri militants in similar tactics for operations against India," he says. "Terrorist groups have now shown themselves capable of penetrating even the most securely defended of Pakistan's military bases and of holding space within those bases for many hours, even against the elite SSG, more than enough time with the right equipment and sufficient numbers to carry out terrorist acts with enormous political or destructive pay-off."

RISK OF NUCLEAR TERROR EXTREMELY HIGH BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 08 (SASHA TALCOTT, FORMER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH, 11/17/08, “GLOBAL NUCLEAR TERRORISM RISK STILL HIGH, DESPITE PROGRESS; NEW ADMINISTRATION MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO REDUCE DANGERS,” HARVARD PRESS RELEASE, \http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18671/global_nuclear_terrorism_risk_still_high_despite_progress_n ew_administration_must_take_immediate_steps_to_reduce_dangers.html, LG) UTD - 2010 21

Global Nuclear Terrorism Risk Still High, Despite Progress; New Administration Must Take Immediate Steps to Reduce Dangers The world still faces a "very real" risk that terrorists could get a nuclear bomb, and the Obama Administration must make reducing that risk a top priority of U.S. security policy and diplomacy, according to Securing the Bomb 2008 , a report released today. The new report was accompanied by a paper offering a specific agenda for the presidential transition and the opening weeks of the new administration . "President-elect Obama has an historic opportunity to drastically reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism in his first term in office," said Prof. Matthew Bunn of Harvard University's Project on Managing the Atom, the report's author. "But it will take sustained White House leadership to close the gaps in existing efforts and get past the obstacles slowing progress. He needs to appoint a senior White House official to take on this responsibility full-time, keeping it on the front burner at the White House every day." The report details a broad range of progress in efforts to reduce the danger, including programs that have eliminated potential nuclear bomb material entirely from dozens of buildings and have substantially beefed up security for scores of sites. But it warns that major gaps in these efforts remain, and the risk of nuclear terrorism is still unacceptably high. The study provides a frightening survey of incidents around the world, from an armed break-in at a South African site with hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU), to a Russian colonel arrested for soliciting bribes to overlook violations of nuclear security rules, to increasing terrorist threats amid Pakistan's ongoing strife, to weak security at many of the roughly 130 research reactors worldwide still using HEU fuel. "To meet this threat, we must build a real nuclear security partnership with Russia and work with all nations to secure stockpiles around the world," said former Senator Sam Nunn, Co-Chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which commissioned the report. "This report offers the road-map we need to win the race between cooperation and catastrophe." The new study reports that U.S.- sponsored security upgrades have been completed for approximately 75 percent of the buildings in the former Soviet Union that contain weapons-usable nuclear material, and for roughly 65 percent of Russia's nuclear warhead sites. Major issues remain, however, ranging from insider theft and corruption to chronic underinvestment in nuclear security. In much of the rest of the world, the effort is in much earlier stages. The Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative has accelerated efforts to convert research reactors to low-enriched uranium that cannot be used in a nuclear bomb and has accelerated removals of HEU from vulnerable sites. But only about a quarter of these sites have had all of their HEU removed, and only about a quarter of the HEU-fueled research reactors have had security measures put in place that could defeat demonstrated terrorist and criminal threats. Current plans to take back U.S.-supplied HEU would not address more than three-quarters of the U.S.-supplied HEU abroad (most of it in wealthy countries). Recommendations The report, and the accompanying transition paper "Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: An Agenda for the Next President," co-written by Prof. Bunn and Managing the Atom research associate Dr. Andrew Newman, outline specific steps that President-Elect Obama should take that, together, could drastically reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism. Appoint a senior White House official, with direct access to the President, to take full-time charge of all efforts focused on preventing nuclear terrorism. Launch a fast-paced global campaign to ensure that every nuclear warhead and every kilogram of plutonium and HEU worldwide is protected against the kinds of threats terrorists and criminals have shown they can pose. Expand and accelerate efforts to remove nuclear material from as many locations around the world as possible, covering a broader range of materials and facilities, with a broader set of approaches and incentives for convincing them to cooperate. Seek agreement on effective global standards for nuclear security, including laying out the essential steps countries must take to meet their legal obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1540 to provide "appropriate effective" security and accounting for their UTD - 2010 22

nuclear stockpiles. Initiate a major effort to convince skeptical policymakers and nuclear managers around the world that nuclear terrorism is a real and urgent threat worthy of their time and resources - beginning with joint briefings on the threat, nuclear terrorism exercises, realistic nuclear security tests, and evaluations at nuclear sites. Put in place new steps to ensure that effective security will be sustained after international assistance phases out, and to build a strong nuclear security culture, not only in Russia, but at facilities around the world. Put in place an integrated global approach to stopping nuclear smuggling - using "red teams" to understand the routes smugglers might take to get around defenses - integrating not only radiation detectors, but greatly expanded international police and intelligence cooperation. Intensify efforts to identify and stop the other stages of terrorist nuclear plots and work to address the root causes of terrorism. Provide the resources necessary to ensure that key efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism will not be slowed by lack of funds. In particular, seek Congressional appropriation of approximately $500 million in funds that will not expire and can be spent to seize opportunities as they arise.

Terrorists can get nuclear material – increased trafficking Willing 06 [Richard Willing, December 26, 2006, a reporter for USA Today, USA Today: “Nuclear traffic doubles since '90s; Reports cite sales, mishaps, scams,” LexisNexis, LS] Annual incidents of trafficking and mishandling of nuclear and other radioactive material reported to U.S. intelligence officials have more than doubled since the early 1990s, says the director of domestic nuclear detection at the Department of Homeland Security . Also up: scams in which fake or non- existent nuclear or radioactive material is offered for sale, often online, says Vayl Oxford, nuclear detection director at the department. "We sense that people have recognized the value of nuclear material as a useful way of making money," Oxford said. "Nuclear material is becoming a marketable commodity." The incidents tracked by the department, based on its reporting and information from foreign diplomatic and intelligence sources, average about twice the number made public each year by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Oxford said reports of nuclear and radioactive materials trafficking have ranged from 200 to 250 a year since 2000, up from about 100 a year in the 1990s. The reports include incidents in which material was stolen, offered for sale, lost or mishandled. The IAEA, whose members self-report trafficking incidents on a voluntary basis, said there were 121 such incidents in 2004 and 103 last year. The agency, based in Vienna, reports only trafficking incidents that its members have confirmed and elected to make public. The Department of Homeland Security numbers include all known or suspected trafficking incidents identified by the United States and allied governments. Reported incidents may be increasing, Oxford says, because since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, governments have become more diligent about policing material that could be used by terrorists to build a radioactive "dirty bomb" or similar device. Most reported incidents occurred outside the USA. There are no reported incidents in which radioactive or nuclear material was successfully sold to a terror group, according to the IAEA. Some of the incidents have involved enriched uranium or plutonium of the type that can be used to make a nuclear weapon . In June 2003, for instance, a smuggler was arrested trying to carry 170 grams of enriched uranium across a border in Sadahlo, Georgia, in the former Soviet Union. Most incidents involved very small amounts of material that were mishandled by authorities and never intended to be sold, the IAEA said. In New Jersey last year, a package containing 3.3 grams of enriched helium was "accidentally disposed of," the IAEA reported. Some experts are concerned that the increase in trafficking incidents makes it more likely terrorists could acquire nuclear material. "We're only seeing the dysfunctional part of the market -- the supplier who's dumb enough to try to sell it to the police," said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

TERRORIST CAN GET NUCLEAR MATERIAL BUNN 08 (MATTHEW BUNN, FOR THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE, 4/2/08, “THE RISK OF NUCLEAR TERRORISM – AND NEXT STEPS TO REDUCE THE DANGER, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/bunn-nuclear-terror-risk-test-08.pdf , LG) Could a terrorist group plausibly get the material needed for a nuclear bomb? Unfortunately, the answer here is also “yes.” Nuclear weapons or their essential ingredients exist in hundreds of buildings in dozens of countries, with security measures that range from excellent to appalling – in some cases, no more than a night watchman and a chain-link fence. No specific and binding global standards for how these stockpiles should be secured exist. UTD - 2010 23

Remarkably, another thing that does not exist is a comprehensive, prioritized list of which nuclear stockpiles around the world pose the highest risks of nuclear theft – though the 6 Nuclear Material Information Program (NMIP), led by one of your earlier witnesses, Rolf Mowatt-Larsen, is working to create one. Based on the information we do have in the public domain, I believe the highest risks of nuclear theft today are in the former Soviet Union, in Pakistan, and at HEU-fueled research reactors around the world. Nuclear security in Russia and the former Soviet Union has improved dramatically in the past 15 years; at many sites, the difference between the security in place today and the security in place in 1994 is like night and day. But Russia has the world’s largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials, scattered in the world’s largest number of buildings and bunkers; some serious security weaknesses still remain, ranging from poorly trained, sometimes suicidal guards to gross under-funding of nuclear security; and the upgraded security systems must face huge threats, from insider theft conspiracies which are cropping up everywhere in Russia to large-scale outsider attacks. Within Russia, terrorist reconnaissance teams have been scoping secret nuclear weapon storage sites; a Russian businessman has been offering $750,000 for stolen weapon-grade plutonium; and the Beslan school massacre reconfirms the terrorists’ ability to strike in force, without warning or mercy. As just one indicator of the insider threat, in 2006 President Putin fired Major General Sergey Shlyapuzhnikov, deputy chairman of the section of the MVD responsible for guarding the closed nuclear cities and other close territories, because (according to the Russian state newspaper), he was helping to organize smuggling in and out of these closed territories – in particular, giving out passes that allowed people to go in and out without being checked.6 Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile is small, stored at a small number of sites, and is thought to be heavily guarded, with substantial security upgrades in recent years, in part with U.S. help. The recent unrest in Pakistan does not appear to have substantially increased the risks of theft, as it does not appear to have undermined the cohesion of the military and the security services. But Pakistani security systems face immense threats, from nuclear insiders with a demonstrated willingness to sell practically anything to practically anybody to armed attack potentially by scores or hundreds of jihadis. In at least two cases, serving Pakistani military officers working with al Qaeda came within a hair’s breadth of assassinating Musharraf; if the military officers guarding the President cannot be trusted, how much confidence can we have in the military officers guarding the nuclear weapons? HEU-fueled research reactors typically have comparatively modest stockpiles of material – but they have some of the world’s weakest security measures for those stocks. And it is important to remember that much of the irradiated fuel from research reactors is still HEU, and is not radioactive enough to pose any significant deterrent to theft by suicidal terrorists. Some 130 research reactors around the world still use HEU as their fuel.7 While these are the highest-risk categories, virtually every country where these materials exist – including the United States – has more to do to ensure that these stocks are 8 For an overview of security for nuclear weapons and materials around the world, see Matthew Bunn, Securing the effectively protected against the kinds of threats that terrorists and criminals have shown they can pose.8 Theft of HEU and plutonium is not a hypothetical worry, it is an ongoing reality. Most recently, in February 2006, Russian citizen Oleg Khinsagov was arrested in Georgia (along with three Georgian accomplices) with some 100 grams of 89% enriched HEU, claiming that he had kilograms more available for sale.9 What we do not know, of course, is how many thefts may have occurred that were never detected; it is a sobering fact that nearly all of the stolen HEU and plutonium that has been seized over the years had never been missed before it was seized. 10 The amounts required for a bomb are small. The Nagasaki bomb included some 6 kilograms of plutonium, which would fit easily in a soda can. A similar HEU bomb would require three times as much.11 For a simpler but less-efficient gun-type design, roughly 50 kilograms of HEU would be needed – roughly the size of a six-pack. The world stockpiles of HEU and separated plutonium are enough to make roughly 200,000 nuclear weapons;12 a tiny fraction of one percent of these stockpiles going missing could cause a global catastrophe. UTD - 2010 24

Terror ADV – He3 Key

Helium- 3 is needed for domestic and international nuclear detection Shea and Morgan 10 [September 21, 2010, Dana A. Shea is a Specialist in Science and Technology Policy and researcher for the Congressional Research Service, Daniel Morgan is a Specialist in Science and Technology Policy and researcher for the Congressional Research Service, Congressional Research Service: “The Helium-3 Shortage: Supply, Demand, and Options for Congress,” LexisNexis, LS] The demand for helium-3 for national and homeland security purposes falls into two main categories: the detection of smuggled radiological and special nuclear material and the monitoring of known special nuclear material to ensure its security .51 The Department of Defense, Department of State, NNSA, and DHS all have deployed radiation detection equipment to detect smuggled radiological and nuclear material .52 Through programs such as Cooperative Threat Reduction, the Second Line of Defense, and the Radiation Portal Monitor program, these agencies have deployed thousands of radiation portal monitors both domestically and overseas. Each portal uses approximately 50 liters of helium-3 as the basis for its neutron detection capability . Some of the programs have been in place since before 2001. Others, such as those operated through DHS, were established later. The broad expansion of these deployments has provided the greatest demand for helium-3 and been the largest drain on the helium-3 stockpile. The Department of Defense and NNSA also use helium-3 in neutron detectors to ensure that stores of special nuclear material are fully accounted for. Accurate neutron counting over long time periods is one way to monitor the continued presence of materials such as plutonium . In addition, the United States contributes helium-3 to meet the nuclear security and monitoring needs of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Department of Defense guidance and navigation systems for munitions, missiles, aircraft, and surface vehicles include ring laser gyroscopes that use helium-3. Testing and qualification are under way on an alternative gas for this purpose.53

Helium 3 key to nuclear detection – supply exceeds demand Wald 11 [MATTHEW L. WALD, May 28, 2011, Matthew L. Wald is a reporter at The New York Times, where he has been writing about energy topics for 30 years. Matt has been in the paper’s Washington Bureau since 1995, and has toured more than two dozen power reactors and research reactors, he wrote extensively about the production of materials for nuclear weapons, He holds a B.A. in Urban Studies from Brown University, Agencies’ Lack of Coordination Hindered Supply of Crucial Gas, Report Says, LexisNexis, LS] WASHINGTON — The United States is running out of a rare gas that is crucial for detecting smuggled nuclear weapons materials because one arm of the Energy Department was selling the gas six times as fast as another arm could accumulate it, and the two sides failed to communicate for years, according to a new Congressional audit. The gas, helium-3, is a byproduct of the nuclear weapons program, but as the number of nuclear weapons has declined, so has the supply of the gas. Yet, as the supply was shrinking, the government was investing more than $200 million to develop detection technology that required helium-3. As a result, government scientists and contractors are now racing to find or develop a new detection technology. According to the Government Accountability Office report, the Energy Department ’s National Nuclear Security Administration, which gathers the gas from old nuclear weapons, never told the department’s Isotope Program about the slowing rate of helium-3 production. That is in part because it was secret information that could be used to calculate the size of weapon stockpiles. For its part, the Isotope Program calculated demand for the gas not in a scientific way but instead on the basis of how many commercial companies called to inquire each year about helium-3 supplies. Representative Donna Edwards of Maryland characterized the situation as “gross mismanagement.” As the ranking Democrat on the House science committee’s Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Ms. Edwards was one of the members of Congress who asked the accountability office to study the problem after it was detected in 2008. “With so much riding on helium-3, it is shocking to learn UTD - 2010 25

that the department’s forecast for demand is based simply on a telephone log tracking those who called asking about the availability of helium-3,” she said. The report is to be released in the coming week by Ms. Edwards and Representative Brad Miller of North Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the science committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Energy Department officials said that since the discrepancy was discovered, they had moved the Isotope Program under the umbrella of the agency’s science division and had worked harder to forecast supply and demand for various materials. But they did acknowledge the bureaucratic fumble; the Isotope Program is responsible for the supply of materials it produces, but not for the supply of those it distributes but are produced by other parts of the Energy Department. The helium-3 is considered a “legacy material,” something that exists only because of past activities. Ms. Edwards pointed out that helium-3 was also used in the oil and gas industry and in research. Because of divided responsibilities and a sudden new source of demand, “all of a sudden we realized we had this additional factor and had to come up with something different,” Steven Aoki, the deputy under secretary of energy for counterterrorism, said in a telephone interview. He said he was optimistic that new technologies using more readily available materials would be ready in a year or two. Some members of Congress, though, are more skeptical about the time frame — and the cost. The Department of Homeland Security spent $230 million to develop the detection technology calling for helium-3. From 2003 to 2009, the Isotope Program was selling the gas at a rate of about 30,000 liters a year, while the weapons program was producing only 8,000 to 10,000 liters, the accountability office found. The Energy Department and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, have produced various isotopes for commercial and governmental use for decades. Helium-3, once considered a waste product, is produced by the radioactive decay of tritium, a form of hydrogen used in nuclear weapons to increase the yield. But the United States stopped producing tritium in 1988 because of safety problems at the reactors that made it. The Energy and Homeland Security Departments “built large, multibillion-dollar programs around an assumed endless supply” of helium-3, according to a staff report from the House science committee. The detection program that relies on helium-3 has since been scaled back . The Energy Department is negotiating with a nuclear power company in Ontario that might be able to supply some helium-3. Canadian reactors, unlike the models used in this country, produce significant quantities of tritium as a byproduct of electricity production. But working out the commercial arrangements and setting up the equipment necessary to gather the helium-3 will probably take years, experts say. There are other ways to build equipment to detect smuggled nuclear material, but helium-3 is nontoxic and nonradioactive and is considered more accurate. The neutrons given off by plutonium and uranium are hard to detect, but when helium-3 is hit by a stray neutron, it creates a charged particle, which is readily detected and measured .

Finding Helium 3 is key to detect nuclear weapons and oil exploration Lobsenz 10 [George Lobsenz, April 23, 2010, Editor at Access Intelligence, The Energy Daily, Defense Daily, Energy and Environmental Editor at United Press International, University of Michigan, Defense Daily: “DoE Helium Shortage Hits Nuke Security, Oil And Gas Industry,” LexisNexis, LS] The Energy Department's failure to recognize an impending supply squeeze for helium-3--a nonradioactive gas produced in the agency's nuclear weapons complex --has created a national crisis requiring White House intervention and threatening key U.S. nuclear and homeland security programs, a wide range of medical and scientific research activities and development of U.S. oil and natural gas resources, a House subcommittee was told yesterday. The testimony before the House Science and Technology Committee's investigations and oversight subcommittee revealed that DoE and other federal officials only fully grasped the situation in 2008, and that fast-dwindling helium-3 supplies forced the government last year to begin rationing the gas, which has unique neutron detection and refrigerant capabilities that cannot be provided by other substances in some research and industrial applications. And in a growing snowball of real-world impacts, the sudden helium shortage already has: --Disrupted international nonproliferation efforts led by the International Atomic Energy Agency that use helium-based devices to track and safeguard sensitive nuclear materials; --Slowed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and DoE programs to deploy radiation UTD - 2010 26

detection machines at airports, seaports and border crossings --Delayed a huge swath of cutting-edge scientific research, ranging from superconductivity to nanotechnology to quantum computing; --Curtailed operations at some neutron-scattering facilities overseas, although similar DoE facilities such as the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge, Tenn., have sufficient helium for planned operations through fiscal year 2014. --Jeopardized progress on new lung imaging techniques that promise better treatment methods for respiratory disease; and -- Forced oil well services companies to scramble for helium-3 devices that are critical to assessing and developing underground oil and gas reservoirs, including the nation's fast-growing shale gas fields. Officials from all those industrial and research sectors, as well as a General Electric [GE] official in charge of that company's radiation detector production unit, said they only learned of the helium-3 shortage last year and now were scrambling to develop alternative technologies and, where possible, recycling methods for helium-3. At the same time, DHS and DoE officials said an interagency group formed by the White House National Security Council was trying to stretch out DoE's shrinking supply of about 50,000 liters of helium by tightening allocations to all sectors and ramping up federal research and development of alternative technologies. The government officials and Thomas Anderson, product line leader of GE Energy's Reuter Stokes Radiation Measurement Solutions unit, said alternatives could be developed relatively soon for some applications, most notably for homeland security radiation detectors, which account for most of the rising demand for helium-3. However, they said helium-3 would be harder to replace in other applications, particularly oil and gas development, which requires the high sensitivity and reliability of helium-based devices in often rugged underground conditions in deep wells. "It is likely that without helium-3, exploration for new reserves, development drilling of existing fields, and logging of both new and existing wells will be severely curtailed until an alternative technology is developed," Anderson said in his written testimony to the subcommittee.

The U.S. is low on Helium 3- critical to nuclear weapons detection Wald 5/28 (Matthew L Wald is a reporter for the New York Times that specializes in nuclear weapons information. May 28th, 2011. "Agencies’ Lack of Coordination Hindered Supply of Crucial Gas, Report Says" Accessed 6/22/11 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/us/29helium.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss GR) The United States is running out of a rare gas that is crucial for detecting smuggled nuclear weapons materials because one arm of the Energy Department was selling the gas six times as fast as another arm could accumulate it, and the two sides failed to communicate for years, according to a new Congressional audit. The gas, helium-3, is a byproduct of the nuclear weapons program, but as the number of nuclear weapons has declined, so has the supply of the gas. Yet, as the supply was shrinking, the government was investing more than $200 million to develop detection technology that required helium-3. As a result, government scientists and contractors are now racing to find or develop a new detection technology.

Helium supplies dwindling – reduction of nuclear weapons Cho 09 [Adrian Cho, November 6, 2009, Adrian Cho is a contributing writer for ScienceInsider, staff writer for science magazine and a budget analyst for the DoE at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Helium-3 Shortage Could Put Freeze On Low-Temperature Research,” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5954/778.full, LS] No end to the shortage is in sight, however. In recent years the supply of helium-3 has dwindled, while the demand has skyrocketed—especially since 2002, when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Energy (DOE) began deploying thousands of helium-3–filled neutron detectors to help prevent the smuggling of plutonium and other radioactive materials into the country. In the short term, demand will likely top 65,000 liters per year, while supply will hover between 10,000 and 20,000 liters per year, according to a DOE study. The shortfall threatens several research fields, and DOE, the major supplier, is releasing the gas only to researchers with U.S. funding. Helium-3 also fills neutron detectors at large neutron-scattering facilities used to probe materials, such as the one at the new Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex (J-PARC) in Tokai. The projected need for that application alone exceeds 100,000 liters over the next 6 years. J-PARC researchers need 16,000 liters of helium-3 to complete detectors for 15 of 23 beamlines, says J-PARC's Masatoshi Arai: “If we cannot get helium-3 and detectors, … [then] we cannot perform sufficiently good experiments from the neutron facility at J-PARC, for which we spent $1.5 billion for construction.” Low-temperature physicists say they need between 2500 and 4500 liters of helium-3 per year, primarily to fill new dilution refrigerators. Helium is the only substance that remains liquid at absolute zero, and only by pumping the vapor off a liquefied mixture of helium-3 and heavier helium-4 can physicists achieve steady temperatures below 0.8 kelvin, says William Halperin, a physicist at Northwestern University in UTD - 2010 27

Evanston, Illinois. “If we lose our helium-3 [supply], we're totally screwed,” says Halperin, who notes that work on quantum computing and nanoscience often requires extremely low temperatures. Helium-3 also serves a role in medical imaging. When inhaled by a patient, it allows researchers to image the lungs with an MRI. The helium-3 supply likely won't return to its former levels. Rare in nature, the gas comes mainly from the radioactive decay of tritium generated in nuclear reactors. Pure tritium is an ingredient in hydrogen bombs, so for decades the United States and the Soviet Union kept large reserves of it and sold the helium-3 skimmed from it. But after the Cold War ended, the United States and Russia reduced their tritium reserves. Prior to 2009, DOE released 60,000 liters of helium-3 annually. In fiscal year 2009, it released 35,000 liters. Russia releases a few thousand liters annually, and Canada has accumulated tritium from civilian reactors that, if purified, could provide a one-time boost of 80,000 liters of helium-3 and several thousand liters per year thereafter, DOE estimates.

Helium 3 demand exceeds command Shea and Morgan 10 [September 21, 2010, Dana A. Shea is a Specialist in Science and Technology Policy and researcher for the Congressional Research Service, Daniel Morgan is a Specialist in Science and Technology Policy and researcher for the Congressional Research Service, Congressional Research Service: “The Helium-3 Shortage: Supply, Demand, and Options for Congress,” LexisNexis, LS] The world is experiencing a shortage of helium-3 , a rare isotope of helium with applications in homeland security, national security, medicine, industry, and science. For many years the supply of helium-3 from the nuclear weapons program outstripped the demand for helium-3. The demand was small enough that a substantial stockpile of helium-3 accumulated. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the federal government began deploying neutron detectors at the U.S. border to help secure the nation against smuggled nuclear and radiological material . The deployment of this equipment created new demand for helium-3. Use of the polarized helium-3 medical imaging technique also increased. As a result, the size of the stockpile shrank. After several years of demand exceeding supply, a call for large quantities of helium-3 spurred federal officials to realize that insufficient helium-3 was available to meet the likely future demand. Policymakers now face a number of challenging decisions. In the short term, these decisions are mainly about how to allocate a scarce resource in the face of competing priorities: science versus security, the private sector versus the public sector, and national needs versus international obligations. Applications with unique needs may pose particular challenges. For example, some types of cryogenic research can only be accomplished using helium-3, whereas in medical imaging and neutron detection, helium 3 has advantages but also alternatives. In the longer term, policymakers also face choices about how or whether to increase helium-3 supply or reduce helium-3 demand and about possible alternative mechanisms for allocating supply. It seems likely that a combination of policy approaches will be necessary

A new Helium-3 source is needed – projects show growing demand Shea and Morgan 10 [September 21, 2010, Dana A. Shea is a Specialist in Science and Technology Policy and researcher for the Congressional Research Service, Daniel Morgan is a Specialist in Science and Technology Policy and researcher for the Congressional Research Service, Congressional Research Service: “The Helium-3 Shortage: Supply, Demand, and Options for Congress,” LexisNexis, LS]

The demand for helium-3 has increased dramatically since 2001. Prior to 2001, the demand was approximately 8,000 liters per year , which was less than the new supply from tritium decay. After 2001, the demand increased, reaching approximately 80,000 liters in 2008 . Projections show demand continuing at above the available new supply for at least the next several years. See Figure 2. These projections contain many variables and therefore considerable uncertainty. Some estimates project much higher non-governmental demand, perhaps more than 100,000 liters in FY2011 and FY2012.50 Some estimates appear to measure helium-3 quantities at nonstandard pressures. Because liters are a volume measure, and all gases change volume depending on their pressure, inconsistency in measurement has the potential to create confusion when amounts projected by different analysts are added. Perhaps most important, given such a large mismatch between supply and demand, users are likely to seek out alternative technologies, reschedule planned projects, and make other changes that reduce demand below what it would be in the absence of a shortage. It is unclear whether the available estimates reflect (or indeed, could reflect) these likely changes. Similarly, it is unclear whether federal agencies and the private sector can reduce demand sufficiently to match the current helium-3 supply and still meet priorities for security, science, and other applications. UTD - 2010 28

Terror ADV – Impacts

NUKE TERROR COULD KILL HALF A MILLION PEOPLE, ECONOMIC COLLAPSE, AND POVERTY BUNN 08 (MATTHEW BUNN, FOR THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE, 4/2/08, “THE RISK OF NUCLEAR TERRORISM – AND NEXT STEPS TO REDUCE THE DANGER, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/bunn-nuclear-terror-risk-test-08.pdf , LG) What would happen if terrorists set off a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city? Here, the answers are nothing short of terrifying. A bomb with the explosive power of 10,000 tons of TNT (that is, 10 “kilotons,” somewhat smaller than the bomb that obliterated Hiroshima), if set off in midtown Manhattan on a typical workday, could kill half a million people and cause roughly $1 trillion in direct economic damage. 13 Terrorists – either those who committed the attack or others – certainly claim they had more bombs already hidden in U.S. cities (whether they did nor not), and the fear that this might be true could lead to panicked evacuations of major U.S. cities, creating widespread havoc and economic disruption. If the bomb went off in Washington DC, large fractions of the federal government would be destroyed, and effective governance of the country would be very much in doubt. Devastating economic aftershocks would reverberate throughout the country and the world – global effects that in 2005 then-UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned would push “tens of millions of people into dire poverty,” creating “a second death toll throughout the developing world.” 1 America and the world would be transformed forever – and not for the better. UTD - 2010 29

AT: Won’t Use Nukes

TERRORIST WANT NUKES BUNN 08 (MATTHEW BUNN, FOR THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE, 4/2/08, “THE RISK OF NUCLEAR TERRORISM – AND NEXT STEPS TO REDUCE THE DANGER, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/bunn-nuclear-terror-risk-test-08.pdf , LG) Osama bin Laden has called the acquisition of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction a “religious duty.” 2 Al Qaeda operatives have made repeated attempts to buy nuclear material for a nuclear bomb, or to recruit nuclear expertise – including the two extremist Pakistani nuclear weapon scientists who met with bin Laden and Ayman al- Zawahiri to discuss nuclear weapons. Before al Qaeda, the Japanese terror cult Aum Shinrikyo also made a concerted effort to get nuclear weapons. With at least two groups going down this path in the last 15 years, we must expect that others will in the future.

TERRORIST INTENT ON HARMING U.S. RUBENSTEIN 07 (DAVID M. RUBENSTEIN, SENIOR FELLOW FOR ENERGY AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE PROGRAM ON ENERGY SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE, 4/20/07, “HOW LIKELY IS A NUCLEAR TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES?” http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of- mass-destruction/likely-nuclear-terrorist-attack-united-states/p13097, LG) What about the motivation of terrorists that have attacked the American homeland? Al- Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith has stated al-Qaeda’s objective: “to kill 4 million Americans—2 million of them children—and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands.” As he explains, this is what justice requires to balance the scales for casualties supposedly inflicted on Muslims by the United States and Israel. Michael Levi argues, correctly, that such a tally could be reached in a series of smaller installments, and our national security would benefit from insights into how to prevent such events . But ask yourself how many 9/11s it would take to reach that goal. Answer: 1,334, or one nuclear weapon. Jihadi terrorists are not solely interested in murdering Americans. They are also vying for Muslim “hearts and minds” by demonstrating that al- Qaeda is the “strong horse.” Bin Laden has challenged his followers to trump 9/11. The London and Madrid train bombings set a bar: the first major bombing by Islamic terrorists on each country’s soil. Al-Qaeda’s next UK plot was more audacious, and had it been successful, it would have taken more lives. It is not clear that al-Qaeda can be deterred. Osama bin Laden describes the current conflict as a clash between the Muslim ummah [community of believers] and the “Jewish-Christian crusaders.” A nuclear terrorist attack, like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would be a world-changing event. Bin Laden well might accept significant risk of failure for a chance to draw battle lines in his clash of civilizations UTD - 2010 30

He3 k2 Prolif

Helium-3 is need for nuclear detection, oil exploration, and MRIs Shea and Morgan 10 [September 21, 2010, Dana A. Shea is a Specialist in Science and Technology Policy and researcher for the Congressional Research Service, Daniel Morgan is a Specialist in Science and Technology Policy and researcher for the Congressional Research Service, Congressional Research Service: “The Helium-3 Shortage: Supply, Demand, and Options for Congress,” LexisNexis, LS]

Helium-3 has properties that currently make it in high demand. Like all helium, helium-3 is nontoxic. Helium- 3 also absorbs neutrons. This property has resulted in its widespread use for neutron detection. Neutron detection is a key component of applications in national and homeland security, industry, and science. For example, the federal government uses radiation portal monitors and other neutron detectors at the U.S. border to prevent smuggling of nuclear and radiological material, and the oil and gas industry uses neutron detectors for well logging. Another property that has increased demand for helium-3 in recent years is the ability to polarize its nucleus. For example, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can take advantage of this property to enable real-time visualization of a patient’s lung capacity and capability.

Helium-3 is key to nuclear detection, oil exploration, and the IAEA Shea and Morgan 10 [September 21, 2010, Dana A. Shea is a Specialist in Science and Technology Policy and researcher for the Congressional Research Service, Daniel Morgan is a Specialist in Science and Technology Policy and researcher for the Congressional Research Service, Congressional Research Service: “The Helium-3 Shortage: Supply, Demand, and Options for Congress,” LexisNexis, LS]

Science and security are the two largest applications for helium-3. Large scientific facilities designed to use helium-3 may not be able to function without it, and investment in their infrastructure might be wasted if a lack of helium-3 prevented them from operating as planned. For individual scientists whose research requires helium-3, the inability to obtain it might hinder scientific progress and career advancement. On the other hand, security applications such as radiation portal monitors at the U.S. border aim to protect the nation against nuclear and radiological terrorism. It is unclear how to balance these two priorities. The IPC has established an application’s contribution to increased national or homeland security as one criterion for receiving a helium-3 allocation. At the same time, however, it considers whether helium-3 is needed to complete infrastructure investments, a criterion that appears to favor several large scientific facilities. For both science and security, some uses may have diminishing returns. For example, once neutron detectors are deployed at multiple locations on the border, the incremental security benefit of deploying additional detectors may be less. Similarly, if the leading cryogenic scientists are able to obtain helium-3 for their research, providing supplies to newly established laboratories may be less important. Public vs. Private Most private-sector users of helium-3 have designed and developed equipment and procedures based on an expectation that the federal government will make helium-3 available . For example, the oil industry previously used other neutron detection materials for well logging, but has now converted almost entirely to the use of helium-3 . Meanwhile, the shortage has resulted largely from increased use of helium-3 by the public sector for radiation detection equipment. Policymakers might decide to prioritize private-sector uses because of their economic importance, because it is mostly the public sector that created the shortage, or because of a general sense that the private sector should come first. Alternatively, they might prioritize public-sector uses because of national needs such as security, because it is the public sector that produces the nation’s helium-3 supply, or because of the availability of previously employed alternative methods. National vs. International The United States has domestic needs for helium-3, but it is also involved in international agreements and collaborations that require helium-3. In some cases, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the purpose of these international uses is security . In others, such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the aims are scientific. A fundamental question is whether the United States should provide helium-3 to international partners when the domestic supply is restricted. International transfers of helium-3 in support of the IAEA have been scaled back because of the shortage .61 On the other hand, international security organizations contribute to U.S. security, and international scientific collaborations may provide unique facilities for U.S. scientists. UTD - 2010 31

He3 K2 Oil Detection

Helium 3 is key to oil detection. Anderson 10 [Thomas Anderson, April 22, 2010, Product Line Leader GE Energy and Reuter Stokes Radiation Measurement Solutions , Written Testimony of Thomas R. Anderson, Before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on “Caught by Surprise: Causes and Consequences of the Helium-3 Supply Crisis,” http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/042210_Anderson.pdf, LS] Nuclear Safeguards The purpose of nuclear safeguards programs is to prevent diversion of nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes. Nuclear safeguards systems are installed at facilities that process , handle, use and store plutonium, uranium, nuclear fuel, spent fuel or nuclear waste. Safeguards systems quantify and monitor nuclear material to enable facilities to precisely account for plutonium and uranium during all aspects of processing, storage and clean up. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) via the National Laboratories sponsor a number of international safeguards programs such as the new reprocessing facility that is under construction at the Rokkasho Reprocessing Complex in Japan . Nuclear safeguards systems are typically compact. The detectors must have high neutron sensitivity and excellent gamma discrimination to enable accurate neutron measurements. The extremely fast response of Helium-3 detectors makes certain measurements possible. Helium-3 detector performance can be further tailored to permit highly precise nuclear material assay. This is a key element in accurately accounting for nuclear materials.

Helium 3 is key to oil exploration – neutron sensitivity Arsenault 10 [Richard Arsenault, April 22, 2010, Director of Health, Safety, Security and Environment along with being the Corporate Radiation Safety Officer of ThruBit LLC, statement of Richard Arsenault, Before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on “Caught by Surprise: Causes and Consequences of the Helium-3 Supply Crisis,” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg57170/html/CHRG-111hhrg57170.htm, LS] Neutron logging: Wells can be logged by wireline logging or LWD logging, known as logging while drilling. There are a number of formation measurements that are taken when a well is logged. Neutron logging is one of the primary measurements taken when a well is logged. The neutron measurement provides the hydrogen located in the pore space of the formation and the porosity is determined from neutron count rates in the detectors within the logging tool. The neutron measurement is a primary gas indicator which helps delineate gas and oil producing zones along with providing the porosity of the formation. Both wireline and LWD tools will in most cases have a long space and short space helium-3 detector which are located at different distances from the radioactive sources mounted in the logging tool. The helium-3 detectors are used with either americium-241 beryllium or californium-252 radioactive sources. The importance of helium-3 supply to the oil industry is critical and crosses into numerous sectors of the industry. Helium-3 is used in almost the entire neutron detectors incorporated into downhole tools in our industry. The neutron count rate measurement , from which the porosity measurement is derived, is used in oil and gas reservoir evaluations. Even small errors in the neutron measurement can make the difference in whether a reservoir is commercially viable or not. Oil and gas exploration within the United States is a vital part of our national security and lessens our dependence on foreign oil and gas. The shortage of helium-3 is starting to impact our entire industry. As rig counts increase and the request for well logging increases it will require more tools to be in service ready to go. Large companies can take stockpiles of tools not in service during the slowdown in the last two years and put them back in service. Smaller companies which have less of a stockpile of tools not in service to pull from are unable to do so. With small companies such as ThruBit trying to increase our market penetration, it creates an extra hardship limiting our ability to grow and bring our new technology to the marketplace. Large companies have financial and human resources to pursue extensive research and development in looking for potential alternatives in detector technologies. Smaller companies are not as fortunate. They cannot afford extensive research and development. Their commercial viability comes into question along with their ability to sustain their business. These smaller companies are also in a situation where they cannot afford the extensive research and development of looking at alternatives to their current supply of tools. UTD - 2010 32

China ADV – XT – Space Race UQ

Moon based space race is heating up – US action to secure international agreement is key to allay fears of militarization. Shen, 7 [Dingli, Asia's space race, BAS, 10-30-2007, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dingli- shen/asias-space-race] Appropriately enough, China launched its first moon-orbiting spacecraft, the Chang'e 1 (named after the Chinese goddess of the moon) on October 24, only a month after its Moon Festival, an annual, 3,000-year- old celebration scheduled to coincide with the autumn equinox and marked with "moon cakes." The launch represents another effort by China to assert itself as an emerging global power. Despite the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, China launched its first Earth-orbiting satellite in 1970. Even though it was far less developed and technologically advanced then, China's planned economy could still efficiently make strategic decisions and effectively invest its resources. In addition, unlike other regional powers, Western containment forced China to develop independent defense and strategic capabilities; in comparison, India was highly dependent upon the Soviets for advanced defense technology. Nearly a quarter century after the start of China's reform age, Beijing's space program has ushered in a new technological era: In 2003, China shot its first "Chinanaut," a Chinese astronaut, into space, and earlier this year, China garnered attention and caused a controversy by destroying a defunct weather satellite in space. Now, it's the Chang'e 1. As for the future, the government appears to be readying a landing probe that it will send to the moon, and possibly, even a Chinanaut. The lunar probe is not meant to compete with the United States, the world's preeminent space power. Washington sponsored the first human landing on the moon in 1969, while China has only shot its first moon-orbiting instrument into space. Even if Beijing is lucky enough to send a Chinanaut to the moon in the next two decades, it will be 50 years after Neil Armstrong first walked the moon. That's a significant gap. China also finds itself in a regional space race of sorts. A few weeks ago, after a delay of four years, Japan sent its Kaguya spacecraft to the moon. That and Chang'e 1's launch will certainly inspire India to hasten its space program. The three rising Asian powers are now empowering themselves via their space pursuits. On this count, Japan and China are clearly ahead of India. Their space activity might also be motivating NASA, which recently announced it will also launch a moon orbiter in 2008 and return to the moon within 10 years. As for India, it used a Soviet rocket to send its first satellite into space in 1975; five years later, it succeeded in using its own rocket to do so. In April, India launched its first commercial satellite with an Italian payload, and it will launch its first moon orbiter in 2008, carrying two NASA devices. What are the implications of such a competition? All three countries maintain that their space pursuits are purely scientific in intent. The Kaguya spacecraft will map the moon's surface, while the Chang'e 1 will do the same (although more comprehensively) and analyze more than 10 of the moon's chemical elements. India's orbiter will enable NASA to site the location of the next U.S. manned lunar landing. However, these civilian space programs could be developed as a hedge against a space military hegemony, which many believe the United States wants to become. India has published its Space Vision 2020, a report that demands Indian Armed Forces carry out 1,000 research projects to determine its space capability in intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, detection, communication, and navigation. Accordingly, last year, the Indian Air Force started preparing for a space command. Though the viability of such an ambitious plan is suspect, New Delhi must feel an impetus to strongly pursue a space race in both civilian and military programs. Therefore, an international agreement ensuring space is used for peaceful purposes only is more essential today than ever before. But since space technology can mean big economic gains in the global marketplace and space dominance can lead to a strong national defense, striking such an agreement will be difficult. Consequently, humankind faces a dilemma. A rush for scientific/technological achievement and national pride is leading Asia's civilian space race. That's the positive influence of U.S. space accomplishments. But if Washington isn't careful, its future space activities (if military in nature) could set a negative precedent, leading to an arms race in space between many different nations if Asia's race to the moon is

***Hegemony (China)*** UTD - 2010 33

any indication. All the more reason for the international community to agree to a code of conduct in space sooner rather than later.

China balancing in space now – beating them to the Moon is key FLITTON 09 [DANIEL FLITTON, July 11, 2009, diplomatic editor, a former intelligence analyst for the Australian government and was a university lecturer specialising in international relations. In a career focused on world affairs, he developed a wide breadth of knowledge on Asia, the Middle East and the Pacific. Daniel won a Fulbright award in 2004 and has written for a range of newspapers, magazines and academic journals, “Out to soar to the top of the new world pecking order? Space is the place to strut your stuff; SPACE EXPLORATION,” The Age (Melbourne, Australia), LexisNexis, LS] But a new era of space exploration is beginning, under colours not well known among the stars. China, India and Japan have all declared an intention to explore the moon; Brazil has a space program, European nations too. And in a supreme irony, after the shuttle makes its final flight next year, America will depend on old rival Russia to ferry supplies to its astronauts based on the International Space Station. The long US domination of manned space flight may be finally ending. "Space flight is one of several manifestations of America's supremacy," says Morris Jones, a keen observer of the various national space programs as they develop around the world. "They have their strong military, strong technology, strong economy, and their space program, which is second to none." "With the financial crisis and their international entanglements, America's power is being challenged on several fronts. And if their space program is also challenged, it is yet another symbol of a superpower in decline." The focus has shifted to China, the rising giant of Asia. Dazzling economic growth over the past two decades has allowed the country to greatly expand its extraterrestrial ambitions. Under a 1997 plan known as "Program 973", Beijing set out its determination to advance its high-tech capability. "This program recognised space as a strategic industry," explains Griffith University's Jo-Anne Gilbert, who is undertaking a major study of China's ambitions beyond the planet. The exploration also gave a huge boost to China's economic development, she says, allowing the country to leap-frog along the path taken by the West. For instance, by adopting satellite communication, China skipped the cumbersome roll-out of a copper-wire network for telephone lines. This, in turn, helped speed local commerce. But it is China's larger galactic goals that have really captured attention - the prospect of another country planting its flag upon the moon. "Potentially we could be in for a space race," says retired American astronaut Jim Reilly. "Not the same character, of course, we had when we first went to the moon. But with China pushing really hard it would be a competitor for the United States." Beijing's plans are not entirely clear, beyond a goal for a manned Chinese landing on the moon between 2020 and 2025. That could pit China directly against the aim set by former president George W. Bush, for the US to return to the moon by 2020 and prepare for an eventual manned mission to Mars - an objective Barack Obama has not walked away from. "I'd say there is about a 50/50 chance that it turns into a competition," Reilly told The Age this week during a visit to Melbourne. "But it's actually better in the long run because when you're in competition, you are actually developing better and faster than when you're not." At the earliest, he says, in 2017 the Stars and Stripes might again be raised against a lunar back-drop. The idea of a benign competition to advance the cause of UTD - 2010 34

science is enticing. But there are other aspects of China's space program that raise concern. In 2007, Beijing successfully tested a missile capable of destroying a satellite in orbit. Much of America's military supremacy rests on rapid communication - from connecting soldiers in far-flung battlefields with commanders at home, to directing so-called smart bombs. Knocking out satellite networks could have a crippling effect. Potential conflict in the heavens has even raised official concerns in Australia, which shares much of the benefit from US space technology. The recent Defence white paper ranks "space warfare" as an emerging problem, with attacks on critical systems a "serious or even grave" threat to our national security. "Space assets, including communications, intelligence, surveillance, positioning, navigation and targeting systems, will play an increasingly important role in military operations," the paper warns. "Counter-space technologies will pose an increasing risk." Put another way, forget little green men, but still watch out for bogeys in the sky. Even so, orbital competition among countries has been brewing for some time. Europe and Russia have both developed navigation systems to operate independently of the American GPS network. But why chase the moon? What is the attraction of a lifeless rock no one has much bothered with for almost 40 years? "It's a question of national pride," says Brett Biddington, a former Australian air force officer and now a member of the space team of Cisco Systems. "The competitive element is China's ambitions to be taken seriously as a world power . . . One of the ways you can do that is to put a man on the moon." Biddington believes China will be the next country to land a manned craft on the moon. But he doubts this will do much to advance general technology. "The technologies are not going to be profoundly different from those used in 1969. That's one of the paradoxes here, that the real technology developments in space are in robotics, not in manned space flight." Robotic probes are far cheaper; they can operate for longer and don't need to return safely to Earth. So where do the benefits lie in sending a human to the moon? Morris Jones says China is motivated in part by the distant prospect that a lunar mineral could help meet China's expanding energy needs - a substance known as Helium-3 that - just maybe - could be used in fusion reactors.

China seeking development in space – US-China space race triggers conflict. Drew 8 [Jill Drew, Washington Post Foreign Service, September 25, 2008, “Space Inspires Passion And Practicality in China”, LexisNexis, LS] "Now that we've managed to send men into space, it's time for us to do more with probing the moon , to push forward the development of science and technology," said Ouyang, one of China's most passionate supporters

of lunar exploration. At casual glance, China's space program seems a tad retro. There's talk of a rover that, within the next decade, could land on the moon, take surface samples and return to Earth. Chinese astronauts will attempt their first-ever spacewalk as early as this week. Americans and Russians surpassed these scientific feats decades a ago. But the "been there, done that" appearance masks the deeper significance of China's multipronged space program. It has developed sophisticated launchers and satellites, which it builds by the dozens and sends skyward for friends and paying clients, conservatively aiming to capture 15 percent of the global market for such services. China is building partnerships to support its manned space program, with hopes of creating its own space station and potentially exploiting the resources of the moon, various asteroids and perhaps even Mars to meet energy and other needs here on Earth. China is experimenting with antisatellite and other space-based capabilities to counter the overwhelming U.S. dominance of extraterrestrial territory. All the while, it is training and inspiring a new generation of engineers and scientists -- hundreds of thousands of them. "It's clear that China has decided that one symbol of the aspirations of a major global power is a comprehensive and successful space program," said John Logsdon, director of George Washington University's space policy institute. Experts such as Logsdon say China still has a long way to go to catch up to the technologies of the United States and Russia, and to outpace other countries such as Japan and India with their own space aspirations. But like many other aspects of China's growing influence, China's designs in space are seen as a threat by some U.S. experts, especially because almost all its operations are cloaked in secrecy. "They are less transparent than even Russia," Logsdon said. Both India and Japan eye China's space ambitions a bit warily. India has a sophisticated program but is behind China technologically, and it is unclear how much money it can dedicate to space exploration, said Theresa Hitchens, director of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information. India is seeking military capabilities, largely out of concern about China. So, too, is Japan. Hitchens said Japan has mostly a niche space program not targeted to military use, but it could swing that way if it sees China as a threat. Space experts outside China are generally at a loss to describe how its various space programs -- manned and unmanned, civil and military -- are organized and overseen, except that the vast bulk of its efforts are under the direction of the People's Liberation Army. No official from China's space agencies or government-owned space companies would be interviewed for this article. Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) is one of the few U.S. officials ever allowed to tour the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center, a sprawling military facility in remote Inner Mongolia where China launches its manned Shenzhou spacecraft. Feeney recalled that, during his 2006 visit, he saw military personnel stationed every 50 yards or so along a road between Jiuquan and the nearest town -- a drive that took about two hours. When he finally entered the base and met the top two officials there, the men apologized profusely because they did not have business cards to offer him. "They said they never had visitors before," Feeney said. Feeney came away impressed -- and daunted. "If you were building a new facility to launch rockets today, you would do it the Chinese UTD - 2010 35

way," Feeney said. He marveled at the launchpad, which can accommodate two rockets at the same time and can ready them for launch within 60 minutes of being delivered. This

fast-launching ability could be crucial in a situation in which space rescue is required, he said. For the Chinese, the space program is becoming another point of pride. The planned spacewalk, like the two other manned space flights China has conducted in the past five years, will likely be a

nationally televised event. Contests are underway for schoolchildren to create artwork to commemorate the feat. A black-market cellphone handset maker is doing a brisk business selling a rocket-shaped mobile device, painted red with "Shenzhou VII" stamped on the side. As China gains confidence, officials are becoming a bit more willing to showcase their space acumen. The government announced this summer that it will build a first-ever visitors' center alongside a launch site in Hainan

province, an island in southern China. Chen Yao, vice tourism bureau chief of the province, said he expects the center to be completed in 2012. China is unabashed when it thinks about using the space environment for

practical purposes. For example, China sent thousands of agricultural seeds into space to see how radiation, zero gravity and other pressures would affect them. Universities and state-owned companies then cultivated the seeds and have produced giant pumpkins, tomatoes, cucumbers and the like. The state-run New China News Agency reported that the vitamin content of vegetables grown from space-bred seeds was 281.5 percent higher than that of ordinary vegetables. Others have declined to follow

China's lead, saying the costs are too high and they are skeptical of the benefits. Ouyang does not rule out mining resources on the moon one day or finding ways to get fuel sources such as helium -3 from the moon . "Apart from coal, in less than 100 years all our resources could be finished. As scientists, we have to think of alternatives. It's

the right thing to do," Ouyang said. But for now, Ouyang and China's other scientists and engineers are focused on the specific technical challenges of operating in space and conducting basic exploration. Although U.S. space officials say China will be capable in coming years of landing men on the moon, Ouyang said the government has not decided whether to bankroll such an effort. China has already built a solid, homegrown business in manufacturing and launching communication and surveillance satellites, and it is selling those services to countries including Brazil, Venezuela and Nigeria. "It's no accident that these are resource-rich countries," Logsdon said. "China is using its space capabilities as part of its broader diplomatic efforts." China's civilian space budget is stable but not very large; some experts estimate it at about one-tenth

NASA's 2008 budget of $17.3 billion. China's budget is expected to grow steadily in coming years, however, as China's economy continues to expand. China is developing a comprehensive, long-term space strategy, through 2050, that will help promote and develop China's economy, technology and other interests, according to research published in July by Yi Zhou. Yi says now is the time for the United States and China to start trying to cooperate in their civilian space programs; until now, U.S. laws have prohibited technology transfers to China , and the two nations' space agencies have no cooperation agreements. The alienation is stark, given that NASA has signed about 4,000 agreements with more than 100 nations and that the China National Space Administration has built relationships with several nations as well as the European Space Agency . In the paper, Yi recognizes the barriers to any such cooperation: " China is concerned with the implications of U.S. military space capabilities for its security interests, and the USA reciprocally is concerned with the potential build-up of Chinese capabilities to counter U.S. military space capabilities." Hitchens said she hopes the two countries can find a way to cooperate "as a means of creating a more transparent relationship, and dampening fears on both sides about military intentions and capabilities in space." "No one, least of all the United States, wins if a military space race breaks out," Hitchens said in an e-mail. Hitchens fears the two countries are teetering on the edge of just such a race, especially given the Chinese test of antisatellite technology to obliterate one of its weather satellites in early 2007. In turn, the United States destroyed one of its own satellites earlier this year. Though that was not called a test of antisatellite technology, Hitchens said it "was a de facto one." Baker Spring, a defense analyst at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, said the U.S. UTD - 2010 36

military has become dependent on space, with satellite technology essentially embedded throughout its capabilities. That dependence becomes a huge vulnerability in any conflict with China as it strengthens its antisatellite program. " China does not seek to be a peer to the United States in space," Spring said. " China is indeed willing to sacrifice its space capabilities in any military conflict as long as it can take down the U.S. in that space." He thinks that China seeks the ability to knock out U.S. satellites and argues that the Pentagon must strengthen its satellite defenses while also protecting commercial satellites of others that can be relied on as backups. UTD - 2010 37

XT – Moon = Space Weapons

China’s moon program carries military implications. Adams, 10 [Jonathan, China is on a path to ‘militarization of space’ CSM, 10-26-2010, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/1028/China-is-on-path-to-militarization-of- space] Meanwhile, some have pointed out that China's moonshot, like all space programs, has valuable potential military offshoots. China's space program is controlled by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), which is steadily gaining experience in remote communication and measurement, missile technology, and antisatellite warfare through missions like Chang'e 2. The security implications of China's space program are not lost on India, Japan, or the United States. The Pentagon notes that China, through its space program, is exploring ways to exploit the US military's dependence on space in a conflict scenario – for example, knocking out US satellites in the opening hours of a crisis over Taiwan. "China is developing the ability to attack an adversary's space assets, accelerating the militarization of space," the Pentagon said in its latest annual report to Congress on China's military power. "PLA writings emphasize the necessity of 'destroying, damaging, and interfering with the enemy's reconnaissance ... and communications satellites.' " More broadly, some in the US see China's moon program as evidence that it has a long-range strategic view that's lacking in Washington. The US has a reconnaissance satellite in lunar orbit now, but President Obama appears to have put off the notion of a manned return to the moon. With China slowly but surely laying the groundwork for a long-term lunar presence, some fear the US may one day find itself lapped –"like the tale of the tortoise and the hare," says Dean Cheng, an expert on China's space program at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. "I have to wonder whether the United States, concerned with far more terrestrial issues, and with its budget constraints, is going to decide to make similarly persistent investments to sustain its lead in space."

China eyeing the moon and He3 for military purposes. Goosen, 11 – Special Editor, weapons / technology [Yoshihisa, “China’s Star Wars Program” Weapons and Technology, http://weapons.technology.youngester.com/2011/05/chinas-star-war-program.html] The expert also emphasized the importance of China's lunar exploration program. China in October 2007 successfully launched the "Chang'e I" lunar probe satellite. He said: "China's decision to use the past two years, two rockets spacecraft will weigh 130 tons into low orbit, the manned lunar exploration program to prepare. The scheme is in fact similar to the U.S. 'Constellation'. U.S. President Barack Obama was terminated in February last year, 'Constellation', while China is planning to carry small 2013 radar and laser range finder device soft landing on the moon. These two instruments are a military function, may capture to the U.S. early warning satellites, deep space place. " Therefore, the development of exploration technologies in China, it may be a military conflict with the United States upset the occasion of the combat situation on the million. The expert also emphasized that China plans to launch in 2020 manned spacecraft to the moon to the moon by 2049 with the military functions of the base building. On the other hand, the United States is prepared to abandon the lunar exploration program. The expert also emphasized that the Chinese have access to natural resources of the moon's strategic intent. He said: "The Chinese want the moon tritium or helium 3, and helium- UTD - 2010 38

3 is the best fuel fusion reactors, tritium is a very precious resource. China is promoting the development of fusion reactors, and attempt to achieve its commercial applications. Nuclear Fusion energy has the military strategic significance, which reflect China's lunar exploration program with a lot of military purposes. " To further prove this point, the expert example, saying that China North Industries Corporation has recently announced the establishment of the Institute of lunar resources to investigate. He said: "China North Industries Corporation is a corporate manufacturing guns and tanks, is also begun to study lunar resources and the development of the lunar surface in a moving vehicle. Can be inferred that China will eventually build military bases on the moon." In other words, the long-term objective of China's space strategy is the military use of the Moon and begin it own STAR WARS Program. UTD - 2010 39

China ADV – UQ – US Losing

US being surpassed now—Asian space race Marlow 9- a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London (Jeff Marlow is a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London, Spring 2009, “Moon-rush: Is the United States Sitting Out of the Next Space Race?”, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL) In the early morning dawn of October 22, 2008, the sky over southeastern India was illuminated by the fiery exhaust from the Chandrayaan-1 space- craft, which was embarking on India’s first robotic mission to the Moon. Two weeks later, Chandrayaan became the third orbiter actively studying the Moon: mapping the surface, characterizing the mineralogy, and searching for traces of water. This accomplishment may not seem particularly surprising given the success of recent autonomous missions to Mars and other planets; but what is noteworthy is the list of countries participating in this modern-day Moon-rush. Asian upstarts China, Japan, and India have taken center stage, while traditional space powers such as the United States, Russia, and the European Space Agency have been noticeably absent. India’s recent success, coupled with China’s first spacewalk in September, signals the acceleration of a new Asian space race—a technological arms race that is quickly closing the gap between the United States and the rest of the world. As China, India, and Japan push each other to aim ever higher, NASA has been relegated to the sidelines, nursing a broken shuttle fleet and a strained budget. Unfortunately, as the Asian space race heats up, NASA seems to be losing momentum. The space shuttles, which may have been futuristic enough 30 years ago, are now antiques. It has become increasingly difficult to justify the safety risks and billion-dollar price tags that come with each launch. Wisely, the remaining shuttles are on the fast track to retirement, but thanks to cost overruns, leadership gaps, and sagging employee morale chronicled by a NASA safety panel in August, a replacement vehicle is still several years off. In the interim, from 2010 to 2015, American astronauts will have to hitch rides to the International Space Station with the temperamental Russians, which is kind of like having to ask your grouchy neighbor to let you into your own house. Once things do get back on track, NASA aims for a manned return to the Moon by—you guessed it—2020. But even that might be too late: Former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin recently admitted the possibility, telling the BBC that “if China wants to put people on the Moon, and if it wishes to do so before the United States, it certainly can.”

China taking over US superiority now—space program expansion Marlow 9- a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London (Jeff Marlow is a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London, Spring 2009, “Moon-rush: Is the United States Sitting Out of the Next Space Race?”, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL) The Asian space race was ignited in large part by China, which in 2003 became just the third nation to achieve manned spaceflight. China’s manned missions—there have now been three—are all part of a long-term agenda that will see the construction of a Chinese space laboratory and permanent space station. The program, titled Project 921, has been on the books since 1992, reflecting the persistence and foresight with which China has pursued its spacefaring ambitions. Though it has been a long time in the making, China’s space program is finally achieving visible results, and the rest of the world has noticed. China’s distinctive blend of militaristic tendencies and nationalistic fervor, highlighted by a 2007 antisatellite missile test, has triggered a powerful reaction. Other Asian powers have responded, and a new story has begun to unfold in the regional battle for cultural, technological, and economic supremacy. UTD - 2010 40

China spurs Asian space race—Japan proves Marlow 9- a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London (Jeff Marlow is a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London, Spring 2009, “Moon-rush: Is the United States Sitting Out of the Next Space Race?”, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL) Japan flinched. “We were surprised,” flight engineer Masashi Okada told Time magazine soon after China’s historic mission. “Obviously we knew they were working toward it, but they achieved manned flight very quickly. We are fully aware that our space development program has to include manned spacecraft.” Of the current Asian contenders, Japan has the most impressive pedigree of space exploration, having pioneered important astronomical tools, constructed reliable launch vehicles, and helped build the International Space Station. But in 2003, encouraged in part by the perceived threat of China’s fledgling space program, Japan rebranded its agency and focused its effort not on international partnerships but independent missions. Japan hopes to develop its own manned spaceflight program and land astronauts on the Moon by 2020.

China spurs Asian space race—India proves Marlow 9- a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London (Jeff Marlow is a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London, Spring 2009, “Moon-rush: Is the United States Sitting Out of the Next Space Race?”, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL) India also took drastic action following China’s 2003 manned mission. Since the mid-1960s, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) has been content to use space technology for development programs like communications, health care, and environmental monitoring. But in 2006, its national pride piqued, India announced more ambitious plans, calling for a manned program that would allow it to assume its rightful place as a technologically progressive nation. In the wake of Chandrayaan’s launch, Indian officials were more direct than ever. “China has gone earlier,” ISRO satellite communications director Bhaskar Narayan told Reuters, “but today we are trying to catch them.” India’s manned spaceflight plans remain unspecified, but there is little doubt that ambitions run high. Some analysts predict that the first Indian astronauts will fly around 2014, and the ISRO maintains that India’s ultimate goal is a 2020 Moon landing.

China taking over He3 race—lunar program Lasker, 6- freelance journalist (John Lasker, freelance journalist citing Dr. Gerald Kulcinski, a fusion researcher at UW-Madison, December 23-24, 2006, “Future in Fusion?”, http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/ct122206.pdf, AD: 6/21/11, SL) But the nation now de- termined to gamble on the moon’s helium-3 bounty is not the United States, but China. Among all the nations and private investors interested in the potential of the moon’s fuel, it is China that is steadfast on winning what it apparently feels is the helium-3 race — one that could already be far past its starting point. Ouyang Ziyuan, chief scien- tist of China’s lunar program, has told the international press, “We will provide the most reli- able report on helium-3 to mankind,” and “Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first.”

US starting to fall behind—newcomers India and China prove Downs, 8 - Chairman of National Space Society Board of Governors (Hugh Downs, Chairman of National Space Society Board of Governors, Fall 2008, “Ships for the Stars”, Ad Astra Magazine, AD: 6/21/11, SL) Our challenges are formidable: George Whitesides, testifying in a Senate hearing this month, cited a 20- year- old report of the National Commission on Space, with a paragraph I'd like to read in part: "Should the United States choose not to undertake achievements in these economies in launch and recovery capability [referring to a loss for NASA of a huge body of contractor skill and experience during the 7- year hiatus between the Apollo and shuttle programs], then the nation must face the probability that other UTD - 2010 41 nations will rapidly overtake our position as the world's leading spacefaring nation." Paul Davies, who is of Australian origin, and a leading cosmologist now at Arizona State University, wrote in 2007 (saying of his belief that NASA might not be up to the task of mounting a mission to Mars soon), "[I feel] that the new players in space-China and India-will not suffer from Western timidity. A joint Indian-Chinese colony on Mars by 2100 is not only technically feasible, it is also politically realistic."

US become dependent on Russia—ferry Americans to space Korss, 9-oral pathologist and medical writer/editor in Lincoln University, Pennsylvania (Dr. John F. Kross is an oral pathologist and medical writer/editor in Lincoln University, Pennsylvania, Spring 2009, “A Change is Gonna Come: Constellation’s Future in the Obama Administration”, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL) As things stand now, NASA—and the nation—face a five-year gap between the last shuttle flight in 2010 and the first flight of its replacement. During that protracted interval, American astronauts will be reduced to thumbing a ride on a Russian Soyuz, a proposal that has raised a few eyebrows, not to mention the hackles of important members of Congress. In fact, the GAO has questioned the wisdom of relying on Russian spacecraft to ferry U.S. astronauts to orbit and many lawmakers have voiced opposition to dependence on Russia.

CHINA HAS INTEREST IN MINING HE-3-PLANS- ALREADY UNDERWAY BBC ASIA PACIFIC 07 (XINHUA NEWS, OFFICIAL CHINESE NEWS INDUSTRY, 08/10/07 “CHINA PLANS TO MEASURE THE SOIL OF THE MOON: EXPERT, LEXISNEXIS.COM, ACCESSED 6/20/11, LG)

Beijing, Aug. 10 (Xinhua) - China plans to measure every inch of the soil of the moon in its planned lunar probe programme, said Ouyang Ziyuan, chief scientist of the programme. By measuring the soil of the moon we can figure out the exact amount of helium-3, a resource for nuclear fusion, said Ouyang. Earlier reports said China's first lunar orbiter, Chang'e I, will most likely be launched in the second half of 2007. Addressing a recent a forum for young workers in the provincial government departments in southwest China's Guizhou Province , Ouyang said there is about 15 tons of helium-3 on earth, while the volume of helium-3 on the moon is estimated at 1 to 5 million tons. "When obtaining nuclear power from helium-3 becomes a reality, the resource on the moon can be used to generate electricity for more than ten thousand years for the whole world," Ouyang said. China's moon exploration programme will be carried out in three stages - "circling the moon", "landing on the moon" and "back to earth", said Ouyang. In the first phase China will launch an orbiter for preliminary exploration of the moon, in the second phase it will send a moon rover for precise probe in some area, and in the third phase lunar samples will be brought back to earth. China carried out its maiden piloted space flight in October 2003, making it the third country in the world following the Soviet Union and the United States to have put men into space. In October 2005 China completed its second manned space flight, with two astronauts on board. UTD - 2010 42

China UQ - Space Weapons Inevitable

Space weaponization is inevitable—natural historical progression Huntleya et al, 10 (Wade L. Huntleya, US Naval Postgraduate School, Joseph G. Bockb, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, and Miranda Weingartner, Weingartner Consulting, February 2010, “Planning the unplannable: Scenarios on the future of space”, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026596460900126X#sec4.2, AD: 6/27/11, SL) Behind these concerns, however, has been a consistent presumption that the increasing militarization of space and the ever-present potential for space-related combat are an inevitable result of natural historical progression. For example, the US Space Command's widely-circulated 1998 “Vision for 2020” anticipated that space would eventually “evolve into a separate and equal medium of warfare” and outlined requisite US preparations for that inevitability.9 The subsequent and more notorious report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, chaired by soon-to-be US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, viewed the eventual extension of warfare into space a “virtual certainty”, famously warning of an impending “Space Pearl Harbor”, and recommended that the USA “vigorously pursue” full-scale capabilities for space weapons deployment.10

China’s space program accelerates militarization of space—offensive space capabilities Adams, 10-- associate in the Climate and Energy Program at the World Resources Institute (Jonathan Adams, October 28, 2010, "China is on path to 'militarization of space”, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/1028/China-is-on-path-to-militarization-of- space, AD: 6/27/11, SL) China looks set to pull ahead in the Asian space race to the moon, putting a spacecraft into lunar orbit Oct. 6 in a preparatory mission for an unmanned moon landing in two or three years. The Pentagon notes that China, through its space program, is exploring ways to exploit the US military's dependence on space in a conflict scenario – for example, knocking out US satellites in the opening hours of a crisis over Taiwan. "China is developing the ability to attack an adversary's space assets, accelerating the militarization of space," the Pentagon said in its latest annual report to Congress on China's military power. "PLA writings emphasize the necessity of 'destroying, damaging, and interfering with the enemy's reconnaissance ... and communications satellites.' " UTD - 2010 43

China ADV – Weaponization = Conflict

Space weaponization leads to global conflict in space and on Earth Huntleya et al, 10 (Wade L. Huntleya, US Naval Postgraduate School, Joseph G. Bockb, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, and Miranda Weingartner, Weingartner Consulting, February 2010, “Planning the unplannable: Scenarios on the future of space”, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026596460900126X#sec4.2, AD: 6/27/11, SL) “Back to the Future” describes a future characterized by a high degree of technological breakthrough wherein power is projected by rule of force. In 2009 global tensions create an atmosphere where nations increasingly test new defensive technology. In 2010 India explodes a satellite out of Low-Earth orbit (LEO) and the USA tests an orbital interceptor. Gazprom invests $1 billion in the development of a nanotechnology research lab. There is also a steady erosion of Outer Space Treaty norms and limits to protect commerce. By 2013 NATO is dissolved, seen as no longer relevant. The EU alliance shifts towards defending its borders. Human spaceflight continues, in an increasingly competitive atmosphere. The USA launches Aries I, with a crew. Generation Y seems more interested in environmental issues than space. By 2014 many nations begin deploying anti-satellite (ASAT) technology. In 2015 China, the USA, India and Russia field rival ASATs in orbit, as LEO orbits are at risk from debris. Commercial interests give up on LEO and eye the Moon, which fuels the race to establish a presence there. An increasingly protectionist USA leaves the World Trade Organization (WTO). In response, China recalls its debts from the USA. Meanwhile, European and Asian growth continues and, in 2018, a Chinese factory begins production of bulk carbon nanotubes. The USA and China race to produce the first space elevator. The civil lunar programs move forward. By 2020 a joint US–EU team land on and ‘reclaim’ the Moon. Lunar bases and the space elevator are established, as resources continue to dwindle on earth. Rival moon bases compete over mining rights and orbital lasers promote a defensive arms race in space. NATO is replaced by a new European Defence Organization (EDO). A coalition emerges, including the USA, the EU and India, in opposition to Russia and China. By 2025 African nations reject the influence of major powers and, thanks to the proliferation of technology, become space powers in their own right. In 2028 major powers withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty. Saudi oil fields are now officially empty, and the lunar colonies' major export is solar power. Military bases on the Moon defend against rival solar farms. A Russian–Chinese coalition attacks the space elevator, which essentially strands the US–EU lunar colonies and seriously impairs energy availability on Earth. The UN breaks down and is dismantled. Treaties are ignored and tensions increase. The earth is highly militarized, and conflict occurs both on earth and in space. The future is tense, dark and uncertain. By 2030 Californian scientists claim to have discovered an alleged artificial signal from outer space. The signal offers the possibility of a new reason for hope. UTD - 2010 44

China ADV – Cooperation Key

US-China cooperation key to peace and prosperity Hitchens, 7-- Director of the Center for Defense Information (Theresa Hitchens, Winter 2007, “US-Sino Relations in Space: From 'War of Words' to Cold War in Space?””, http://74.125.155.132/scholar? q=cache:aEItXB3xKRoJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44, AD: 6/27/11, SL) Finally, the United States and China need to recognize that they must make an effort to manage their emerging competition in military space in a manner that does not undercut their own national security, as well as the security of others. Breaking off nascent discussions about space cooperation in fa- vor of launching a kind of Cold War in space is bound to backfire on both Washington and Beijing in the long run. Instead, a frank and open dialogue about each side’s national security concerns in space is called for – along with serious consideration of how a new code of conduct for behavior in space might be drafted to clearly demark the boundaries of acceptable and unac- ceptable behavior in space. A code of conduct for space is not a radical, or even new, idea. Indeed, the administration of Ronald Reagan, while pursuing space-based missile defenses and an ASAT program, also was considering the value of pursuing a code of conduct that might include measures such as barring attacks on early warning satellites.Pursuit of a space code more recently has been endorsed by a number of international media outlets, in- cluding The Economist, a libertarian-oriented British magazine, and U.S. trade journal Aviation Week & Space Technology. China and the United States should take heed, and seek to shape rules of the road that can help ensure mutual se- curity in space for all. Failure to act to restrain unfettered military competition in space is bound to result in a “Wild West” environment that raises the risks not only to Chinese and U.S. uses of space, but to the peace and prosperity of the entire world. UTD - 2010 45

Plan key to leadership – returning to the moon is the top priority for US national policy Schmitt 2010 (Harrison H., Ph.D. in Geology Harvard University, former NASA astronaut, & former US Senator; April 15, 2010; http://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Schmitt_SpacePolicyConstitution.pdf; bh)

Since 1957, national space policy, like naval policy in the centuries before, has set the geopolitical tone for the interactions between the United States and its international allies and adversaries . The President’s FY2011 budget submission to Congress shifts that tone away from leadership by America by abandoning human exploration and settlement of the Moon and Mars to China and, effectively, leaving the Space Station under the dominance of Russia for its remaining approximately 10-year life. With the Station’s continued existence inherently limited by aging, these proposals sign the death warrant for NASA-sponsored human space flight. Until the Space Station’s inevitable shutdown, the President also proposes Americans ride into space at the forbearance of the Russians, so far, at a cost of more than $60 million a seat . Do we really want to continue to go, hat in hand, to the Russians to access a Space Station American taxpayers have spent $150 billion to build? What happens as the geopolitical and ideological interests of the United States and an increasingly authoritarian Russia continue to diverge? In spite of funding neglect by the previous Administration and Congresses, a human space flight program comparable to Constellation remains the best way to develop the organizational framework, hardware, and generational skills necessary for Americans to continue to be leaders in the exploration and eventual settlement of deep space. Protecting liberty and ourselves will be at great risk and probably impossible in the long term if we now abandon deep space to any other nation or group of nations, particularly a non-democratic, authoritarian regime like China. To others would accrue the benefits, psychological, political, economic, technical, and scientific, that accrued to the United States from Apollo’s success 40 years ago. This lesson from John Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower has not been lost on our ideological and economic competitors. An American space policy that maintains deep space leadership, as well as providing major new scientific discoveries, requires returning to the Moon as soon as possible. Returning to the Moon prepares the way to go to and land on Mars, something we are a long way from knowing how to do. Returning to the Moon, importantly, trains new young Americans in how to work in and with the challenges of exploring and living in deep space . This also continues a policy in which freedom-loving peoples throughout the world can participate as active partners. Even more pragmatically, settlements on the Moon can send badly needed clean energy resources back to Earth for everyone’s use and that are not under the control of some authoritarian regime.

China calling for agreements to peacefully exploit space resources. Yuan, 8 - Ph.D., is Director of Research for the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies [Jing-dong, China’s Ascendancy to a Space Power, The Jamestown Foundation, April 16, 2008, http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4852] China has made major achievements in space exploration and continues to charge ahead with ambitious plans and objectives. The drive for space power status is informed by the potential scientific, industrial, commercial, and military benefits that are critical components in building up the country’s comprehensive national strength. China’s ascendancy to a space power also raises questions and concerns, some of which may be legitimate while others are unfounded. Beijing continues to call for negotiation leading to an international treaty banning the weaponization of outer space. Clearly, engagement and dialogue on the implications of China’s civilian and military space programs for its future endeavors and international cooperation go a long way toward securing the space sanctuary and peaceful use of space. UTD - 2010 46

China ADV – REE

Rare Minerals are needed- key to Defense Applications David 10 (Leonard David has been reporting on the space industry for more than four decades. He is past editor-in-chief of the National Space Society's Ad Astra and Space World magazines and has written for SPACE.com since 1999. October 4th, 2010. Is Mining Rare Minerals on the Moon Vital to National Security? Accessed: 6/22/11 http://www.space.com/9250-mining-rare-minerals-moon-vital-national-security.html GR) The seemingly barren moon may actually be a treasure-trove of priceless resources: a potentially bountiful, mineral-rich yet untapped cosmic quarry. Still, few see the moon as an alluring mining site, ripe for the picking of rare elements of strategic and national security importance. Here on Earth, China recently blocked the export of rare earth elements to Japan for use in an array of products; from wind turbines and glass for solar panels to use in hybrid cars, and even guided missiles and other defense-oriented creations. China is increasingly putting the pinch on quotas of such elements out of their country. And as the scarcity of these valuable minerals grows, so too does the concern in other nations regarding the availability of this limited resource. For instance, a recent report from the Congressional Research Service ? a study arm of the U.S. Congress ? reviewed the worldly use of rare earth elements for national defense. The report looked at the production of elements such as europium and tantalum, among others, outside the United States and flagged the important issue of supply vulnerability. The study pointed out that rare earth elements are used for new energy technologies and national security applications and asked: Is the United States vulnerable to supply disruptions of these elements? Are they essential to U.S. national security and economic well-being? Among the policy options flagged in the Congressional Research Service assessment is establishing a government-run economic stockpile and/or private-sector stockpiles. Doing so "may be a prudent investment," the study noted, and would contain supplies of specific rare earth elements broadly needed for "green initiatives" and defense applications .

China with Rare Earth Materials makes us rely on them- no other way to gain Kennedy 2011 (James Kennedy, President of Wings Enterprises. 2011. "Critical and Strategic Failure of Rare Earth Resources" Accessed: 6/22/11http://www.smenet.org/rareEarthsProject/TMS-NMAB-paperV-3.pdf GR) Rare Earths: This paper outlines the complete failure of the U.S. in status and relevance in Rare Earth Oxides (REO). Although rare earth oxides are strategic and critical in their own right, refining these REOs into elements and alloys is even more important for the development of "Green Technologies" and advanced weapons systems. America does not have an active domestic source of rare earth oxides. America does not have any heavy rare earth elemental or alloy capabilities. The magnitude of this failure continues to become more apparent as the manufacture of REO based electronics and magnetic components moves eastward towards China. China has succeeded in outmaneuvering the United States and the world in its quest to control the rare earth oxides, elements and alloys, and the many industries dependent upon REO. What can be done? First, We Must Understand the Scope of this Failure The scope of failure is multi-fold, interdependent and compounding. Sustainability and growth of a mature economy, like the U.S., is dependent upon innovation. Innovation and research & development are dependent upon the overall macro-economic systems at the private, corporate and public level. Sustainable macro- economic systems require balanced economies comprised of producers and consumers. The U.S. economy is grossly imbalanced as the result of two decades of off-shoring and a complete lack of any rational industrial policy. In the absence of balance, the system is self-correcting i. The current banking crisis reflects the magnitude of that imbalance. Looking at the net present value of all future federal liabilities supported by a failing U.S. economy, shrinking tax base and growing vacancies in our domestic industrial capabilities, the future looks grim. On the commercial side the rapidly disappearing manufacturing and industrial base of America begins to resemble the Aral Sea: receding, stagnant, and unable to sustain the life of basic researchii. There is a growing body of research that shows a strong interdependence between basic research, measured by patents, and the health of the local or national industrial baseiii. In other words, if you are shedding industry, innovation slips away. If you are growing technology-hungry businesses, innovation springs to life. This has been well demonstrated in a paper titled “Value Chain Off Shoring and the Location of Innovationiv,” that specifically analyses the REO magnet market for China and the U.S. America is now 100% import dependent upon others for rare earth oxides, elements and alloys. Resulting pricing, supply and tax disadvantages have decimated U.S. competitiveness for all REO related products. Today there are few remaining domestic manufacturers of value added rare earth components. REO enhanced products are typically components in some of the fastest growing markets in the world. For example, in 1990 The United States had 12 REO magnet producing facilities with 6000 employees for a global REO magnet market of about $600 million in gross revenues. Today the U.S. has 4 REO UTD - 2010 47

magnet producers with less than 600 employees while the global REO magnet market has grown to over $7 billionv. These magnets are in everything we use today, iPods, computer hard drives, automobile sensors, micromotors, wind turbines and military guidance systems. Nearly all of the production for this rapidly expanding market is increasingly coming from China. Experts agree the REO magnet market will at least double in the next 10 yearsvi. REO’s – A Failure of Historic Proportions in the Making The United States, as a nation, can only survive by leading in the commercial development, application and manufacture of high value products. Wealth creation and improved standards of living can only come from three things: agriculture, natural resources and manufacturing. Manufacturing is increasingly driven by technology. As rare earth oxides, elements and alloys are critical in the development and production of enhanced materials performance in many materials science applications. America’s failure to secure, control and produce these materials can only compound the broader failure from an economic and defense stand point. REO technologies are increasingly present in the highest value applications, devices and products. These are the prized industrial base for any mature economy with higher cost for wages, capital and environmental issues. The national defense issues are equally important. Rare earths are critical components for military jet engines, guided missiles and bombs, electrical countermeasures, anti- missile systems, satellite communication systems and armor, yet the U.S. has no domestic sources.

Space race causes Asian instability and weaponization of space – reactions prove Page 8 [Jeremy Page, October 23, 2008, South Asia Correspondent for the Times (London), “ Lift-off for the Moon takes India's aspirations right out of this world,” LexisNexis, LS] There is, however, a new impetus for India's lunar ambitions. Mao Zedong initiated China's space programme in 1958 with specific military applications in mind and placed it under the purview of the People's Liberation Army. That head start, combined with a 30-year economic boom, means that China is now years ahead of India on several fronts, as demonstrated in a series of recent breakthroughs. China put its first astronaut in space in 2003, shot down a satellite and launched a lunar orbiter in 2007, and conducted the first space walk by a Chinese taikonaut last month. Beijing now plans to land a man on the Moon by 2024. Indian officials insist that they are not racing with China, but they have eyed it with suspicion ever since Chinese forces easily prevailed in a brief border war in 1962. Last year India's army chief spoke in public for the first time of his fears about China's military space programme and the need for India to accelerate its own. Other Asian powers have also been spurred into action by China's success, and by North Korea's claim to have tested a nuclear bomb in 2006. Japan launched a new unmanned lunar orbiter last year, has plans for an unmanned Moon lander in 2012-13, and is considering putting a man on the Moon by 2025. South Korea accelerated its space programme in 2004 by teaming up with Russia to develop a spaceport and a satellite launch vehicle, due for completion this year. "There's an element of rivalry, but each country has a mix of motivations," said Bates Gill, the director of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute. "It's a combination of national prestige and the spin-offs for technology. The third aspect is the military one. The ultimate high ground: space." The new "space race" differs from the Cold War because of the lack of ideology and the international co-operation needed for expensive projects like Mars missions, experts say. "Space is a global enterprise," said Henry R. Hertzfeld, a professor at the Space Policy Institute of George Washington University. Some foresee a "golden era" of global co-operation. Nasa plans to send astronauts to the Moon again by 2020 and to build a permanent base there. Russia aims to have one by 2028 32. Nevertheless, most experts agree that space exploration continues to be as much about politics as science - and a few foresee trouble. China, India, Japan, Russia and the US oppose the "weaponisation" of space, but all are developing space technology with potential military applications. India is the only country with a lunar programme to have signed the 1979 UN Moon Agreement, which bans ownership of lunar resources. None has yet ratified it. "There is a window over the next 10 to 15 years for countries to think about a resource race in space," Dr Gill said. "It's not too early to think about what these countries might do that could avoid conflict in the future." UTD - 2010 48 UTD - 2010 49

Moon k2 Hegemony

Moon is key to maintaining US space leadership Schmitt, 10 – Former Senator [Harrison, Obama space policy cedes Moon to China, Space Station to Russia and Liberty to the Ages, Free Republic, 2-6-2010, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2445788/posts] The Administration finally has announced its formal retreat on American Space Policy after a year of morale destroying clouds of uncertainty. The lengthy delay, the abandonment of human exploration, and the wimpy, un-American thrust of the proposed budget indicates that the Administration does not understand, or want to acknowledge, the essential role space plays in the future of the United States and liberty. This continuation of other apologies and retreats in the global arena would cede the Moon to China, the American Space Station to Russia, and assign liberty to the ages. The repeated hypocrisy of this President continues to astound. His campaign promises endorsed what he now proposes to cancel. His July celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the first Moon landing now turns out to be just a photo op with the Apollo 11 crew. With one wave of a budget wand, the Congress, the NASA family, and the American people are asked to throw their sacrifices and achievements in space on the ash heap of history. Expenditures of taxpayer provided funds on space related activities find constitutional justification in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, that gives Congress broad power to ˛promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.˛ In addition, the Article I power and obligation to łprovide for the Common Defence˛ relates directly to the geopolitical importance of space exploration at this frontier of human endeavor. A space program not only builds wealth, economic vitality, and educational momentum through technology and discovery, but it also sets the modern geopolitical tone for the United States to engage friends and adversaries in the world. For example, in the 1980s, the dangerous leadership of the former Soviet Union believed America would be successful in creating a missile defense system because we succeeded in landing on the Moon and they had not. Dominance in space was one of the major factors leading to the end of the Cold War. With a new Cold War looming before us, involving the global ambitions and geopolitical challenge of the national socialist regime in China, President George W. Bush put America back on a course to maintain space dominance. What became the Constellation Program comprised his January 14, 2004 vision of returning Americans and their partners to deep space by putting astronauts back on the Moon, going on to Mars, and ultimately venturing beyond. Unfortunately, like all Administrations since Eisenhower and Kennedy, the Bush Administration lost perspective about space. Inadequate budget proposals and lack of Congressional leadership and funding during Constellation's formative years undercut Administrator Michael Griffin's effort to implement the Program after 2004. Delays due to this under-funding have rippled through national space capabilities until we must retire the Space Shuttle without replacement access to space. Now, we must pay at least $50 million per seat for the Russians to ferry Americans and others to the International Space Station. How the mighty have fallen. Not only did Constellation never received the Administration's promised funding, but the Bush Administration and Congress required NASA 1) to continue the construction of the International Space Station (badly under- budgeted by former NASA Administrator O'Keefe, the OMB, and ultimately by the Congress), 2) to accommodate numerous major over-runs in the science programs (largely protected from major revision or cancellation by narrow Congressional interests), 3) to manage the Agency without hire and fire authority (particularly devastating to the essential hiring of young engineers), and 4) to assimilate, through added delays, the redirection and inflation-related costs of several Continuing Resolutions. Instead of fixing this situation, the current Administration let go Administrator Griffin, the best engineering Administrator in NASA's history, and now has cancelled UTD - 2010 50

Constellation. As a consequence, long-term access of American astronauts to space rests on the untested success of a plan for the łcommercial˛ space launch sector to meet the increasingly risk adverse demands of space flight. Histories of nations tell us that an aggressive program to return Americans permanently to deep space must form an essential component of national policy. Americans would find it unacceptable, as well as devastating to liberty, if we abandon leadership in space to the Chinese, Europe, or any other nation or group of nations. Potentially equally devastating to billions of people would be loss of freedom's access to the energy resources of the Moon as fossil fuels diminish and populations and demand increase. In that harsh light of history, it is frightening to contemplate the long-term, totally adverse consequences to the standing of the United States in modern civilization if the current Administration's decision to abandon deep space holds. Even a commitment to maintain the International Space Station using commercial launch assets constitutes a dead-end for Americans in space. At some point, now set at the end of this decade, the $150 billion Station becomes a dead-end and would be abandoned to the Russians or just destroyed, ending America's human space activities entirely. What, then, should be the focus of national space policy in order to maintain leadership in deep space? Some propose that we concentrate only on Mars. Without the experience of returning to the Moon, however, we will not have the engineering, operational, or physiological insight for many decades to either fly to Mars or land there. Others suggest going to an asteroid. As important as diversion of an asteroid from collision with the Earth someday may be, just going there hardly stimulates łScience and the useful Arts˛ anything like a permanent American settlement on the Moon! Other means exist, robots and meteorites, for example, to obtain most or all of the scientific value from a human mission to an asteroid. In any event, returning to the Moon inherently creates capabilities for reaching asteroids to study or divert them, as the case may be. Returning to the Moon and to deep space constitutes the right and continuing space policy choice for the Congress of the United States. It compares in significance to Jefferson's dispatch of Lewis and Clark to explore the Louisiana Purchase. The lasting significance to American growth and survival of Jefferson's decision cannot be questioned. Human exploration of space embodies the same basic instincts as the exploration of the West the exercise of freedom, betterment of one's conditions, and curiosity about nature. Such instincts lie at the very core of America's unique and special society of immigrants. Over the last 150,000 years or more, human exploration of Earth has yielded new homes, livelihoods, know how, and resources as well as improved standards of living and increased family security. Government has directly and indirectly played a role in encouraging exploration efforts. Private groups and individuals take additional initiatives to explore newly discovered or newly accessible lands and seas. Based on their specific historical experience, Americans can expect benefits comparable to those sought and won in the past also will flow from their return to the Moon, future exploration of Mars, and the long reach beyond. To realize such benefits, however, Americans must continue as the leader of human activities in space. No one else will hand them to us. Other than buying our national debt, China does not believe in welfare for the U.S. With a permanent resumption of the exploration of deep space, one thing is certain: our efforts will be as significant as those of our ancestors as they migrated out of Africa and into a global habitat. Further, a permanent human presence away from Earth provides another opportunity for the expansion of free institutions, with all their attendant rewards, as humans face new situations and new individual and societal challenges. Returning to the UTD - 2010 51

Moon first and as soon as possible meets the requirements for an American space policy that maintains deep space leadership, as well as providing major new scientific returns. Properly conceived and implemented, returning to the Moon prepares the way to go to and land on Mars. This also can provide a policy in which freedom- loving peoples throughout the world can participate as active partners. The Congressionally approved Constellation Program, properly funded, contains most of the technical elements necessary to implement a policy of deep space leadership, particularly because it includes development of a heavy lift launch vehicle, the Ares V. In addition, Constellation includes a large upper stage for transfer to the Moon and other destinations, two well conceived spacecraft for transport and landing of crews on the lunar surface, strong concepts for exploration and lunar surface systems, and enthusiastic engineers and managers to make it happen if adequately supported. The one major missing component of a coherent and sustaining deep space systems architecture may be a well-developed concept for in-space refueling of spacecraft and upper rockets stages. The experience base for developing in-space refueling capabilities clearly exists. Again, if we abandon leadership in deep space to any other nation or group of nations, particularly a non-democratic regime, the ability for the United States and its allies to protect themselves and liberty will be at great risk and potentially impossible. To others would accrue the benefits psychological, political, economic, and scientific that the United States harvested as a consequence of Apollo's success 40 years ago. This lesson has not been lost on our ideological and economic competitors. American leadership absent from space? Is this the future we wish for our progeny? I think not. Again, the 2010 elections offer the way to get back on the right track.

Race to moon key to US leadership—technological superiority Marlow 9- a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London (Jeff Marlow is a Marshall Scholar working on the European Space Agency’s ExoMars mission at Imperial College London, Spring 2009, “Moon-rush: Is the United States Sitting Out of the Next Space Race?”, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL) But the trends do matter, and the future of America’s space program may have a monumental effect on the future of the entire nation. The nebulous sense of prestige gained from a strong space exploration program often translates into substantive economic and political gains. James Oberg, a Houston-based space consultant, told the Associated Press that “doing ‘Moon probes’ advertises a country’s technological level, and that’s good for high-tech exports, and for validating the threat- level of its high-tech weapons.” The exact date that China, India, Japan, the United States, or anybody else next lands on the Moon is immaterial, but the race itself is important as a litmus test of participating nations’ technological prowess and the value they ascribe to science and technology. Right now, the United States must work to get back on the right side of the equation. Meanwhile, half a world away—after Chandrayaan soared over rice paddies and fishing ships toward the Moon just a few months ago—India is looking up.

US race to moon key to dominance—be overtaken by others Davis, 9- Senior Principal Aerospace Scientist/Engineer employed by the Boeing Phantom Works: Analysis, Modeling, Simulation, & Experimentation team (Dean Davis a Senior Principal Aerospace Scientist/Engineer employed by the Boeing Phantom Works: Analysis, Modeling, Simulation, & Experimentation team, Spring 2009, “Space Settlement”, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL) Our need to climb the highest mountain is part of what makes us human. Exploring the unknown terrains of the Moon—and learning how to survive and thrive there—is a lofty goal. Historically, as human societies slow down or stop exploring, they tend to decline and become overtaken by others. UTD - 2010 52

It is vital that America remain a dominant, human spacefaring nation; establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon is a key component of that goal.

LOSING SPACE RACE TO FOR HE-3 KILLS HEG THE EXPRESS 10 (ADRIAN LEE, FORMER NATIONAL NEWSPAPER JOURNALIST, FOUR YEARS ON STAFF OF TIMES AND DAILY EXPRESS, 3/24/2010, “TRUTH BEHIND THE NEW SPACE RACE; INDIA, CHINA, BRAZIL AND NOW EVEN BRITAIN HAVE ANNOUNCED MASSIVE NEW SPACE PROJECTS-ALL COMPETING WITH NASA TO HARVEST THE MOON’S PRICELESS COMPOUND THAT COULD POWER THE PLANET” LEXISNEXIS.COM. ACCESSED 6/20/11, LG)

WHEN the first grainy pictures were beamed back from the Moon they signalled victory for the United States in the space race. The giant leap for mankind taken by Neil Armstrong in 1969 was intended to be the catalyst for further manned exploration. Vice president Spiro Agnew declared grandly that his nation would put a citizen on Mars by the mid Eighties. It was a hollow boast, underlined recently by an announcement that the US is abandoning plans to return to the Moon. The rulers of space for the past four decades are, it seems, ready to surrender their dominance. The result is a new space race, involving other nations desperate to compete for a share of spoils thousands of miles above Earth. Even the UK is trying to get in on the act, unveiling a new space agency yesterday. Billed as a mini NASA, it will have a £270million annual budget and the government hopes it will inspire a new generation of British space enthusiasts. The Moon, neglected since the last landing in 'Nations are The Moon, neglected since the last landing in 1972, remains a source of untapped riches. Not far from its surface lies a source of power which, if successfully mined, could solve many of the world's energy needs for thousands of years to come. The Moon has acted spoils' The Moon has acted like a sponge and soaked up Helium-3 , emitted from the Sun in the form of solar winds. According to space scientist and author Dr David Whitehouse, just two payloads full of Helium-3 in a Space Shuttle-style vessel could provide sufficient power for the United States for a year, created using nuclear fusion. It's been estimated that more than one million tonnes of this fuel lie buried on the Moon. If ways of getting heavy equipment to the Moon can be found, the technology exists to extract Helium-3 , says Dr Whitehouse. Only a handful of other nations, currently led by China, are anywhere near ready to put a man on the moon. Russia - which has already stated its intention to mine Helium-3 - Japan and India are the others. A European alliance has the technology to land there and we even have a trainee astronaut, Major Tim Peake, working for the European Space Agency. However, there's little enthusiasm to put a Briton, or European, on the Moon, says Dr Whitehouse. "China sees the benefits of Helium-3 and psychologically it would also affect America," he adds. "India is also training astronauts, although it's a bit of a puzzle because they don't have rockets powerful enough to put people into space. Under axed proposals, the US intended to reclaim the Moon in 2020. "That's still possible," says Dr Whitehouse. "Now, though, I think it is 50-50 whether China will get there first." For Britain, the last developed nation to have its own space agency, it's a case of too little, too late. "Sadly, it's hard to see Britain ever getting independently involved in manned space flights. The government only seems interested in sending satellites into space. Our space programme has just ambled along for years. We should be spending more money." Some experts insist there's little to be gained from going back to the Moon but Dr Whitehouse believes the next country to conquer our near neighbour, 240,000 miles distant, will gain a major advantage. "This time it will not be grainy black and white pictures but in high-definition colour and it will carry whole new meaning for whoever gets to the Moon next," he says. "In my opinion, abandoning the Moon is a big mistake." The discovery last year of a significant amount of water under the lunar south pole brings the reality of establishing a permanent base on the moon a step closer. The surface of the Moon is drier than any desert on our planet but scientists have long speculated that some permanently shadowed places might harbour huge stores of water, perhaps delivered by impacting comets billions of years ago. This water could sustain astronauts based at the lunar poles. However, efforts to tap into these wells seem more remote than ever. The US space industry has not been at a lower ebb since 1957 when the Soviets launched the first satellite, Sputnik. The Russians followed up that success by sending the first man, Yuri Gagarin, into orbit - but all that was overshadowed when the US narrowly won the biggest prize of all, the race to put man on the Moon. Given Spiro Agnew's ill-conceived boast about Mars, there are some who believe the US rested on its laurels afterwards. One Briton, Steve Bennett, who is battling to launch tourists 62 miles to the edge of space for an unforgettable experience, says: "The Americans are allowing other countries to steal a march. This is a very bad decision." Bennett faces a constant struggle for funding to achieve his lifelong ambition and has been testing his inventions for years with varying success. Despite a lack of formal training he aims to be at the controls in 2013 when blast-off is finally achieved at 3,500 miles-per-hour. He says: "How will people in the States feel when they see China celebrating a Moon landing and bringing back souvenir parts from the US lunar modules which are still up there?" Like Dr Whitehouse he regards harnessing power from the Moon and space as a prime reason to continue pushing boundaries. He says: "If you put satellites into space eventually you will be able to harvest energy from the Sun and beam it back to Earth. The resources up there are tremendous. It's cheap, clean, energy which will last forever." Bennett believes scrapping the programme is also short-sighted for military reasons. "China is a sleeping giant in space exploration and when it wakes, the world is UTD - 2010 53

going to be shocked. If you have control of space, you have control of the world. If you are on the Moon it's like being on a big battleship." Brazil is behind in the space race but is hoping to revive an unmannned programme that has been on hold since a launchpad disaster killed 21 people in 2003. Worryingly, it's been reported that Iran, while still many years behind the Americans, has a fledgling space programme and is planning to send satellites above the Earth. Clearly, there are plenty of vultures circling the Moon to feast on the pickings. ooking even further ahead, Bennett says heavy industry could eventually be sited on the moon, or floating in space, leaving the Earth as a "garden planet". The US still has its International Space Station but if Obama's threats are carried through America will, in future, have to rely on the Russians to transport its astronauts there. How humiliating for the nation which triumphed in the first space race back in the Sixties to rely on its old foe to act as a glorified taxi service into space.

China Space Technology offsets US hard power Saunders 05 [PHILLIP C. SAUNDERS, Spring 05, CHINA'S SPACE AMBITIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. SECURITY, PH.D. is from the National Defense University's Institute of National Strategic Studies in Washington, D.C, Ad Astra, pg. 21] China's October 2003 manned spaceflight highlighted its dramatic achievements in space technology. Although Chinese space technology is not state-of-the-art, China differs from other developing countries by having a space program that spans the full range of capabilities from satellite design to launch services. China builds satellites on its own, and is involved in international commercial and scientific collaborations with Europe, Russia and Brazil. The People's Republic of China has a robust commercial satellite launch industry capable of launching payloads into geosynchronous and polar orbits. Its space program is also notable for the movement of personnel and technology between the civilian and military sectors. Beijing's space aspirations pose significant security concerns for Washington. Most of China's space programs have commercial or scientific purposes, but improved space technology could significantly improve Chinese military capabilities. China may also seek to offset U.S. military superiority by targeting U.S. space assets. This article reviews Chinese efforts to exploit space for military purposes, explores the potential for China to attack U.S. military use of space, and considers whether a SinoAmerican space race can be averted. UTD - 2010 54

Moon Race = Escalation

CHINA/US HE-3 SPACE RACE LIKELY- DRAWS IN MANY COUNTRIES THE EXPRESS 10 (ADRIAN LEE, FORMER NATIONAL NEWSPAPER JOURNALIST, FOUR YEARS ON STAFF OF TIMES AND DAILY EXPRESS, 3/24/2010, “TRUTH BEHIND THE NEW SPACE RACE; INDIA, CHINA, BRAZIL AND NOW EVEN BRITAIN HAVE ANNOUNCED MASSIVE NEW SPACE PROJECTS-ALL COMPETING WITH NASA TO HARVEST THE MOON’S PRICELESS COMPOUND THAT COULD POWER THE PLANET” LEXISNEXIS.COM. ACCESSED 6/20/11, LG)

The Moon, neglected since the last landing in 'Nations are The Moon, neglected since the last landing in 1972, remains a source of untapped riches. Not far from its surface lies a source of power which, if successfully mined, could solve many of the world's energy needs for thousands of years to come. The Moon has acted spoils' The Moon has acted like a sponge and soaked up Helium-3, emitted from the Sun in the form of solar winds. According to space scientist and author Dr David Whitehouse, just two payloads full of Helium-3 in a Space Shuttle-style vessel could provide sufficient power for the United States for a year, created using nuclear fusion. It's been estimated that more than one million tonnes of this fuel lie buried on the Moon. If ways of getting heavy equipment to the Moon can be found, the technology exists to extract Helium-3, says Dr Whitehouse.Only a handful of other nations, currently led by China, are anywhere near ready to put a man on the moon. Russia - which has already stated its intention to mine Helium-3 - Japan and India are the others. A European alliance has the technology to land there and we even have a trainee astronaut, Major Tim Peake, working for the European Space Agency. However, there's little enthusiasm to put a Briton, or European, on the Moon, says Dr Whitehouse."China sees the benefits of Helium-3 and psychologically it would also affect America," he adds. "India is also training astronauts, although it's a bit of a puzzle because they don't have rockets powerful enough to put people into space . Under axed proposals, the US intended to reclaim the Moon in 2020. " That's still possible," says Dr Whitehouse. "Now, though, I think it is 50-50 whether China will get there first." For Britain, the last developed nation to have its own space agency, it's a case of too little, too late. "Sadly, it's hard to see Britain ever getting independently involved in manned space flights. The government only seems interested in sending satellites into space. Our space programme has just ambled along for years. We should be spending more money." Some experts insist there's little to be gained from going back to the Moon but Dr Whitehouse believes the next country to conquer our near neighbour, 240,000 miles distant, will gain a major advantage. "This time it will not be grainy black and white pictures but in high-definition colour and it will carry whole new meaning for whoever gets to the Moon next," he says. "In my opinion, abandoning the Moon is a big mistake."The discovery last year of a significant amount of water under the lunar south pole brings the reality of establishing a permanent base on the moon a step closer. The surface of the Moon is drier than any desert on our planet but scientists have long speculated that some permanently shadowed places might harbour huge stores of water, perhaps delivered by impacting comets billions of years ago. This water could sustain astronauts based at the lunar poles. However, efforts to tap into these wells seem more remote than ever. The US space industry has not been at a lower ebb since 1957 when the Soviets launched the first satellite, Sputnik. The Russians followed up that success by sending the first man, Yuri Gagarin, into orbit - but all that was overshadowed when the US narrowly won the biggest prize of all, the race to put man on the Moon. Given Spiro Agnew's ill-conceived boast about Mars, there are some who believe the US rested on its laurels afterwards. One Briton, Steve Bennett, who is battling to UTD - 2010 55 launch tourists 62 miles to the edge of space for an unforgettable experience, says: "The Americans are allowing other countries to steal a march. This is a very bad decision." Bennett faces a constant struggle for funding to achieve his lifelong ambition and has been testing his inventions for years with varying success. Despite a lack of formal training he aims to be at the controls in 2013 when blast-off is finally achieved at 3,500 miles-per-hour. He says: "How will people in the States feel when they see China celebrating a Moon landing and bringing back souvenir parts from the US lunar modules which are still up there?" Like Dr Whitehouse he regards harnessing power from the Moon and space as a prime reason to continue pushing boundaries. He says: "If you put satellites into space eventually you will be able to harvest energy from the Sun and beam it back to Earth. The resources up there are tremendous. It's cheap, clean, energy which will last forever." Bennett believes scrapping the programme is also short-sighted for military reasons. "China is a sleeping giant in space exploration and when it wakes, the world is going to be shocked. If you have control of space, you have control of the world. If you are on the Moon it's like being on a big battleship." Brazil is behind in the space race but is hoping to revive an unmannned programme that has been on hold since a launchpad disaster killed 21 people in 2003. Worryingly, it's been reported that Iran, while still many years behind the Americans, has a fledgling space programme and is planning to send satellites above the Earth. Clearly, there are plenty of vultures circling the Moon to feast on the pickings. Looking even further ahead, Bennett says heavy industry could eventually be sited on the moon, or floating in space, leaving the Earth as a "garden planet". The US still has its International Space Station but if Obama's threats are carried through America will, in future, have to rely on the Russians to transport its astronauts there. How humiliating for the nation which triumphed in the first space race back in the Sixties to rely on its old foe to act as a glorified taxi service into space. UTD - 2010 56

Russia UQ – He3

RUSSIA WANTS HELIUM 3- PLAN ALREADY IN PROCESS Osborn 6 (Andrew, foreign correspondent since 1998 and currently covers Russia and the former Soviet Union January 27, The Independent “plans to put a mine on the Moon to help boost energy supply” lexisnexis accessed 6/21/11, LG) Russia has staked out plans to recapture its Soviet-era space-race glory and start mining the Moon for a promising energy resource that scientists say could meet the Earth's power needs for more than a thousand years. Nikolai Sevastyanov, head of Russia's giant En-ergia Space Corporation, has unveiled plans to build a permanent base on the Moon within a decade and to start mining the planet for helium 3, a sought-after isotope, by 2020. The idea would be to use helium 3 to power thermonuclear power stations, harnessing its potency to achieve nuclear fusion. The technology to exploit helium 3 is still under development, but it has been touted by a significant academic school of thought as "the ideal fuel of the future" with several countries expressing interest. The race is now on to be the first to make it work. Russian scientists have come up with the idea of using "lunar bulldozers" to heat the Moon's surface in order to get at the resource, and Mr Sevastyanov has told an academic conference that Moscow is keen to institute regular cargo flights of helium 3 back to Earth as soon as possible . His heavily state- controlled firm, one of the most powerful in the Russian space sector, is already drafting plans to turn the base and mining proposals into reality. Russia's new space shuttle Klipper would play a significant role in the project, as would the International Space Station. "We are planning to build a permanent base on the moon by 2015 and by 2020 we can begin the industrial-scale delivery... of the rare isotope helium 3," Mr Sevastyanov said. "The Earth's known hydrocarbon reserves will last mankind 50 to1 00 year sat the present rate of consumption. There are practically no reserves of helium 3 on Earth. On the Moon, there are between one million and 500 million tons, according to estimates." Much of those reserves are reported to be in the Sea of Tranquillity. Mr Sevastyanov predicted that nuclear reactors capable of running on helium 3 would soon be developed and said that just one ton of the isotope would generate as much energy as 14 million tons of oil. "Ten tons of helium 3 would be enough to meet the yearly energy needs of Russia," he added. However, Russia is not the only country interested in the technology. American scientists have expressed interest in helium 3, arguing that one shuttle-load of the isotope would be sufficient to meet US electrical energy needs for a year. During the Cold War the space race had more to do with prestige but in an era when the world has become acutely aware of the finite nature of its resources, a new 21st-century race is developing with a very different aim: to secure a new source of energy for future generations. Helium 3's chief advantage is that it is not radioactive, so there would not be a problem disposing of it once it had been used. But it is not without its skeptics, who argue that it will be too costly and impractical to develop. The Russian cabinet earmarked pounds 6.1bn last year to restore its cash-starved space agency to its former Soviet glory but whether that is enough to begin realizing plans to mine helium 3 remains to be seen.

ALREADY RUSSIAN SUSPICION OVER HE-3 BLOMFIELD 07 (ADRIAN BLOMFIELD, RUSSIAN CORRESPONDENT, 5/1/07, “RUSSIANS SUSPECT A PLOT AS NASA BACKS OUT OF JOINT MOON EXPLORATION” LEXISNEXIS.COM, ACCESSED 6/21/11, LG)

MANKIND'S second race for the moon took on a distinctly Cold War feel yesterday when the Russian space agency accused its old rival Nasa of rejecting a proposal for joint lunar exploration. The claim comes amid suspicion in Moscow that the United States is seeking to deny Russia access to an isotope in abundance under the moon's surface that many believe could replace fossil fuels and even end the threat of global warming. A new era of international co-operation in space supposedly dawned after the United States, Russia and other powers declared their intention to UTD - 2010 57

send humans to the moon for the first time since 1972 . But while Nasa has lobbied for support from Britain and the European Space Agency, Russia claims its offers have been rebuffed. Yesterday Anatoly Perminov, the head of Russia's Federal Space Agency Roscosmos, said: "We are ready to co- operate but for some reason the United States has announced that it will carry out the programme itself. Strange as it is, the United States is short of experts to implement the programme.'' Nasa announced in December that it was planning to build an international base camp on one of the Moon's poles, permanently staffing it by 2024. Russia's space rocket manufacturer Energia revealed an even more ambitious programme last August, saying it would build a permanent Moon base by 2015. While the Americans have either been coy or dismissive on the subject, Russia openly says the main purpose of its lunar programme is the industrial extraction of helium-3. Dismissed by critics as a 21st-century equivalent of the medieval alchemist's fruitless quest to turn lead into gold, some scientists say helium-3 could be the answer to the world's energy woes. A non-radioactive isotope of helium, helium-3 is a proven and potent fuel for nuclear fusion - so potent that just six metric tons would supply Britain with enough energy for a year. As helium-3 is non-polluting and is so effective in such tiny quantities, many countries are taking it very seriously. Germany, India and China, which will launch a lunar probe to research extraction techniques in September, are all studying ways to mine the isotope. "Whoever conquers the moon first will be the first to benefit,'' said Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China's lunar programme. Energia says it will start "industrial scale delivery'' of helium-3 , transported by cargo space ships via the International Space Station, no later than 2020. Gazprom, the state-owned energy giant directly controlled by the Kremlin, is said to be strongly supportive of the project. The United States has appeared much more cautious, not least because scientists are yet to discover the secrets of large scale nuclear fusion. Commercial fusion reactors look unlikely to come on line before the second half of this century. But many officials in Moscow's space programme believe Washington's lunar agenda is driven by a desire to monopolise helium-3 mining. They allege that President Bush has moved helium-3 experts into key positions on Nasa's advisory council. The plot, says Erik Galimov, an academic with the Russian Academy of Sciences, would "enable the US to establish its control of the energy market 20 years from now and put the rest of the world on its knees as hydrocarbons run out.'' Helium-3 was discovered in lunar samples brought back from the Apollo missions in the late 1960s and 1970s. Some scientists estimate that there are more than 100 million tonnes of helium-3 on the moon - more than enough to power the planet for hundreds of years. Theoretically, space engineers would super-heat the Moon's surface, process the helium-3 gas that lies at a depth of about nine feet and return it to earth to process it in fusion reactors. But despite Russian claims, the American energy department is not currently funding any helium-3 fusion research - an indication that Washington still needs to be convinced the project is worthwhile. Russia and China take it much more seriously if only because many believe that the country that controls the production of helium-3 will also enjoy superpower status as the world's dominant energy supplier.

RUSSIAN SHUTTLES APPROVED WHITE 06 (STEPHEN WHITE, MOSCOW CORRESPONDENT FOR THE MIRROR, 1/28/06, “MOON RACE 2; U.S. AND RUSSIA WANT TO MINE FUEL, LEXISNEXIS.COM, ACCESSED 6/21/11, LG)

RUSSIA is planning to race America back to the moon - to mine a precious superfuel. No Russian cosmonaut has walked on the lunar surface, but Americans last went there on Apollo 17 in 1972. Both superpowers are planning moon missions, but Russia hopes to beat the USA's 2018 target by three years. They aim to set up a permanent base and dig for helium-3 . The substance is considered to be the perfect nuclear fuel as just 25 tons could power the US for a year with virtually no pollution or radioactivity. There are few deposits on Earth but about 500million tons on the moon. Lunar bulldozers will process 200million tons of soil to extract one ton of fuel - which is deposited by a wind of charged particles from the sun. Space freighters will then ship it back to Earth. Nikolai Sevastyanov, of Russia's Energia Space Corporation, said: "We plan to build a permanent base by 2015 and by 2020 begin the industrial-scale delivery of helium-3 ." Russia has already approved plans to build pounds 1billion Kliper "shuttles".

RUSSIA’S HE-3 DEADLINE IS SOON- US MUST ACT NOW WHITE 06 UTD - 2010 58

(STEPHEN, MOSCOW CORRESPONDENT FOR THE DAILY RECORD, 1/28/06, “THAR'S GOLD IN THAM LUNAR HILLS; HELIUM 3 COULD HOLD KEY TO THE FUTURE OF SPACE EXPLORATION. IT COULD BE THE 'CASH CROP' FOR THE MOON” LEXISNEXIS.COM, ACCESSED 6/22/11, LG)

RUSSIA is planning to beat America back to the Moon to mine for an abundance of untapped riches. But it's not gold or diamonds they aim to bring back to Earth. It's rare and precious helium 3 (chemical symbol He3) which could provide our planet with an almost limitless source of clean energy. No Russian has ever walked on the lunar surface and the last Americans went there in Apollo 17 in 1972. Now leaders in Moscow hope to beat America's 2018 target to return, set in 2004 by President Bush, by three years. They aim to set up a permanent base and scoop up helium 3 which will transform our power supplies . There are few deposits on Earth, but it is abundant on the Moon, with estimates in millions of tons. And just 25 tons could power a country like America for a year. Nikolai Sevastyanov, head of Russia's giant Energia Space Corporation, said: "We are planning to build a permanent base on the Moon by 2015 and by 2020 we can begin the industrial-scale delivery of helium 3." The Russian government have approved plans to build their own rival to the space shuttle and have at last said they'd come up with the cash. The pounds 1billion Kliper - Clipper in our language - will replace the ageing Soyuz spacecraft and will carry six cosmonauts. Helium 3 is deposited on the Moon's powdery soil by a wind of charged particles from the sun. Gerald Kulcinski, of Wisconsin University, in the US said: " Helium 3 fusion energy may be the key to future space exploration and settlement. "It could be the cash crop for the Moon." Helium 3 could be an efficient fuel for nuclear fusion reactors which are still under development. Scientists believe the Moon's rich resources of helium 3 could be used in futuristic fusion reactors on Earth that would generate electricity without producing nuclear waste. Such fusion technology could also power rockets for deep-space travel in the future. The scientists also estimate that the greatest amounts of helium 3 will be found on the far side of the Moon. Helium 3 is a stable and lighter version of regular helium gas. It is principally shipped and used as a gas for detectors, lasers, refrigerators and laboratory research . Future prospectors on the Moon could be helped by resource maps developed from research by scientists in Arizona and Hawaii. Some He3 is available on Earth. It is a by-product of the maintenance of nuclear weapons and could continue to produce about 15kg per year in the US alone. The total supply in the US strategic reserves is about 29 kg, and another 187 kg is mixed up with natural gas in storage. In one paper, Kulcinski estimated a total of 1,100,000 metric tons of He3 have been deposited by the solar wind on the Moon. Since the surface has been stirred up by collisions with meteorites, He3 could be found down to depths of several meters. The older soils should be better sources of helium 3 because they have been exposed to the solar wind longer and contain greater amounts of fine-grained aggregates that absorb it. Also, solar wind-implanted particles are more abundant on the far side, because the Earth shields the Moon's near side from the solar wind for part of each solar orbit. Scientists estimate that the great-est amounts of helium 3 will be found on the far side "seas," of the Moon, due to the higher solar wind. Their guess is based on analysis of rock samples brought back by the Apollo astronauts and mineralogic maps produced by the Clementine spacecraft. They expect to refine their maps with new elemental data produced by the Lunar Prospector spacecraft. To extract helium 3 from the lunar soil, the Russians would need to heat the dust to about 600C. However, to extract one ton of helium 3, it's estimated 200million tons of the Moon would have to be processed. And that's equivalent to mining the top two metres of a region 10 square kilometres in area. UTD - 2010 59

Warming ADV – 1AC

Humans cause global warming with the use of fossil fuels Guardian 10 (The Guardian is the Newspaper of the Year in the UK. December 30th, 2010. "Are Humans Definitely Causing Global Warming?" Accessed 6/22/11 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/30/humans-causing-global-warming GR) Just as the world's most respected scientific bodies have confirmed that world is getting hotter, they have also stated that there is strong evidence that humans are driving the warming. The 2005 joint statement from the national academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US said: "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities." Countless more recent statements and reports from the world's leading scientific bodies have said the same thing. For example, a 2010 summary of climate science by the Royal Society stated that: "There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation." The idea that humans could change the planet's climate may be counter-intuitive, but the basic science is well understood. Each year, human activity causes billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere. As scientists have known for decades, these gases capture heat that would otherwise escape to space – the equivalent of wrapping the planet in an invisible blanket. Of course, the planet's climate has always been in flux thanks to "natural" factors such as changes in solar or volcanic activity, or cycles relating the Earth's orbit around the sun. According to the scientific literature, however, the warming recorded to date matches the pattern of warming we would expect from a build up of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere – not the warming we would expect from other possible causes.

Helium 3 could power the US and use no greenhouse gases Quick 04 (Susanne Quick, reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 1/24/04 "Lunar Helium Seen As Clean Energy Source" Accessed: 6/23/11 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001842876_moonmine24.html, AD: 6/23/11, GR) The energy source, helium-3, literally litters the moon's surface, said Gerald Kulcinski, professor of nuclear engineering and director of the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. And with President Bush's call this month for a permanent lunar base, the possibility of using helium-3 as an energy source could become a reality ."If we could land ... on the moon, fill the cargo with canisters of helium-3 mined from the surface and bring the shuttle back to Earth," he said, "that cargo would supply the entire electrical power needs of the United States for an entire year." John Santarius, a professor at the university's Fusion Technology Institute, said helium-3 provides 1 million times more energy per pound than a ton of coal. And fusion of helium-3 "doesn't produce greenhouse emissions. It's safe for the environment," Kulcinski said. In addition, little environmental harm would come to the moon from the mining of helium-3, they contended. "The moon doesn't have air or water," Kulcinski said, "so, there won't be any of that kind of pollution." Helium-3 is found in the top few feet of lunar soil. To access it, miners would need only to shovel up the surface, bake it, isolate the gas and "dump the sand back," Santarius said. "We might smooth out some of the smaller divots" and bumps on the surface, Kulcinski said, but nothing that would be apparent from Earth.

Global warming causes food shortages resulting in resource wars Schwartz and Randall, 3- co-founder and current chairman of the Global Business Network organization focused on scenario thinking and planning; of the Global Business Network (Peter Schwartz, and Doug Randall, October 2003, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security”, http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf, AD: 6/23/11, SL)

***Warming*** UTD - 2010 60

The changing weather patterns and ocean temperatures affect agriculture, fish and wildlife, water and energy. Crop yields , affected by temperature and water s tress as well as length of growing season fall by 10-25% and are less predictable as key regions shift from a warming to a cooling trend. As some agricultural pests die due to temperature changes, other species spread more readily due to the dryness and windiness – requiring alternative pesticides or treatment regiments. Commercial fishermen that typically have rights to fish in specific areas will be ill equipped for the massive migration of their prey. With only five or six key grain-growing regions in the world (US, Australia, Argentina, Russia, China, and India ), there is insufficient surplus in global food supplies to offset severe weather conditions in a few regions at the same time – let alone four or five. The world’s economic interdependence make the United States increasingly vulnerable to the economic disruption created by local weather shifts in key agricultural and high population areas around the world. Catastrophic shortages of water and energy supply – both which are stressed around the globe today – cannot be quickly overcome. Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today. Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion, or national honor. The shifting motivation for confrontation would alter which countries are most vulnerable and the existing warning signs for security threats.

Global warming causes global nuclear wars—famine, migration, proliferation Schwartz and Randall, 3- co-founder and current chairman of the Global Business Network organization focused on scenario thinking and planning; of the Global Business Network (Peter Schwartz, and Doug Randall, October 2003, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security”, http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf, AD: 6/23/11, SL) The United States and Australia are likely to build defensive fortresses around their countries because they have the resources and reserves to achieve self-sufficiency. With diverse growing climates, wealth, technology, and abundant resources, the United States could likely survive shortened growing cycles and harsh weather conditions without catastrophic losses. Borders will be strengthened around the country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America. Energy supply will be shored up through expensive (economically, politically, and morally) alternatives such as nuclear, renewables, hydrogen, and Middle Eastern contracts. Pesky skirmishes over fishing rights, agricultural support, and disaster relief will be commonplace. Tension between the U.S. and Mexico rise as the U.S. reneges on the 1944 treaty that guarantees water flow from the Colorado River. Relief workers will be commissioned to respond to flooding along the southern part of the east coast and much drier conditions inland. Yet, even in this continuous state of emergency the U.S. will be positioned well compared to others. The intractable problem facing the nation will be calming the mounting military tension around the world. As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to the abrupt climate change, many countries’ needs will exceed their carrying capacity . This will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression in order to reclaim balance. Imagine eastern European countries , struggling to feed their populations with a falling UTD - 2010 61

supply of food, water, and energy , eyeing Russi a, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply. Or, picture J apan, suffering from flooding along its coastal cities and contamination of its fresh water supply, eying Russi a’s Sakhalin Island oil and gas reserves as an energy source to power desalination plants and energy-intensive agricultural processes. Envision Pakistan, India, and China – all armed with nuclear weapons – skirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land. Spanish and Portuguese fishermen might fight over fishing rights – leading to conflicts at sea. And, countries including the United States would be likely to better secure their borders. With over 200 river basins touching multiple nations, we can expect conflict over access to water for drinking, irrigation, and transportation. The Danube touches twelve nations, the Nile runs though nine, and the Amazon runs through seven. In this world of warring states, nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable . As cooling drives up demand, existing hydrocarbon supplies are stretched thin . With a scarcity of energy supply – and a growing need for access -- nuclear energy will become a critical source of power, and this will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security. China, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, France, and Germany will all have nuclear weapons capability, as will Israel, Iran, Egypt, and North Korea. UTD - 2010 62

Warming ADV – UQ

Humans cause global warming- fossil fuels Guardian 10 (The Guardian is the Newspaper of the Year in the UK. December 30th, 2010. "Are Humans Definitely Causing Global Warming?" Accessed 6/22/11 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/30/humans-causing-global-warming GR)

Just as the world's most respected scientific bodies have confirmed that world is getting hotter , they have also stated that there is strong evidence that humans are driving the warming. The 2005 joint statement from the national academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US said: "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities." Countless more recent statements and reports from the world's leading scientific bodies have said the same thing. For example, a 2010 summary of climate science by the Royal Society stated that: "There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation." The idea that humans could change the planet's climate may be counter-intuitive, but the basic science is well understood. Each year, human activity causes billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere. As scientists have known for decades, these gases capture heat that would otherwise escape to space – the equivalent of wrapping the planet in an invisible blanket. Of course, the planet's climate has always been in flux thanks to "natural" factors such as changes in solar or volcanic activity, or cycles relating the Earth's orbit around the sun. According to the scientific literature, however, the warming recorded to date matches the pattern of warming we would expect from a build up of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere – not the warming we would expect from other possible causes.

Global Warming is caused by humans- industrialization, carbon dioxide, fossil fuels, and deforestation Pandhita 4/28 (Rahul Pandita is the recipient of the prestigious Northeast Media Fellowship, 2001. He is also a former Sarai-CSDS fellow. In 2002, his Bildungsroman, Chinar in My Veins, won the Oxford e-author award. 4/28/11. How Do Humans Cause Global Warming? Accessed: 6/22/11 http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-do-humans-cause-global-warming.html)

Human Global Warming: Main Causes The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has pointed out that human activities are the prime reason for increase in the average temperatures on the Earth. Some ways in which humans are contributing to climate change are: Industrialization has made our lives much easier, but it has also led to the release of harmful gases into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, which is an industrial waste, has contributed to the greenhouse effect more than any other gas. Humans are dependent on fossil fuels for their basic necessities, and fossil fuels are sources of carbon. Whenever a fossil fuel is burnt, carbon dioxide is produced as a by-product, which contributes to the greenhouse effect. Airplanes release high amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Even while driving a car, carbon-rich exhaust enters into the atmosphere. Deforestation is another significant reason for greenhouse effect. Fewer number of trees means lesser amount of carbon dioxide would be converted into oxygen. Deforestation not only contributes to global warming, but it also disturbs the ecosystem. You may be surprised to know that eating non vegetarian food and foods that are out of season also contributes to global warming. This is because of the fact that these foods need to be shipped from all other parts of the world to be made available to you, and their transportation contributes to the greenhouse effect. The effects of global warming on the environment can be catastrophic if corrective measures are not taken to control it. While the pace with which global warming is affecting the environment, means that it won't cause any serious impact within our lifetime, it doesn't mean that we adopt a casual attitude towards this issue. It is important that each one of us does his bit in order to make this world a better place to live for our future generations. We hope that this article would have given you an insight on how do humans cause global warming, and the need to take action against it. As Arnold Schwarzenegger puts it, "The science is in. The facts are there that we have created, man has, a self-inflicted wound that man has created through global warming."

Global Warming is caused by humans- industrialization, carbon dioxide, fossil fuels, and deforestation UTD - 2010 63

Pandhita 4/28 (Rahul Pandita is the recipient of the prestigious Northeast Media Fellowship, 2001. He is also a former Sarai- CSDS fellow. In 2002, his Bildungsroman, Chinar in My Veins, won the Oxford e-author award. 4/28/11. How Do Humans Cause Global Warming? Accessed: 6/22/11 http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-do-humans-cause-global-warming.html) Human Global Warming: Main Causes The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has pointed out that human activities are the prime reason for increase in the average temperatures on the Earth. Some ways in which humans are contributing to climate change are: Industrialization has made our lives much easier, but it has also led to the release of harmful gases into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, which is an industrial waste, has contributed to the greenhouse effect more than any other gas. Humans are dependent on fossil fuels for their basic necessities, and fossil fuels are sources of carbon. Whenever a fossil fuel is burnt, carbon dioxide is produced as a by-product, which contributes to the greenhouse effect. Airplanes release high amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Even while driving a car, carbon-rich exhaust enters into the atmosphere. Deforestation is another significant reason for greenhouse effect. Fewer number of trees means lesser amount of carbon dioxide would be converted into oxygen. Deforestation not only contributes to global warming, but it also disturbs the ecosystem. You may be surprised to know that eating non vegetarian food and foods that are out of season also contributes to global warming. This is because of the fact that these foods need to be shipped from all other parts of the world to be made available to you, and their transportation contributes to the greenhouse effect. The effects of global warming on the environment can be catastrophic if corrective measures are not taken to control it. While the pace with which global warming is affecting the environment, means that it won't cause any serious impact within our lifetime, it doesn't mean that we adopt a casual attitude towards this issue. It is important that each one of us does his bit in order to make this world a better place to live for our future generations. We hope that this article would have given you an insight on how do humans cause global warming, and the need to take action against it. As Arnold Schwarzenegger puts it, "The science is in. The facts are there that we have created, man has, a self-inflicted wound that man has created through global warming." Global Warming on the brink, action must be taken now—carbon emissions rising Harvey, 5/29—environment correspondent at Guardian newspaper (Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent at the Guardian newspaper, May 29, 2011, “Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpowerAD: 6/24/11, SL) Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency. The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius – which scientists say is the threshold for potentially "dangerous climate change" – is likely to be just "a nice Utopia", according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions. "I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions," Birol told the Guardian. "It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say." Birol said disaster could yet be averted, if governments heed the warning. "If we have bold, decisive and urgent action, very soon, we still have a chance of succeeding," he said.

Global warming on the brink—not enough zero-emissions technology Kirkland, 1/24 (JOEL KIRKLAND, staff writer January 24, 2011, “Scenario to Cap World Emissions by 2020 Is Fading Fast, Warns IEA Economist”, http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/01/24/24climatewire-scenario-to-cap- world-emissions-by-2020-is-f-69072.html, AD: 6/24/11, SL) From his perch as chief economist for the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol is virtually shouting his global warming predictions from the Paris rooftops."As we stand now," Birol said on Friday, "we're only a few meters away from saying goodbye to the 2-degree target." "The later we move, the more difficult it will be, especially in the United States," Birol said. "There is a lot of infrastructure being built, lots of power plants. The later we move, the more expensive it will be." Yet, from Birol's vantage point, there's no time left to delay the rollout of zero-emissions technology to replace coal-burning plants. Wind and solar need the power contracts to build out systems, drive down costs and compete effectively with coal and gas as nations replace aging power plants. "The push for renewable energies is not as strong UTD - 2010 64 as one needs to see for 2-degree target," he said. "If natural gas is cheap and available, this would be a problem for the competitiveness of renewable energy." UTD - 2010 65

Warming ADV – He3 Solves

He3 produces a massive amount of energy and displaces fossil fuel use. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] Helium-3 has been recognized as a useful energy source because it can be used in a nuclear fusion reaction to generate vast amounts of energy. The abundant He-3 in the Moon needs to be mined and extracted before using it. There is about one million metric tons of He-3 in the lunar regolith that has been deposited over time due to solar winds (Lewis, 1990). The production of 1kg of He-3 would require the mining of about 120,000 metric tons of the lunar soil (Lewis, 1990). Other valuable elements like He-4, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrogen could also be extracted that are of commercial value. The hydrogen can be used to generate electricity in fuel cells, which can be used to sustain the working of various machines and modules on the Moon. Furthermore, by combining with oxygen found in lunar rocks the hydrogen could also be used to make water, and also as rocket propellant. The nitrogen could be used to grow plants in pressurized greenhouses, the carbon could be used in manufacturing, and the He-4 could be used as a ‘power plant working fluid’ and for pressurization (Lewis, 1990).

Moon mining solves fossil fuel dependence. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] Energy is the most important driving force for powering industrial nations. In fact, a measure of a country’s industrialization is its annual energy consumption. Fossil fuels like coal, petroleum and natural gas are the chief means by which most nations get their energy. Because of the world’s increasing standards of living and its increased dependence on oil, fossil fuel amounts might not last longer than a few decades. Also with the world’s population expanding to almost 12 billion by the year 2050, our oil demand will also increase drastically. Oil has become a key issue in the political and economic affairs of many nations especially after the United States second war with Iraq. In such cases of crisis, the development of He-3 will alleviate the dependency on crude oil. Fossil fuels also release a lot of harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that have detrimental effects on the atmosphere, whereas the usage of He-3 fusion technology will be a great substitute to the fossil fuels as it doesn’t release any harmful byproducts. In addition to the non- polluting properties of He-3 fusion on Earth, the mining of He-3 from the Moon will not contaminate the Moon as the gases that are released during the extraction process (water and oxygen) aren’t harmful, and instead could be used for sustaining a lunar colony as outlined in the technical section. UTD - 2010 66

Fusion key to climate change—clean, sustainable energy Nuttall, 8- University Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at the University of Cambridge (W. J. Nuttall, University Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at the University of Cambridge, September 2008, “Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities”, http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2008/file_38224.pdf, AD: 6/22/11, SL) Life on Earth currently faces a threat on a truly global scale: climate change. A scientific consensus is emerging that civilisation must reduce its emissions of global warming gases by more than half in less than 50 years1 if we are to stand a chance of achieving a global climate as stable as that of the past 10,000 or so years. This pressing need comes at a time when fossil-fuel prices are high, albeit perhaps for short-term reasons, giving the world a window of opportunity in which to make a significant move away from environmentally harmful fossil-fuel combustion. Thus far, no country has managed to make significant cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions as a consequence of rising concern over global warming. In Europe, at least, political leaders have started to put in place policies that, if delivered, would have sufficient strength to have some impact on the problem. In January 2008 the EC president José Manuel Barroso released a major package of policies entitled “Climate Action”.2 The measures consolidated earlier plans for a 20% cut in EU greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020, even in the absence of any global deal that might see the EU target become a 30% cut. As with fission, fusion would be a source of usable heat- energy producing almost no CO2 emissions . The only greenhouse-gas emissions produced would be those associated with the construction and manu- facture of the power station, and the need for external energy inputs for start-up and operations. Fusion research holds out the promise of a clean, sustainable energy supply to contribute to the increasing needs of our civilisation.

Cost of plan justified—solves climate change Whitesides 8, Executive Director of the National Space Society (George Whitesides, Summer 2008, “The Coming Debate”, Ad Astra Magazine, AD: 6/21/2011, SL) We are approaching a critical intersection in the history of human spaceflight and American governance: with the space shuttle due to retire, we are confronted with a gap in American spaceflight capability of five years or more. It has been more than thirty-five years since a human left low Earth orbit, beyond the direct memory of nearly two generations. Meanwhile, the nation is slowly coming to grips with the reality of staggering federal deficits and the potential necessity of cuts to discretionary spending. Those of us who understand the value of human spaceflight need to have a good answer to the question: why are we spending the money? We live in an age in which the greatest threat to humanity is not war but nature. Global climate change threatens the lives of millions. A growing consensus sees humanity's insatiable hunger for energy as a driver for this climate change. Meanwhile, a fundamentally different force of nature-the uncertain threat of asteroid impact-becomes more and more real. The global climate crisis may eventually require the use of space-based mitigation techniques. This could range from more advanced constellations of satellites to the solar shields proposed by Dr. Roger Angel and Dr. Pete Worden. Again, large-scale orbital construction will be required.

He3 fusion stops dependence on hydrocarbon energy Wingo, 7 - founder and President of SkyCorp and Chief Technical Officer of the Orbital Recovery Group (Dennis Wingo, founder and President of SkyCorp as well as the Chief Technical Officer of the Orbital Recovery Group, November 2007, “Toward a Theory of Spacepower: Selected Essays”, http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/spacepower/spacepower.pdf, AD: 6/22/11, SL) UTD - 2010 67

Harrison Schmidt makes a convincing argument concerning the energy content of helium-3 (He3), which is known to be available in diffuse quantities on the Moon.47 Many obstacles must be overcome to be able to utilize He3, but the investment in fusion power is the world's ultimate liberator from enslavement to hydrocarbon energy. Practical fusion systems are under development today with the 2006 signing of the ITER Agreement, an international fusion energy agreement. The United States should dramatically increase its commitment to include building its own research reactors on the Moon. Its vacuum removes a major impediment in the operation of a fusion reactor.

Fusion key to climate change—clean, sustainable energy Nuttall, 8- University Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at the University of Cambridge (W. J. Nuttall, University Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at the University of Cambridge, September 2008, “Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities”, http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2008/file_38224.pdf, AD: 6/22/11, SL) Life on Earth currently faces a threat on a truly global scale: climate change. A scientific consensus is emerging that civilisation must reduce its emissions of global warming gases by more than half in less than 50 years1 if we are to stand a chance of achieving a global climate as stable as that of the past 10,000 or so years. This pressing need comes at a time when fossil-fuel prices are high, albeit perhaps for short-term reasons, giving the world a window of opportunity in which to make a significant move away from environmentally harmful fossil-fuel combustion. Thus far, no country has managed to make significant cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions as a consequence of rising concern over global warming. In Europe, at least, political leaders have started to put in place policies that, if delivered, would have sufficient strength to have some impact on the problem. In January 2008 the EC president José Manuel Barroso released a major package of policies entitled “Climate Action”.2 The measures consolidated earlier plans for a 20% cut in EU greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020, even in the absence of any global deal that might see the EU target become a 30% cut. As with fission, fusion would be a source of usable heat-energy producing almost no CO2 emissions. The only greenhouse-gas emissions produced would be those associated with the construction and manu- facture of the power station, and the need for external energy inputs for start-up and operations. Fusion research holds out the promise of a clean, sustainable energy supply to contribute to the increasing needs of our civilisation.

He3 is a limitless clean energy source Liu and Carmichael, 7- Newsweek's Beijing bureau chief; senior writer at Newsweek (Melinda Liu and Mary Carmichael, February 12, 2007, “To Reach for the Moon; China's lunar program is about more than national pride. Try this: a limitless supply of clean, safe energy.”, LexisNexis, AD: 6/23/11, SL) National pride is a big force behind China's moon program, but not the only one. The Chinese are aiming to do more than "just set up a flag or pick up a piece of rock," says Ye Zili of China's Space Science Society. What are they after? A limitless source of clean, safe energy to feed their voracious economy. The stable isotope helium 3 (3He), a potential fuel for nuclear fusion, was first found in moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. It is one constituent of the "solar wind" constantly given off by the Sun. The stuff bounces off Earth's magnetic field, but the moon has no magnetic field, and its surface has been soaking up 3He for billions of years. If you could dig it up and put it into a fusion reactor you would get ordinary helium 4 (as in balloons), ordinary hydrogen (as in H2O) and an abundance of radioactivity-free energy. According to Gerald Kulcinski, director of the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, a mere 40 tons would be roughly enough to serve America's electrical needs for a year.

He3 key to future energy demands—produce more than fossil fuels UTD - 2010 68

ABC News, 4 – quotes Lawrence Taylor, a director of the US Planetary Geosciences Institute (ABC News, November 26, 2004, “Moon gas may solve Earth's energy crisis”, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1252715.htm, AD: 6/22/11, SL) A potential gas source found on the moon's surface could hold the key to meeting future energy demands as the earth's fossil fuels dry up in the coming decades, scientists say. "When helium-3 combines with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) the fusion reaction proceeds at a very high temperature and it can produce awesome amounts of energy. "The moon contains 10 times more energy in the form of helium-3 than all the fossil fuels on the earth," D r Taylor echoed Dr Lawrence's views, adding that there are no funds available for funding non-petroleum energy projects in the United States. He warns of the exhaustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas on earth. "Right now we are not thinking ahead enough. Some of us are. But then the people who make the decisions and put money on the projects are not. They think only about the next elections.

He3 would be a limitless energy source—plentiful on the moon Allison, 8- executive vice president and chairman of the Policy Committee for the National Space Society (Greg Allison is executive vice president and chairman of the Policy Committee for the National Space Society., summer 2008, “PROMISES AND PERILS OF POLITICAL PROSPECTS”, Ad Astra Magazine, AD: 6/21/2011, SL) The clean and abundant resources of space may address many of our everyday and global problems right here on Earth. The Department of Defense is keenly interested in collecting solar energy from space and beaming it to Earth. This may be rendered an affordable energy altemative if we can use resources from the moon and asteroids to build the satellites. There are concepts on the drawing board that suggest space solar power could ultimately be cheaper than coal or oil while providing an almost limitless clean energy resource. Some see a bright future for electrostatic fusion using helium-3 mined from the moon and asteroids. If significant amounts of helium-3 ions (too rare on Earth but plentiful on the moon) were available, electrostatic fusion would be far more practical than magnetic containment and laser inertia containment fusion techniques.

He3 fusion most beneficial energy source—clean energy and large yield Lasker, 6- freelance journalist (John Lasker, freelance journalist citing Dr. Gerald Kulcinski, a fusion researcher at UW-Madison, December 23-24, 2006, “Future in Fusion?”, http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/ct122206.pdf, AD: 6/21/11, SL) It was 1985, the holidays were nearing, and the UW fusion research team was brainstorming: They wondered where they could find large quantities of the isotope heli- um-3, which is a proven fuel for nuclear fusion. Just two hundred pounds, they figured, could power a city of a million inhabitants for one year. “Apollo records showed that every sample of lunar material had helium-3 in it,” he said. Now, nestled among NASA’s 200-point mission goals for lunar base plans it announced earlier this month, there is a proposal to mine the moon for this fuel, even though so far there are no viable power plants that exist for it or effi- cient ways to bring it back to Earth. Nevertheless, UW fusion re- searchers believe their plan could get civilization off fossil fuels. That’s if crews could re- turn to the moon to mine for helium-3, super-heat it out of the lunar soil to process the gas, and return it to the Earth. But scientists and investors have taken notice. Nearly all of UW fusion research is privately funded. And meanwhile, with China, India, the European Space Agency and at least one Russian corporation all pursu- ing plans for a manned lunar base in the coming decades, there is increasing talk of a race to control this fuel, one shuttle load of which could the- oretically power the United States for a year. But Kulcinski calls Benson’s claims “just flat wrong.” He cites a doctoral thesis by one of his graduate students, Scott White, that in 1998 calculated that helium-3 would return more energy — even after min- ing, transportation and the construction of fusion plants are accounted for — than coal, nuclear fission or wind. UTD - 2010 69 UTD - 2010 70

Warming ADV - Impacts

Global warming impacts happen rapidly—the past proves Schwartz and Randall, 3- co-founder and current chairman of the Global Business Network organization focused on scenario thinking and planning; of the Global Business Network (Peter Schwartz, and Doug Randall, October 2003, “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security”, http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf, AD: 6/23/11, SL)Rather than decades or even centuries of gradual warming, recent evidence suggests the possibility that a more dire climate scenario may actually be unfolding. This is why GBN is working with OSD to develop a plausible scenario for abrupt climate change that can be used to explore implications for food supply, health and disease, commerce and trade, and their consequences for national security. The climate change scenario outlined in this report is modeled on a century-long climate event that records from an ice core in Greenland indicate occurred 8,200 years ago. Immediately following an extended period of warming, much like the phase we appear to be in today, there was a sudden cooling . Average annual temperatures in Greenland dropped by roughly 5 degrees Fahrenheit, and temperature decreases nearly this large are likely to have occurred throughout the North Atlantic region. During the 8,200 event severe winters in Europe and some other areas caused glaciers to advance, rivers to freeze, and agricultural lands to be less productive. Scientific evidence suggests that this event was associated with, and perhaps caused by, a collapse of the ocean’s conveyor following a period of gradual warming. Ocean, land, and atmosphere scientists at some of the world’s most prestigious organizations have uncovered new evidence over the past decade suggesting that the plausibility of severe and rapid climate change is higher than most of the scientific community and perhaps all of the political community is prepared for. If it occurs, this phenomenon will disrupt current gradual global warming trends, adding to climate complexity and lack of predictability. And paleoclimatic evidence suggests that such an abrupt climate change could begin in the near future.

Global Warming causes more volcanic eruptions and tsumanis- rising sea level ABC News 7 (September 14th, 2007 "Global warming to trigger volcanic eruptions, scientists warn" Accessed 6/23/11 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/14/2033161.htm?section=justin GR) British scientists are warning of another possible side effect of climate change: a surge of dangerous volcanic eruptions. Researchers say the melting of polar ice sheets from global warming and the resulting stress placed on the earth's crust from rising sea levels will increase eruptions in the years to come. University College London climate expert Dr Bill McGuire says there could also be an increase in undersea earthquakes and tsunamis. "There is already evidence for earthquakes in Alaska being triggered by unloading by ice," he said. "Also evidence of this volcano Pavlof in Alaska erupting in the winter when sea levels rise slightly due to weather conditions, just 30 centimetres." "So, if we see one to two metres of sea level rise this century, accompanied by mass wasting of the glaciers in the polar region, so we can expect a response by the crust within the next few decades."

Global warming will lead to war- environmental change needed by 2012 BBC News 7 (March 2nd, 2007 "UN Chief Warns on Climate Change" Accessed 6/23/11 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6410305.stm GR) UN chief warns on climate change Ban Ki-moon urged the US to lead the way in tackling climate change UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has warned that climate change poses as much of a danger to the world as war. In his first address on the issue, Mr Ban said changes in the environment were likely to become a major driver of future war and conflicts. He urged the US - the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases - to take the lead in fighting global warming. Mr Ban said he would focus on the issue in talks with leaders of the G8 group of industrialised nations in June. The UN is also due to hold a conference on climate change in Bali in December. UN environment officials have been urging Mr Ban to take up the issue, says the BBC's Laura Trevelyan in New York, arguing that global leadership is needed and that he could make an impact. The danger posed by war to all of humanity and to our planet is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming Ban Ki-moon Speaking to schoolchildren at a UN conference in New York, Mr Ban said his generation had been "somewhat careless" with the planet but that he was hopeful that that was changing. "The majority of the United Nations' UTD - 2010 71

work still focuses on preventing and ending conflict," he said. "But the danger posed by war to all of humanity and to our planet is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming." Last month, a panel of scientists organised by the UN published a report showing that human activity was "very likely" to be causing climate change, and predicted rises in temperatures and sea levels. US role Mr Ban warned that poor people living in Africa and small island states would suffer most from the effects of global warming, even though they were least responsible. New measures must be agreed to control emissions after 2012 And in future years, the upheaval caused by environmental changes such as droughts and coastal flooding was likely to drive conflicts, he pointed out. He said the world needed a more coherent system of international environmental governance in order to tackle global warming beyond the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. "I hope that the United States, while they have taken their role in innovative technologies as well as promoting cleaner energies, will also take the lead in this very important and urgent issue," he added. The US, which produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, is not a signatory to Kyoto. Global Warming is causing more hurricanes- empirical data Vergano and O'Driscoll 7 (Dan Vergano is a veteran reporter on Science and the Enviroment. Patrick O'Driscoll is a public affairs specialist with the National Park Service. July 30th, 2007 "Study links more Hurricanes, Climate Change" Accessed: 6/23/11 http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurricane/2007-07-29-more-hurricanes_N.htm) The number of hurricanes that develop each year has more than doubled over the past century, an increase tied to global warming, according to a study released Sunday. "We're seeing a quite substantial increase in hurricanes over the last century, very closely related to increases in sea- surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean," says study author Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. Working with hurricane researcher Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology, Holland looked at sea records from 1855 to 2005 in a study published in the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society The researchers found that average hurricane numbers jumped sharply during the 20th century, from 3.5 per year in the first 30 years to 8.4 in the earliest years of the 21st century. Over that time, Atlantic Ocean surface temperatures increased .65 degrees, which experts call a significant increase. TABLE: Atlantic hurricanes by year (Hurricanes are tropical systems that originate in the Atlantic and eastern Pacific Oceans, with winds exceeding 74 mph. Such storms elsewhere are called typhoons or cyclones.) This study also shows that years with more hurricanes didn't coincide with changes in the way storms are measured, says hurricane researcher Kerry Emanuel of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who was not part of the study. "This makes it very unlikely that these upward jumps are owing to changing measurements and suggests that they are real." UTD - 2010 72

Effects of climate change will be like nuclear war- action needed ASAP Lovell 07 (Jeremy Lovell, analyst for Reuters. September 13th, 2007. "Global Warming Impact Like 'Nuclear War'" Accessed: 6/23/11 http://www.countercurrents.org/lovell130907.htm) London - Climate change could have global security implications on a par with nuclear war unless urgent action is taken, a report said on Wednesday. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) security think-tank said global warming would hit crop yields and water availability everywhere, causing great human suffering and leading to regional strife. While everyone had now started to recognize the threat posed by climate change, no one was taking effective leadership to tackle it and no one could tell precisely when and where it would hit hardest, it added. “The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent a recognition … that if the emission of greenhouse gases … is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic — on the level of nuclear war,” the IISS report said. Scientists say global average temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius this century due to burning fossil fuels for power and transport. The IISS report said the effects would cause a host of problems including rising sea levels, forced migration, freak storms, droughts, floods, extinctions, wildfires, disease epidemics, crop failures and famines. The impact was already being felt — particularly in conflicts in Kenya and Sudan — and more was expected in places from Asia to Latin America as dwindling resources led to competition between haves and have nots. “We can all see that climate change is a threat to global security, and you can judge some of the more obvious causes and areas,” said IISS transnational threat specialist Nigel Inkster. “What is much harder to do is see how to cope with them.” The report, an annual survey of the impact of world events on global security, said conflicts and state collapses due to climate change would reduce the world’s ability to tackle the causes and to reduce the effects of global warming. State failures would increase the gap between rich and poor and heighten racial and ethnic tensions which in turn would produce fertile breeding grounds for more conflict. Urban areas would not be exempt from the fallout as falling crop yields due to reduced water and rising temperatures would push food prices higher, IISS said. Overall, it said 65 countries were likely to lose over 15 percent of their agricultural output by 2100 at a time when the world’s population was expected to head from six billion now to nine billion people. “Fundamental environmental issues of food, water and energy security ultimately lie behind many present security concerns, and climate change will magnify all three,” it added. © Reuters 2007

Global Warming is causing disasters now- empirical data Ward 6/16 (Chip Ward, A former grassroots organizer and librarian, Chip Ward is the author of two books, "Canaries on the Rim: Living Downwind in the West" and "Hope's Horizon: Three Visions for Healing the American Land." June 16th, 2011 "Global Warming is Burning Down the American West" Accessed: 6/23/11 http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/? story=/politics/war_room/2011/06/16/global_warming_wildfires) These past few years, mega-fires in the West have become ever more routine. Though their estimates and measurements may vary, the experts who study these phenomena all agree that wildfires today are bigger, last longer, and are more frequent. A big fire used to burn perhaps 30 square miles. Today, wildfires regularly scorch 150-square-mile areas. Global warming, global weirding, climate change -- whatever you prefer to call it -- is not just happening in some distant, melting Arctic land out of a storybook. It is not just burning up far-away Russia. It's here now. The seas have warmed, ice caps are melting, and the old reliable ocean currents and atmospheric jet streams are jumping their tracks. The harbingers of a warming planet and the abruptly shifting weather patterns that result vary across the American landscape. Along the vast Mississippi River drainage in the heartland of America, epic floods, like our wildfires in the West, are becoming more frequent. In the Gulf states, it's monster hurricanes and in the Midwest, swarms of killer tornadoes signal that things have changed. In the East it's those killer heat waves and record-breaking blizzards. But in the West, we just burn. Although Western politicians like to blame the dire situation on tree-hugging environmentalists who bring suit to keep loggers from thinning and harvesting the crowded forests, the big picture is far more complicated. According to Wally Covington of Northern Arizona University, a renowned forest ecologist, the problem has been building towards a catastrophe for decades. Historically, Western forests were relatively thin, and grasses, light shrubs, and wildflowers thrived under their canopies. Fires would move through every few years, clearing the accumulated undergrowth and resetting the successional clock. Fire, that is, was an ecological process. Then, in the 1880s, cattle were brought in to graze the native grasses under the forest canopy. As the grass disappeared, fires were limited and smaller trees were able to mature until the land became overcrowded. Invasive species like highly flammable cheat grass also moved in, carried there and distributed in cow dung. Then, foresters began suppressing fires to protect the over-stocked timber that generated revenues and profits. All this set the stage for catastrophe. Next, a decade of droughtweakened millions of trees, making them susceptible to voracious beetles that gnaw them to death. Warmer air carries more moisture, so winters, while wetter than normal, are not as cold. Typical temperatures, in fact, have become mild enough that the beetles, once killed by wintry deep freezes, are now often able to survive until spring, which means that their range is expanding dramatically. Now, thanks to them, whole mountainsides across the west have turned from green to brown. Finally, spring runoff that used to happen over three months now UTD - 2010 73

sometimes comes down torrentially in a single month, which means that the forests are dry longer. Even our lovely iconic stands of aspen trees are dying on parched south-facing slopes. Cue the inferno. If you live in the West, you can't help wonder what will burn next. Eastern Colorado, Oklahoma, and the Dakotas are, at present, deep in drought and likely candidates. Montana's Lodgepole Pine forests are dying and ready to ignite. Colorado's Grand Mesa is another drying forest area that could go up in flames anytime. Wally Covington estimates that a total of about half-a-million square miles of Western forests, an area three times the size of California, is now at risk of catastrophic fires. As ex-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger observed in 2008 when it was California's turn to burn, the fire season is now 365 days long. The Fire Next Time That may explain why "smoke season" began so early this year, overlapping the spring flood season. Texas and other Western states may be drying up and readying themselves to blow dust your way, but in Utah, where I live, it was an extremely wet winter. Watersheds here are at 200 percent to 700 percent of the normal snowpack ("normal" being an ever more problematic concept out here). Spring weather has become increasingly weird and unpredictable. Last year we had record-breaking heat and early monsoons in May. This year it was unusually cold and damp. The mountains held on to all that accumulating snow, which is now melting quickly and heading downhill all at once. So although skiers are still riding the mountain slopes of northern Utah, river-rafting guides in the south, famous for their hunger for whitewater excitement, are cancelling trips on the Colorado and Green Rivers because they are flowing so hard and high that navigating them is too risky to try. In our more sedate settings, suburbs and such, sandbags are now ubiquitous. Basement pumps are humming across the state. Reservoirs were emptied ahead of the floods so that they could be refilled with excess runoff, but there is enough snowmelt in our mountains this year to fill them seven times over. Utah Governor Gary Herbert went on television to urge parents to keep children away from fast-moving streams that might sweep them away. Seven children have nonetheless drowned in the past two weeks. The old gospel got it mostly right when God told Noah, "No more water, the fire next time." In the West we know that it is not actually a question of either/or, because they go together. First, floods fuel growth, then growth fuels fires, then fires fuel floods. So all that unexpected, unpredicted moisture we got this winter will translate into a fresh layer of lush undergrowth in forests that until very recently were drying up, ravaged by beetles, and dying. You may visit us this summer and see all that new green vegetation as so much beautiful scenery, but we know it is also a ticking tinderbox. If Mother Nature flips her fickle toggle switch back to hot and dry, as she surely will, fire will follow. When fire removes trees, brush, and grasses that absorb spring runoff and slow the flow, the next round of floods is accelerated. If the fire is intense enough to bake soils into a water- resistant crust, the next floods will start landslides and muddy rivers. The silt from all that erosion will clog reservoirs, reducing their capacity both to store water and to mitigate floods. That's how a self-reinforcing feedback loop works. Back in the days when our weather was far more benign and predictable, this dynamic relationship between fire and flood was predictable and manageable. Today, it is not. It may be hard to draw a direct line of cause and effect between global warming (or weirding) and a chain of tornadoes sawing through Joplin, while the record-breaking blizzards of 2011 may seem to contradict the very notion that the planet is getting hotter. But the droughts, pestilence, and fires we are experiencing in the West are logical and obvious signs that the planet is overheating. We would be wise and prudent to pay attention and act boldly.

Global warming results in an apocalypse Thompson 9-- assistant professor of philosophy at Clemson University (Allen Thompson, an assistant professor of philosophy at Clemson University focusing on, aesthetic issues regarding built and natural environments, Spring 2009, “Responsibility for the End of Nature: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Global Warming”, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ethics_and_the_environment/v014/14.1.thompson.html, AD: 6/24/11, SL) I. In the last year we have seen radical changes in public opinion about global warming. It is now widely accepted that human activity is causally connected to global climate change. I will take it for granted that global warming is real and largely caused by human beings burning fossil fuel for energy. Grim forecasts include environmental changes on a scale unprecedented in human history, including melting polar ice caps, increased desertification, rising sea levels, and mass species extinction. The consequences for human beings and other life on Earth are potentially catastrophic. Global warming poses a threat of outstanding magnitude. While some features of this threat are expressed in descriptive predictions about a wide variety of ecological changes and potential consequences thereof, still another aspect of the threat posed by global warming is an existential one connected to our moral responsibility. Through the last decades of the twentieth century we became accustomed to the idea that human beings are responsible for the extinction of this or that particular species of plant and animal, the destruction of one or another irreplaceable local or regional ecosystem, and more generally a significant loss of global biodiversity. But part of the threat posed by global warming appears to be something else—a threat to the entire world of nature. The sense that many people have is of an impending apocalypse. Not unlike the threat of a nuclear holocaust during the Cold War, global warming has aroused profound concerns about the future of humanity and the planet as a whole.1 In an early and still influential book of the same title McKibben (1989) argued that anthropogenic climate change is tantamount to the very end of nature.

Global warming causes extinction—catastrophe 250 million years ago proves Gugliotta, 5 (Guy Gugliotta, staff writer, January 21, 2005, “Extinction Tied to Global Warming: UTD - 2010 74

Greenhouse Effect Cited in Mass Decline 250 Million Years Ago”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24732-2005Jan20.html, AD: 6/24/11, SL) Scientists call it "the Great Dying," a 250 million-year-old catastrophe that wiped out 90 percent of ocean species and 70 percent of land species in the biggest mass extinction in Earth's geologic history. Huge amounts of carbon dioxide were released into the air from open volcanic fissures known to geologists as the "Siberian Traps," researchers said, triggering a greenhouse effect that warmed the earth and depleted oxygen from the atmosphere, causing environmental deterioration and finally collapse.

He3 ends oil monopolies and violence in the Mid-East. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] Another palpable effect of He-3 on Earth would be the political change that the end of the oil monopoly over energy production will bring about. The present tension between Middle Eastern, oil rich nations and western nations might subside once the exclusive power that Middle Eastern countries exert in determining oil production quotas and prices is no longer as critical for global energy production. It is the view of many political analysts today that the Intifadas and the fundamentalist movement that we are experiencing today is in part fueled by the economic boom that oil producing nations are undergoing as a result of high oil prices (Rifkin, 2002). Whether this view holds or not, the situation in the Middle East is prone to change dramatically at the end of the oil age. For once, economies that depend on oil revenue will be forced to diversify their income sources. Such change will bring about revolutionary movements that may very well change the structure of society. Will this result in an even more unequal distribution of power and resources between developing nations and developed nations? Again the answer to this question resides largely upon which nations will have cheap access to energy sources and which are dependent upon others for their energy income. It is here that adherence to the UN treaty prescribing that all space resources should be used for the advancement of mankind is critical. A possible scenario that might follow from this principle would be that a few nations would directly harvest, transport and exploit He-3. For the mining privileges on the Moon, which is noted as belonging to all of mankind, these nations would be obliged to pay either royalties to all nations, or distribute electricity to other nations as a form of payment. This is a positive yet not ideal scenario. It is positive in that under-developed nations would obtain electricity directly and from it could develop industry. Nonetheless, industrialization and economic growth necessitates much more than electricity. It needs international investment and commitment, which might or might not be linked to He-3 or other alternative energy sources.

***Energy DEPENDENCE*** UTD - 2010 75

Lunar mining will drive down oil prices. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] A more likely scenario from a technical standpoint, however, is to bring He-3 from the Moon to Earth to be reacted in the plasma reactors. This would allow use of the existing gridlines for delivering electricity and would eliminate the production of H2 as an intermediate agent. This scenario presupposes that the He-3-Deuterium reactor is fully developed, which even according to experts in the field (see interview with Dr. Kulcinski) is a long term venture. Because the reactor is most highly developed in the United States, it would seem this country has an initial advantage. If we suppose that He- 3 would become the primary energy source to power the United States and that it would become so before the end of the fuel era, this would imply that the fossil fuel prices would plummet since the primary consumer would be out of the game. This would allow developing nations to purchase larger amounts of oil which could lead to their faster development. Under this scenario India and China would again be the dominating economies within the developing countries, since they have the resources to purchase the largest amounts in a fuel market governed entirely by demand and supply dynamics. These nations also have the greatest projected need for fuel. On the other hand, if China and India develop their own He-3-Deuterium reactors, they would enter in direct competition with the US for He-3. In what manner this competition will be carried out depends largely on how closely these countries abide to international treaties and on how much they are willing to cooperate with one another.

He3 research spinoffs are massive - biotech, energy all competitive in the short term. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] The United States leads the research in He-3. In 2004, President Bush released his new vision of space exploration. He wants to complete the International Space Station by the year 2010. The completion of this project will greatly increase the working research on the lunar mining of He-3 as the astronauts can experiment on different techniques to extract He-3 from the Moon’s regolith. The International Space stations could be used a trade center for the distribution of He-3 for world wide distribution. Another goal of the current White House administration is that NASA returns to the Moon by 2015 and to have a permanent living settlement for astronauts by 2020. President Bush has allocated 12 million dollars to the Moon Development Initiative. This initiative would help tremendously in the progress in the He-3 research if a permanent colony is established on the Moon (Hurtack, 2004). The developed world would no longer have to depend on the Middle East , where the most of the world’s fossil fuel reserves are located, for its energy supply. American scientists have already declared that the Moon could be the Persian Gulf of the present century. Two liters of He-3 would do the work of more than 1,000 tons of coal (Chowdhuri, 2004). He-3 also has long term and short term benefits for society. In the near term applications, it can help in medical research. A useful product of He-3 fusion reactions is the production of isotopes that are very useful in the biomedical field. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is one such field. This process uses the isotopes from He-3 fusion reaction like He-4 in its working. He-4 has a much longer half-life and it can be stored for a much longer periods of time compared to other isotopes. By using He-3 isotopes we can reduce the radioactive exposure to patients compared to the regular isotopes that are used in PET that emit radioactive waves (Hurtack, 2004). It can also be used for environmental restoration, detection of UTD - 2010 76

chemical and radioactive wastes, cancer therapy and defense. For intermediate term applications, it can be used for the destruction of toxic fissile materials, to harness space power and to supply energy to remote energy stations. In the long term it can have applications in propulsion technology, hydrogen production, synthetic fuel applications, base load electrical power plants and small electrical power plants (Kulcinski, 2001). The advantage of initially using He-3 fusion for non-energy applications is that the cost base is different for specialized applications and He-3 can be competitive in the short run. This would then open the ground for further cost reduction and prepare He-3 fusion to enter the energy marketplace at competitive prices.

He3 key to sustain Indian growth and meet growing energy needs. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] India, one of the fastest developing nations after China, depends heavily on oil, coal and natural gas for its technological advancement. Currently India's oil consumption is around 84 million tons per year compared to its production of 33 million tones. In addition, its GDP growth of 6 per cent will enhance the oil consumption to almost 275 million tones by the year 2020. India also has natural gas reserves of about 660 billion cubic meters. But with the present rate of development, India will have to import about 25.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas by 2010. India also produces a good amount of coal. It currently has 443 million tons of coal reserves. It is the most abundant available fossil fuel in India and provides a substantial part of energy needs. It is used for power generation, to supply energy to industry as well as for domestic needs. India is highly dependent on coal for meeting its commercial energy requirements. The coal based electricity generation capacity was 51000 MW in 1995. This is expected to go up to 140000 MW by 2009-10. However, at present, the country faces an energy shortage of about 15% and peaking shortage of 30%. Furthermore, the Indian population has already crossed one billion and is growing at a steady rate. The energy sources on the other hand have been decreasing at a much greater pace. The reserves in India will not be able to sustain the increasing population. Thus, India will not be completely self- sufficient in the energy sector and will need an alternative energy source to sustain their development. In the future, Indian dependence on energy source will increase rapidly and thus Indian scientists and energy security analysts are currently analyzing He-3 as a potential source of energy. But with India’s many development challenges many skeptics of India’s space program are wondering why India is showing so much interest in exploring space. When India first detonated a nuclear device in 1974, the US and European nations imposed widespread sanctions to restrict India's access to technologies that could be used to make a nuclear missile. This provided India with the opportunity to develop a rocket program and forced the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) to reinvent technologies it could no longer buy. In the long run this has given India an advantage over other countries with aspirations to reach space. Its space program is quite self-sufficient and aims to be completely independent of foreign support. India's political leaders say the country cannot afford ‘not’ to have a space program. Indira Gandhi, the late prime minister of India, believed it was not only important for science, but also vital to India's development. Currently, India is eyeing the abundant He-3 reserves on the Moon. Indian President Abdul Kalam is aware of the fact that the Moon contains huge reserves of He-3. “One can generate a large amount of fusion-type energy from helium. We have to develop complex fusion technology to use He-3” (Ananthaswamy, 2005). The Indian Space Research organization (ISRO) has planned a lunar orbit mission under the Chandraayan-1 Mission. The main objective of the mission being to search for He-3 deposits on the Moon. The mission which is scheduled to launch in 2008 has almost everything prepared. The space craft and the launch vehicle are already ready and

***India ADV – 1AC*** UTD - 2010 77

currently they are working on fabricating the payload. During its mission the Chandraayan-1 will obtain high resolution geological, mineralogical and topographical maps of the Moon’s surface (Jayaraman, 2005).

Growth is directly tied to reducing the risk of South Asian conflict. Mamoon & Murshed, 10 – Professor the Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham & Centre for the Study of Civil War (CSCW), PRIO, Oslo, Norway [Dawood & Mansoob, “The conflict mitigating effects of trade in the India-Pakistan case” Econ Gov, 11:145, 2010, http://www.springerlink.com/content/4736rl34w118q532/fulltext.pdf] However, if India is able to export or import more, this would at least put a check on any rise in the severity of conflict and hostilities would adjust to some average level. Any decline in Indian trade will enhance hostilities. The current low levels of bilateral trade between Pakistan and India is conflict enhancing, so more trade with increased exports by both sides to each other should be encouraged. More access to Pakistani markets on the Indian side may not lead to conflict mitigation if Pakistan is not able to also export more to India. A rise in education expenditure puts a check on hostilities, as seen in Graph 1e. Graph 1f is the standard representation of India-Pakistan conflict, and not only best fits historical trends but also explain the rationale behind recent India- Pakistan peace initiatives with decreasing hostilities when not only India but Pakistan also has had economic growth rates as high as 7% per annum. The forecasts suggest that conflict will rise, even if there is a significant increase in combined democracy scores , if growth rates plummet . Both Pakistan and India have seen many such years, when hostilities between both countries rose significantly when at least one of the countries is performing poorly, but were channeling more resources on the military as a proportion of their GDPs. The forecasts favour the economic version over the democratic version of the liberal peace. Thus one may look at current peace talks between both countries with optimism as both are performing well on the economic front and channeling fewer resources on the military as a proportion of national income, while at the same time having a divergent set of political institutions, though recently Pakistan has edged towards greater democracy with elections in February 2008.

Nuclear war Robock & Toon ’10 [***Alan Robock is professor of climatology at Rutgers University and associate director of the school’s Center for Environmental Prediction, where he studies many aspects of climate change, fellow of the American Meteorological Society and a participantin the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ***Owen Brian Toon is chair of the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a fellow of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics there, fellow of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, “Worry has focused on the U.S. versus Russia, but a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan could blot out the sun, starving much of the human race”, jan, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf]

By deploying modern computers and modern climate models, the two of us and our colleagues have shown that not only were the ideas of the 1980s correct but the effects would last for at least 10 years, much longer than previously thought. And by doing calculations that assess decades of time, only now possible with fast, current computers, and by including in our calculations the oceans and the entire atmosphere— also only now possible—we have found that the smoke from even a regional war would be heated and lofted by the sun and remain suspended in the upper atmosphere for years, continuing to block sunlight and to cool the earth. India and Pakistan , which together have more than 100 nuclear weapons, may be the most worrisome adversaries capable of a regional nuclear conflict today. But other countries besides the U.S. and Russia (which have thousands) are well endowed: China, France and the U.K. have hundreds of nuclear warheads; Israel has more than 80, North Korea has about 10 and Iran may well be trying to make its own. In 2004 this situation prompted one of us (Toon) and later Rich Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles, both veterans of the 1980s investigations, to begin evaluating what the global environmental effects of a regional nuclear war would be and to take as our test case an engagement between India and Pakistan. The latest estimates by David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security and by Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council are that India has 50 to 60 assembled weapons (with enough plutonium for 100) and that Pakistan has 60 weapons. Both countries continue to increase their arsenals. Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons tests indicate that the yield of the warheads would be similar to the 15-kiloton explosive yield (equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT) of the bomb the U.S. used on Hiroshima. Toon and Turco, along with Charles Bardeen, now at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, modeled what would happen if 50 Hiroshimasize bombs were dropped across the highest population-density targets in Pakistan and if 50 similar bombs were also dropped across India. Some people maintain that nuclear weapons would be used in only a measured way. But in the wake of chaos , fear and broken communications that would occur once a nuclear war began, we doubt leaders would limit attacks in any rational manner. This likelihood is particularly true for Pakistan, which is small and could be quickly overrun in a conventional conflict. Peter R. La- and sometimes then into the lower stratosphere (the layer just above, extending to about 30 miles). Toon and Turco also did some “back of the envelope” calculations of the possible climate impact of the smoke should it enter the stratosphere. The large magnitude of such effects made them realize they needed help from a climate modeler. It turned out that one of us (Robock) was already working with Luke Oman, now at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, who was finishing his Ph.D. at Rutgers University on the climatic effects of volcanic eruptions, and with Georgiy L. Stenchikov, also at Rutgers and an author of the first Russian work on nuclear winter. They developed a climate model that could be used fairly easily for the nuclear blast calculations. Robock and his colleagues, being conservative, put five teragrams of smoke into their modeled upper troposphere over India and Pakistan on an imaginary May 15. The model calculated how winds would blow the smoke around the world and how the smoke particles would settle out from the atmosphere. The smoke covered all the continents within two weeks. UTD - 2010 78

The black, sooty smoke absorbed sunlight, warmed and rose into the stratosphere. Rain never falls there, so the air is never cleansed by precipitation; particles very slowly settle out by falling, with air resisting them. Soot particles are small, with an average diameter of only 0.1 micron (μm), and so drift down very slowly. They also rise during the daytime as they are heated by the sun, repeatedly delaying their elimination. The calculations showed that the smoke would reach far higher into the upper stratosphere than the sulfate particles that are produced by episodic volcanic eruptions. Sulfate particles are transparent and absorb much less sunlight than soot and are also bigger, typically 0.5 μm. The volcanic particles remain airborne for about two years, but smoke from nuclear fires would last a decade. Killing Frosts in Summer The climatic response to the smoke was surprising. Sunlight was immediately reduced, cooling the planet to temperatures lower than any experienced for the past 1,000 years. The global average cooling, of about 1.25 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit), lasted for several years, and even after 10 years the temperature was still 0.5 degree C colder than normal. The models also showed a 10 percent reduction in precipitation worldwide. Precipitation, river flow and soil moisture all decreased because blocking sun[ light reduces evaporation and weakens the hydrologic cycle. Drought was largely concentrated in the lower latitudes, however, because global cooling would retard the Hadley air circulation pattern in the tropics, which produces a large fraction of global precipitation. In critical areas such as the Asian monsoon regions, rainfall dropped by as much as 40 percent. The cooling might not seem like much, but even a small dip can cause severe consequences. Cooling and diminished sunlight would, for example, shorten growing seasons in the midlatitudes. More insight into the effects of cooling came from analyses of the aftermaths of massive volcanic eruptions. Every once in a while such eruptions produce temporary cooling for a year or two. The largest of the past 500 years, the 1815 Tambora eruption in Indonesia, blotted the sun and produced global cooling of about 0.5 degree C for a year; 1816 became known as “The Year without a Summer” or “Eighteen Hundred and Froze to Death.” In New England, although the average summer temperature was lowered only a few degrees, crop-killing frosts occurred in every month. After the first frost, farmers replanted crops, only to see them killed by the next frost. The price of grain skyrocketed, the price of livestock plummeted as farmers sold the animals they could not feed, and a mass migration began from New England to the Midwest, as people followed reports of fertile land there. In Europe the weather was so cold and gloomy that the stock market collapsed, widespread famines occurred and 18-year-old Mary Shelley was inspired to write Frankenstein. Certain strains of crops, such as winter wheat, can withstand lower temperatures, but a lack of sunlight inhibits their ability to grow. In our scenario, daylight would filter through the high smoky haze, but on the ground every day would seem to be fully overcast. Agronomists and farmers could not develop the necessary seeds or adjust agricultural practices for the radically different conditions unless they knew ahead of time what to expect. In addition to the cooling, drying and darkness, extensive ozone depletion would result as the smoke heated the stratosphere; reactions that create and destroy ozone are temperature-dependent. Michael J. Mills of the University of Colorado at Boulder ran a completely separate climate model from Robock’s but found similar results for smoke lofting and stratospheric temperature changes. He concluded that although surface temperatures would cool by a small amount, the stratosphere would be heated by more than 50 degrees C, because the black smoke particles absorb sunlight. This heating, in turn, would modify winds in the stratosphere, which would carry ozone-destroying nitrogen oxides into its upper reaches. Together the high temperatures and nitrogen oxides would reduce ozone to the same dangerous levels we now experience below the ozone hole above Antarctica every spring. Ultraviolet radiation on the ground would increase significantly because of the diminished ozone. Less sunlight and precipitation, cold spells, shorter growing seasons and more ultraviolet radiation would all reduce or eliminate agricultural production. Notably, cooling and ozone loss would be most profound in middle and high latitudes in both hemispheres, whereas precipitation declines would be greatest in the tropics. The specific damage inflicted by each of these environmental changes would depend on particular crops, soils, agricultural practices and regional weather patterns, and no researchers have completed detailed analyses of such agricultural responses. Even in normal times, however, feeding the growing human population depends on transferring food across the globe to make up for regional farming deficiencies caused by drought and seasonal weather changes. The total amount of grain stored on the planet today would feed the earth’s population for only about two months [see “Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?” by Lester R. Brown; Scientific American, May]. Most cities and countries have stockpiled food supplies for just a very short period, and food shortages (as well as rising prices) have increased in recent years. A nuclear war could trigger declines in yield nearly everywhere at once, and a worldwide panic could bring the global agricultural trading system to a halt , with severe shortages in many places. Around one billion people worldwide who now live on marginal food supplies would be directly threatened with starvation by a nuclear war between India and Pakistan or between other regional nuclear powers.

The war will go nuclear in 12 days-crisis escalation means we control questions of timeframe Commander Kevin M. Brew, JAGC-US Navy, 2005, Naval Law Review, 52 Naval L. Rev. 177, p. 200-2 What will cause nuclear war in South Asia ? The answer is, most probably, Kashmir . As discussed above India and Pakistan are "mortal enemies" and have fought three wars --four if we count the Kargil Conflict of 1999--since their partition and independence in 1947. Part of the crisis is Hindu nationalism versus Muslim fundamentalism. But the seeds of the current conflict were planted at the time of the 1947 partition when reconciliation after partition was prevented by the ". . . two great post-partition traumas. For India, it was the humiliating defeat by China in 1962; for Pakistan, the vivisection of their country [loss of East Pakistan] by Indian forces in 1971." 70 The events are branded into the collective national psyche: Each trauma led directly to the consideration of nuclear weapons and the further militarization of the respective countri es. In India's case, the lesson of 1962 was that only military power counts and that Nehru's faith in diplomacy that was not backed up by firepower was disastrously naive. The linkage between the trauma of 1971 and the nuclear option is even tighter in Pakistan--and for Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto a nuclear weapon had the added attraction of enabling him to reduce the power of the army. Ironically, Pakistan has wound up with both a nuclear program and a politically powerful army. 71 But the crisis would no doubt relate to Kashmir 72 --and even if started as a conflict with conventional weapons/military forces, recourse to "tactical [*201] use" of nuclear weapons would occur within two weeks . 73 This paper cannot do justice to the complexities and emotions intertwined in the India-Pakistan conflict nor the Kashmir problem. A recent study summarizes the Kashmir issue: Kashmir is both a cause and the consequence of the India-Pakistan conundrum. It is primarily a dispute about justice and people, although its strategic and territorial dimensions are complicated enough. As in many other intractable paired- minority conflicts, it is hard to tell where domestic politics ends and foreign policy begins. There are two Kashmirs. Besides the physical territory, another Kashmir is found in the minds of politicians, strategists, soldiers, and ideologues. This is a place where national and sub-national identities are ranged against each other. The conflict in this Kashmir is as much a clash between identities, imagination, and history, as it is a conflict UTD - 2010 79

over territory, resources, and people . . . . Pakistanis have long argued that the Kashmir problem stems from India's denial of justice to the Kashmiri people (by not allowing them to join Pakistan), and by not accepting Pakistan's own legitimacy. . . . For the Pakistanis, Kashmir remains the "unfinished business" of the 1947 partition . Pakistan, the self-professed homeland for an oppressed and threatened Muslim minority in the subcontinent, finds it difficult to leave a Muslim majority region to a Hindu-majority state. Indians, however, argue that Pakistan, a state defined and driven by religion, is given to irredentist aspirations in Kashmir because it is unwilling to accept the fact of a secular India. India , nominally a secular state, finds it difficult to turn over a Muslim majority region to a Muslim neighbor just because it is Muslim. . . . In contrast, India's secularism, strengthened by the presence of a Muslim-majority state of Kashmir within India, proves that religion alone does not make a nation. India maintains that Kashmir cannot be resolved until Pakistanis alter their views on [*202] secularism. Of course, this would also mean a change in the identity of Pakistan, a contentious subject in both states. 74 A 1998 article identified the usual scenario for new clash: . . . a new India-Pakistan clash begins with the two nations at a crisis point over Kashmir. India, worried that Pakistan could move tanks and armoured personnel carriers east from the border city of Lahore and cut off the Indian-held part of Kashmir, pre-emptively attacks to secure its corridor to that disputed region, pushing deep into Pakistani territory. The Pakistanis, driven backward and fearful of losing their nuclear arsenal, launch a nuclear strike against the Indian force . . . . Usually . . . the escalation to nuclear weapons happens within the first 12 days of the war game. 75

AND, now is a bad time to take a chance - Kashmir is in the midst of one its gravest crises in history Jim Yardley, 9-21-10. “Seeking Kashmir Peace, India Feels Anger of Residents,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22kashmir.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1. For more than 100 days, in which Indian security officers have killed more than 100 Kashmiri civilians, the Indian government has seemed paralyzed, or even indifferent, as this disputed Himalayan region has plunged into one of the gravest crises of its tortured history. Unable to quiet the unrest, or even fully understand it, Indian leaders this week sent the equivalent of a peace delegation to Kashmir. Members visited a hospital and met with politicians, business leaders and even separatists like Mr. Malik before returning to New Delhi on Tuesday night to confer with the prime minister. Unlike the rest of India, where Hinduism is the predominant religion, the majority of Kashmiris are Muslim. India often views Kashmir through its rivalry with Pakistan, with both countries controlling portions of the region and each claiming its entirety. Yet Indian officials concede that this latest unrest is different, a domestic Kashmiri revolt against Indian rule, unlike past insurgencies sponsored by Pakistan. If the delegation’s two-day visit proved anything, it was that the way out of the crisis would be very uncertain, complicated by historic distrust, a rising Kashmiri demand for political independence and seething anger within the younger generation toward the heavy security presence on the ground.

Indo-Pak nuclear war threatens human survival Chomsky, ‘9. Noam, “Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours,” http://www.thefallingrain.com/Crisis%20and%20Hope%20- %20Noam%20Chomsky.pdf It’s also not too encouraging that Pakistan and India are now rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenals. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals were developed with Reagan’s crucial aid. And India’s nuclear weapons program got a major shot in the arm with the recent US-India nuclear agreement. It’s also a sharp blow to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Two countries have twice come close to nuclear war over Kashmir, and they’re also engaged in a kind of a proxy war in Afghanistan . These developments pose a very serious threat to world peace, even to human survival. Well, a lot to say about this crisis, but no time here.

Indo-Pak nuclear war destroys the climate – even worse than past nuclear winter predictions Fox, ‘8 (Maggie, Independent Journalist, April 8, “India-Pakistan Nuclear War Would Cause Ozone Hole” http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47829/story.htm) Fires from burning cities would send 5 million metric tonnes of soot or more into the lowest part of Earth's atmosphere known as the troposphere, and heat from the sun would carry these blackened particles into the stratosphere, the team at the University of Colorado reported. "The sunlight really heats it up and sends it up to the top of the stratosphere," said Michael Mills of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, who chose India and Pakistan as one of several possible examples. Up there, the soot would absorb radiation from the sun and heat surrounding gases, causing chemical reactions that break down ozone. "We find column ozone losses in excess of 20 percent UTD - 2010 80

globally, 25 percent to 45 percent at midlatitudes, and 50 percent to 70 percent at northern high latitudes persisting for five years, with substantial losses continuing for five additional years," Mills' team wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This would let in enough ultraviolet radiation to cause cancer, damage eyes and skin, damage crops and other plants and injure animals. Mills and colleagues based their computer model on other research on how much fire would be produced by a regional nuclear conflict. "Certainly there is a growing number of large nuclear-armed states that have a growing number of weapons. This could be typical of what you might see," Mills said in a telephone interview. SMOKE IS KEY Eight nations are known to have nuclear weapons, and Pakistan and India are believed to have at least 50 weapons apiece , each with the power of the weapon the United States used to destroy Hiroshima in 1945. Mills said the study added a new factor to the worries about what might damage the world's ozone layer, as well as to research about the effects of even a limited nuclear exchange. "The smoke is the key and it is coming from these firestorms that build up actually several hours after the explosions," he said. "We are talking about modern megacities that have a lot of material in them that would burn. We saw these kinds of megafires in World War Two in Dresden and Tokyo. The difference is we are talking about a large number of cities that would be bombed within a few days." Nothing natural could create this much black smoke in the same way, Mill noted. Volcanic ash, dust and smoke is of a different nature, for example, and forest fires are not big or hot enough. The University of Colorado's Brian Toon, who also worked on the study, said the damage to the ozone layer would be worse than what has been predicted by "nuclear winter" and "ultraviolet spring" scenarios. " The big surprise is that this study demonstrates that a small-scale, regional nuclear conflict is capable of triggering ozone losses even larger than losses that were predicted following a full-scale nuclear war ," Toon said in a statement. Mills noted the United States is currently working on a controversial deal that would give India access to US nuclear fuel and equipment for the first time in 30 years even though India refused to join nonproliferation agreements. Nonproliferation advocates believe it undermines the global system designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

This causes a transition to a nuclear fusion economy --- solves radiation and proliferation risks, public fears of nuclear power and prevents economic and environmental collapse Kulcinski & Schmitt, with the Fusion Technology Institute in the Department of Engineering

Physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison 2000 (July 2000, G.L. Kulcinski and H.H. Schmitt, Fusion Technology Institute, “Nuclear Power Without Radioactive Waste – The Promise of Lunar Helium-3,” Presented at the Second Annual Lunar Development Conference, “Return to the Moon II”, 20–21 July 2000, Las Vegas NV, http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/FTI/pdf/fdm1131.pdf, JMP)

Observations on the Development of Fusion Energy in the 21st Century If one accepts the need to develop nuclear energy to satisfy the needs of Earth’s inhabitants in the 21st century and beyond, then it is reasonable to ask “How can one transition from the current fission nuclear economy to a future fusion economy and what would be the benefits of such a transition?” A detailed discussion of this important question is beyond the scope of this paper but the general outline of an answer is summarized in Figure 6. For example, the level of concern over proliferation, nuclear waste, safety, and radiation damage to reactor components is very high in the case of fission reactors. This is not to say that the fission industry has not or cannot solve those problems, but it is clear that the public has concerns in those areas. If one moves to the first-generation fusion fuels, the issues of proliferation, nuclear waste, and safety are somewhat alleviated. However, the radiation damage issue is as difficult (or some would say even more difficult) to solve. One additional area of concern that is faced by first-generation fuels is the safe handling of large amounts of radioactive tritium. Basically, the use of second-generation fuels (D3He) eliminates the proliferation issue and the safety issues are greatly reduced. However, these advantages are purchased at the price of more difficult physics requirements. Finally, the move to the third-generation fuel (3He3He) completely removes the concerns over proliferation, radiation damage, nuclear waste, safety, and tritium. However, these benefits have to be balanced against the much more difficult physics requirements of this fuel cycle. Conclusions

It is appropriate, as society enters a new millennium, to question how future generations will be able to sustain life on Earth while expanding into the solar system. One of the essential questions to answer is how will future generations find enough energy to avoid the economic and environmental

collapse that could occur if fossil fuels become prohibitively expensive in the next 50-100 years. Presently, nuclear energy appears to be the only solution capable of sustaining society as we know it. There is a growing resistance, whether justified or not, to expansion of fission energy. Fusion energy represents an improvement over fission, if it can be shown to be economic, but the first-generation fuels (DT, DD) are very capital intensive because they generate large amounts of radioactive waste and must contain large amount of radioactive materials in a hostile environment. The second-generation fuels (D3He) represent a tremendous improvement over the DT and DD cycles but face somewhat more difficult plasma physics requirements. Ultimately, the thirdgeneration fusion fuels (3He3He) could remove the concern of the public over radioactive waste and releases of radioactivity during reactor malfunctions. This optimism must be balanced against much more challenging physics regimes compared to those for the first- and second-generation fusion fuels.

***Nuke Waste Add-On*** UTD - 2010 81

If one takes the long-range viewpoint, it is clear that some effort should be expended early in the 21st century to developing the third- generation fusion fuels. The ultimate payoff from such research could be the “pot of gold at the end of the rainbow”, the production of clean, safe, economical, and long lasting nuclear energy without nuclear waste in the 21st century.

Nuclear waste will destroy human evolution

Coplan, 6 – Associate Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law (Karl S, “THE INTERCIVILIZATIONAL INEQUITIES OF NUCLEAR POWER WEIGHED AGAINST THE INTERGENERATIONAL INEQUITIES OF CARBON BASED ENERGY,” 17 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 227, Symposium, 2006) //DH

By contrast, nuclear power generation waste impacts will last many thousands of years, and even into the millions of years. 131 The greatest impacts may not be felt for tens of thousands of years. 132 Given that no human civilization has lasted longer than 10,000 years, at least some of the impacts of nuclear power will be imposed on future peoples and political systems we cannot even contemplate. Indeed, given the long persistence of these wastes even in comparison with the timeframe of human evolution, these impacts may even be suffered by other species of humans yet to evolve. 133 The impacts of nuclear waste are thus "intercivilizational."

He3 replaces the DT cycle and makes accidents and failure far less likely. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] Although deuterium-tritium is the most advanced fuel in terms of research interest and completed milestones, it has serious disadvantages that limit its use as a commercial fusion source. Firstly, tritium is radioactive; hence the costs of waste handling are significant and may yield the reactor incompetent against similar risks in fission reactors, seeing that the latter are already fully developed. Secondly, energy from D-T reaction comes in the forms of neutral particles, which limit energy conversion to electricity to the mechanical limit of 40%, which is a result of the steam cycle employed for electricity generation. Moreover, the kinetic energy of the neutrons in the reactor becomes thermal energy when the particles collide with the reactor walls. These collisions bring about two adverse effects; they progressively exacerbate the reactor’s wall materials, thus constant replacement and maintenance of the reactor is required. Also, and most importantly, the metallic wall of the reactor, once bombarded with neutrons, becomes highly radioactive as a consequence of transmutations induced by neutron collisions. In fact, the volume of radioactive material per kW-h of D-T power is greater than that in existing fission power reactors (Schmitt, 2006). Moreover, tritium confinement is a critical issue in D-T fusion reactors.

NASA should return to the moon—6 reasons Dyson, 8 - assignments editor for Ad Astra, Chairman of NSS Space Books Committee, member of NSS Policy Committee (MARIANNE DYSON, assignments editor for Ad Astra, Chairman of NSS Space Books Committee, member of NSS Policy Committee, Summer 2008, “Back to the Future”, Ad Astra Magazine, AD: 6/21/11, SL)

***Space EXPLO / Mars*** UTD - 2010 82

For most members of the National Space Society (NSS), the reason for returning to the Moon is obvious: it is a necessary and vital step on the road to our goal of establishing a spacefaring civilization with the vision of "people living and working in thriving communities beyond the Earth, and the use of the vast resources of space for the dramatic betterment of humanity." This is the same reason, worded somewhat differently, that the president and Congress gave to NASA as part of what was formerly called the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE, now called the U.S. Space Exploration Policy): "as the first step in human exploration of the solar system." STRATEGIC THEMES FOR WHY NASA SHOULD RETURN TO THE MOON 1. Exploration Preparation To use the Moon to prepare for future human and robotic missions to Mars and other destinations 2. Scientific Knowledge To pursue scientific activities addressing fundamental questions about Earth, the solar system, the universe, and our place in them 3. Sustained Presence To extend human presence to the Moon to enable eventual human settlement 4. Economic Expansion To expand Earth's economic sphere to encompass the Moon and to pursue lunar activities with direct benefits to life on Earth 5. Global Partnership To strengthen existing international partnerships and create new ones 6. Inspiration To engage, inspire, and educate the public.

Moon mission key to reaching Mars—jumping off point Mayfield, 8 - editor-in-chief of LAUNCH Magazine (Mark Mayfield, Summer 2008, “Looking Up…Again”, Ad Astra Magazine, AD: 6/21/2011, SL) Today, I often ask astronauts if they think there will ever be another time when public attention focuses again so heavily on space travel. Although many of them point to a Mars mission as the kind of adventure that will galvanize public attention, a growing number are also saying that we'll see public support pick up when astronauts leave Earth orbit again-as NASA's Constellation program intends. I brought up this subject a few days ago with Apollo 14's Edgar Mitchell, one of just 12 people to ever walk on the Moon. Mitchell said the real mission should be to develop a "spacefaring" civilization-a goal shared by the National Space Society. And while Mitchell and others believe a direct trip to Mars is possible there are good reasons to go to the Moon first. "I think we have to do all of it," Mitchell said. "The question is how you want to stage it. We need to learn more about establishing habitats on planets.... I think we could use a little more experience closer to home on how to develop these habitats. The Moon's a good place to do that. And furthermore, we really don't know that much about the Moon. We were only there six times, for a few hours."

Moon base key to future exploration—water on Moon Spudis, Summer 11 - senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston (Paul Spudis, senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Summer 2011, “Lunar Resources: Unlocking the Space Frontier”, http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume23/lunarresources.html, AD: 6/20/11, SL) Water vapor was detected above the lunar South Pole by the Moon Impact Probe on Chandrayaan- 1. The LCROSS impactor threw water vapor and ice particles into space, which told us that ice is present in at least this dark region near the South Pole. Finally, the Mini-SAR imaging radar on Chandrayaan and Mini-RF radar on LRO found evidence of nearly pure water deposits several meters thick within some of the dark, shadowed craters near the poles. Tens of billions of metric tons of water are suggested by these findings. Water is the most immediately useful product we can produce in space. It supports human life, both for drinking and breathing (when dissociated into its component hydrogen and oxygen). It is excellent radiation shielding, providing the most mass- efficient shielding material we know. Water is also a medium for energy storage, as it can be cracked into its component gases by electrolysis from solar power during daylight, then recombined into water at night to generate electrical power. Finally, water can be processed into liquid hydrogen and oxygen propellant to re-fuel spacecraft both on the lunar surface and for export to cislunar space. The extraction and processing of lunar polar water permits us to build a reusable, sustainable presence in cislunar space — the space where nearly all of our space assets reside. By UTD - 2010 83

building a space transportation system that uses the resources of the Moon for provisioning and refueling, we have in effect created a transcontinental railroad in space. And like its namesake, such a system will open up the new frontier of space to exploration, science, business, and settlement.

Moon base key to future exploration—material resources on moon Spudis, Summer 11 - senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston (Paul Spudis, senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Summer 2011, “Lunar Resources: Unlocking the Space Frontier”, http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume23/lunarresources.html, AD: 6/20/11, SL) Other material resources of the Moon permit and facilitate the build-up of off-planet facilities, greatly reducing the amount of mass needed from Earth. Bulk regolith is an extremely useful building material; we can use it to create roads, landing pads, and ultimately, structures. Regolith can be sintered into bricks or ceramics using either thermal heat from the Sun or microwaves. Roads and landing pads can be paved using rovers carrying microwave devices no more powerful than a standard kitchen microwave oven. Berms (raised shelves or barriers) can be constructed to prevent dust thrown up by rocket exhaust from covering equipment. Eventually, we can process the silicate particles of the regolith to extract metals, such as ultra-pure iron for electrical cables and aluminum for building large structures. By using the abundance of useful materials found on the Moon, we can create the capability for permanent human habitation off the Earth. The use of non-terrestrial resources is an essential skill that spacefaring people must master. Lunar return provides us the opportunity to begin this task. We are fortunate to have such a useful body so close-by in space. Once we have a resource utilization operation established on the Moon, we can begin the development of a true spacefaring transportation system — one that is reusable, maintainable, and extensible. By creating this space infrastructure — one that will provide routine access to cislunar space and beyond — we will learn how to live off our world and be better prepared to begin our migration to places beyond the Earth-Moon system. UTD - 2010 84

Moon is ideal location for resource extraction—close and accessible Spudis, Summer 11- senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston (Paul Spudis, senior staff scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Summer 2011, “Lunar Resources: Unlocking the Space Frontier”, http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume23/lunarresources.html, AD: 6/20/11, SL) The Moon is the closest, most accessible heavenly object in space. It is a natural supply depot, stocked with the necessary resources we need to begin learning how to fundamentally alter our paradigm of space travel. Learning how to use non-terrestrial resources has never been done in space. But using them requires only relatively low-level technology — bulk material for building aggregate, water evaporation, distillation, product storage, and waste disposal. Because the Moon is close and accessible, it is an ideal natural laboratory where we can acquire and practice these skills.

Moon exploration key to Mars and beyond—experience there necessary first Korss, 9-oral pathologist and medical writer/editor in Lincoln University, Pennsylvania (John F. Kross, oral pathologist and medical writer/editor in Lincoln University, Pennsylvania, Summer 2008, “Return to the Moon”, Ad Astra Magazine, AD: 6/21/11, SL) Although there are good scientific reasons for going back to the Moon, the stated purpose is to serve as a stepping stone for exploring the frontier, and pushing the envelope to reach Mars and other destinations. To minimize cost and risk to astronaut crews, NASA adopted a "building block" approach that uses common elements as part of a flexible architecture resting on a legacy of experience. "As we put this whole architecture together, we wanted to call on components that were very reliable and had proven flight history," explained Connolly. "So the system we'll use to get people to station, and then to take crews to the Moon, and eventually to Mars, all have common pieces to them." The Moon is seen as a good intermediate goal for NASA to relearn the art of exploration lost over the past 35 years and to "get our exploration legs back," Connolly said. The Moon is close in astronomical terms and provides a convenient place to accumulate experience before taking the giant leap from Earth-Moon space to interplanetary space.

He3 is a vital step for deep space exploration. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] Also, the He-3 deuterium reactor would be ideal for powering spacecraft because the reactor needed is not as massive as other power sources. The lesser mass is a consequence of the smaller need for massive radioactive shielding materials. The lighter mass contributes to a very attractive thrust to drive ratio that translates to large engineering efficiency, which is critical to fast interstellar transport and cargo transport. As shown in Figure 10, fusion has the greatest engineering efficiency. A boom in space exploration will undoubtedly increase the interest in the D-He-3 reaction making scientific advances in fusion technology more rapid. Figure 11 offers a comparison of the various fusion reactors as evaluated in the base of neutron generation.

MINING HE-3 IS KEY TO GETTING TO MARS UTD - 2010 85

KLUGER 08 (JEFERY KLUGER, CO-AUTHOR OF “LOST MOON: THE PERILIOUS VOYAGE OF APOLLO 13, AND TEACHES SCIENCE JOURNALISM @ NEW YORK UNIVERSIT, 11/24/2008 “40 YEARS LATER, IT’S MOON RACE 2.0” LEXISNEXIS.COM, ACCESSED 6/23/11, LG)

Geologists hope to continue the studies of solar-system origins that the Apollo crews began (before Nixon scrapped the manned-moon program in favor of the ostensibly more practical and affordable space shuttle). Astronomers talk of placing a radio telescope on the moon's far side; energy experts want to mine the moon's helium 3, an isotope that could power clean-fusion reactors back on Earth. And anyone dreaming of a human presence on Mars knows that before you attempt long-duration stays on a body tens of millions of miles from home, it's best to practice on one nearby. "You wring these techniques out on the moon first," says Mark Geyser, manager of the Orion project. In 2004, President George W. Bush announced a moon-Mars initiative that would commit NASA to those kinds of goals. Skeptics suspected this was just a bit of election-year candy--and that may have been part of the plan. But the initial idea was accompanied by some hardheaded trade-offs. The grossly overpriced International Space Station would be completed by 2010, allowing the outdated space shuttles to be retired. This would free up between $3 billion and $4 billion a year without increasing NASA's budget. Since Americans still need access to space, the shuttle would be replaced with an updated Apollo-style orbiter. Pair that with a souped-up lunar lander similar to the original, and you're back on the moon. "We're anchoring our models in Apollo data points," says Cleon Lacefield, a vice president and project manager for Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the Orion orbiter. Actually, NASA is doing Apollo one better. In the old lunar program, one massive Saturn V booster did all the lifting, but this time there will be two rockets. The Ares V, the larger of the pair, will be used to carry the new lunar lander as far as Earth's orbit and make unmanned cargo runs to the moon. The smaller Ares I will lift the command module, carrying four astronauts, to meet the lander. Dividing the job between two rockets frees up more payload space on the Ares V. And unlike the Saturn V, which had to be invented from the engine bells up, the Ares boosters will go the frugal route by adapting existing hardware, such as the solid-fuel boosters from the shuttle and an upper-stage engine from the Saturn rockets themselves.

He3 changes human mindset - leads to overview effect. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] The impalpable effects of He-3 are difficult to anticipate, but they are most likely concerned with the dramatic change in perspective that access to space might bestow upon humans. For the entire history of mankind, the cosmos has always been the source of many romantic visions. In fact the very beginning of science fiction focused much of its interest on space exploration and human expansion into space. The 21 st century promises to be the time when these dreams and idealizations will cease to be just that, dreams. Instead, the 21 st century might just be the century when humans dive irreversibly into outer space. Many claim that the most powerful reason to explore the stars is to prevent humanity’s extinction. The quest for Helium-3 in addition to precious metals for fuel cells can be the catalyst for expansion. A change in energy regime has never been deliberate; instead, changes in energy regime have come about as a result of desperate need for energy sources when the dominating source is rapidly waning. Well, the present energy crisis can prove to be the necessary crisis to spark change not only in energy regime, but most prominently, a change in the history of mankind. Another possible side consequence of He-3 harvesting would be the beginning of a truly global mindset. Exploring space further may result in making us increasingly aware that we exist together in a single planet, which is but one of millions of planets. This realization might blur political and national boundaries. Visions of this type are best embedded in the context of space travel and may not pertain to He-3 directly and will

***Overview*** UTD - 2010 86

hence not be explored further. In this section we presented a number of scenarios that could follow directly and indirectly from He-3 exploration. Although exhaustive, this list is by no means complete and many discussions and reflections can follow from it.

Going to moon will help economy--$300 billion market Davis, 9- Senior Principal Aerospace Scientist/Engineer employed by the Boeing Phantom Works: Analysis, Modeling, Simulation, & Experimentation team (Dean Davis a Senior Principal Aerospace Scientist/Engineer employed by the Boeing Phantom Works: Analysis, Modeling, Simulation, & Experimentation team, Spring 2009, “Space Settlement”, https://www.nss.org/Ad_Astra_Spring_09-Final.pdf, AD: 6/20/11, SL) Establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon is the key to maintaining America’s technological superiority in the area of aerospace. Should America allow China or another nation to establish its foothold on the Moon first, the American economy will suffer. Our lunar base will serve in subsequent decades as a testbed for human exploration beyond the Moon—to Mars, the asteroids, and, further in the future, the outer planets. As time passes, viable mission designs are expected to experience reductions in risk, cost, and time optimization for translunar, crewed missions. The communications network infrastructure will use the Moon in revolutionary new ways and will enable further expansion of what is already a $300 billion market, driven by space systems. The Moon may be the cornerstone for expansion and survival of this critical segment of our global economy. In addition, U.S. efforts in human interplanetary space exploration and colonization may stimulate a new generation of students to take science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes in preparation for emerging high-technology engineering and science careers. Other economic reasons for establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon include helium-3 mining (assuming a nuclear fusion technology breakthrough occurs), significant reductions in space transportation costs, the prospect of space tourism (lunar hotels and resorts), and the potential for safe information storage.

******Solvency***Economy*** UTD - 2010 87

XT – Property Rights / Legal Regime Key

Property rights key – government recognized property incentivizes both private and international space exploration. Wasser & Jobes 2008 (Alan Wasser: Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, former CEO of the National Space Society, former member of the AIAA Space Colonization Technical Committee, former member of the Board of Directors of ProSpace, and a former Senior Associate of the Space Studies Institute; Douglas Jobes is the President of The Space Settlement Institute; Journal of Air Law and Commerce “SPACE SETTLEMENTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: COULD A LUNAR SETTLEMENT CLAIM THE LUNAR REAL ESTATE IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE” http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/jal73-1Wasser.pdf; bh)

HUMANITY’S SURVIVAL depends on moving out into the cosmos while the window of opportunity for doing so still exists. Besides helping to ensure the survival of humankind, the settling of space—including the establishment of permanent human settlements on the Moon and Mars— will bring incalculable economic and social benefits to all nations. The settlement of space would benefit all of humanity. It would open a new frontier, provide resources and room for growth of the human race without despoiling the Earth, energize our society, and as Dr. Stephen Hawking has pointed out, create a lifeboat for humanity that could survive even a planet-wide catastrophe. 1 But, as Dr. Lawrence Risley pointed out, “Exploration is not suicidal and it is usually not altruistic, rather it is a means to obtain wealth. There must be rewards for the risks being taken.” 2 Unfortunately, neither private enterprise nor government currently has a sufficient incentive to invest the billions of dollars necessary to make space settlement happen. In the private sector, even the recent accomplishments of space entrepreneurs such as Richard Branson and Robert Bigelow are but tiny steps towards settlement. 3 These billionaires may be able to get a few passengers to low Earth orbit, but it is very unlikely that they will finance technology for people to live in space, especially on the Moon or Mars. 4 They may be wealthy, but they are not that wealthy. And the U.S. government’s current “Return to the Moon” plan 5 has numerous hurdles, not the least of which is whether financing will be sustained over the next decades by future administrations. In any case, the goal of the program is not a thriving settlement on the Moon, but rather a limited, government-run Moon base. 6 The government space programs of other countries are even farther behind with regard to space settlement. 7 There appears to be one incentive, however, that could spark massive private investment leading to the establishment of permanent space settlements on the Mo on and beyond with an immediate payback to investors. The concept of “land claims recognition” (developed by author Alan Wasser and others over the last twenty years) seems to be the most powerful economic incentive, much more so than all the other incentives, such as government-funded prizes and corporate tax holidays combined. 8 If and when the Moon and Mars are settled in the future through other incentives, the nations of Earth will eventually have to recognize these settlements’ authority over their own land. But to create an incentive now, governments would need to commit to recognizing that ownership in advance, rather than long after the fact. Land claims recognition legislation would commit the Earth’s nations, in advance, to allowing a true private Lunar settlement to claim and sell (to people back on Earth) a reasonable amount of Lunar real estate in the area around the base, thus giving the founders of the Moon settlement a way to earn back the investment they made to establish the settlement. 9 Appropriate conditions could be set in the law, such as the establishment of an Earth-Moon space line open to all paying passengers regardless of nationality. UTD - 2010 88

***Lunar property rights essential to settlement – necessary to establish basic governing legislation White ’97 (Wayne, Jr., attorney at law specializing in International Affairs; “Real Property Rights in Outer Space”; http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/real_property_rights_in_outer_space.shtml; bh)

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty[1] does not provide a positive regime for the governance of space development. The 1979 MoonTreaty[2] provides a regime for development, but that regime prohibits real property rights. For that and other reasons, most nations have not signed or ratified the Moon Treaty. A development regime which provides some form of property rights will become increasingly necessary as space develops . Professionals foresee an integrated system of solar power generation, lunar and asteroidal mining, orbital industrialization, and habitation in outer space. In the midst of this complexity, the right to maintain a facility in a given location relative to another space object may create conflict. Such conflicts may arise sooner than we expect, if private companies begin building subsidiary facilities around space stations. Eventually large public facilities will become the hub of private space development, and owners will want to protect the proximity value of their facility location. It also seems likely that at some point national governments and/or private companies will clash over the right to exploit a given mineral deposit. Finally, the geosynchronous orbit is already crowded with satellites, and other orbits with unique characteristics may become scarce in the future. The institution of real property is the most efficient method of allocating the scarce resource of location value. Space habitats, for example, will be very expensive and will probably require financing from private as well as public sources. Selling property rights for living or business space on the habitat would be one way of obtaining private financing. Private law condominiums would seem to be a particularly apt financing model -- inhabitants could hold title to their living space and pay a monthly fee for life-support services and maintenance of common areas . Even those countries which do not have launch capability would benefit from a property regime. Private entities from the developing nations could obtain property rights by purchasing obsolete facilities from foreign entities that are more technologically advanced. A regime of real property rights would provide legal and political certainty. Investors and settlers could predict the outcome of a conflict with greater certainty by analogizing to terrestrial property law. Settlers and developers would also be reassured, knowing that other nations would respect their right to remain at a given location.

Property rights key – incentives necessary to spark space exploration and future colonization. Collins 2008 (Lecturer, The City Law School, City University, London, UK. B.A.Hon., J.D.(Toronto), M.Sc., B.C.L. (Oxford); 4/25/08; EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ON THE PLANET MARS” http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/scitech/volume142/Documents/Collins.pdf) In order to clarify the best regime for property on Mars it is first necessary to clarify how real property is treated on Earth, at least in Common Law jurisdictions. The Common Law views property as a bundle of rights: the right to use, to exclude others from use and to transfer those rights to others. As such, owning the planetary body of Mars in the legal sense would include the right to mine or build upon the planet’s surface, to deny permission to land upon it from space, possibly to put something in orbit around it, and to sell or otherwise transfer those rights to someone else. Property law also recognizes the distinction between public and private property, but this crucial distinction is problematic when applied to such a vast area as an entire planet because such rights cannot be readily categorized as either public or private goods. Mars is a private good in that it may (and likely does) contain valuable mineral resources. These are private goods by definition because they can only be consumed by one person to the exclusion of others. 33 It has already been suggested that the existing treaties may acknowledge mining rights on the planets as such resources can be extracted and removed from the planet. On the other hand the land itself, the vast terrain of the planet’s surface, could be viewed as a public resource like a National Park or the Atlantic Ocean because it can be used in a non-rivalrous way. 34 However, the land on Mars is naturally inhospitable to humans and UTD - 2010 89

agriculture as we know it. The land must be altered through the establishment of infrastructure, like environmentally controlled bases or artificially irrigated greenhouses, before it can be useful in any practical sense. Because of the enormous technological commitment involved, land uses of this nature will be relatively restrictive (at least at first) and probably of small dimension compared to the entire surface of the globe. Such uses are therefore exclusive and rivalrous because there is limited room to live in a constructed base, limited soil under a greenhouse roof, limited artificially liberated oxygen (from the carbon dioxide atmosphere) for breathing and limited melted water for drinking. In that sense the land of Mars should also be viewed as a private good. The incentive to make these productive uses of the land of Mars necessitates non-communal ownership because private property rights encourage the maximization of resource potential due to the prospect of higher individual gains. The cost of monitoring property is also negated through a regime where private entitlements are enforced by law. 35 Similarly, it has now been widely and effectively argued 36 that the recognition of property rights will be a strong incentive for space exploration because the expectation of future profit, such as derived from property claims, legitimizes the enormous expense from a rational cost- benefit perspective. Missions to Mars are particularly needful of such clear incentivization because of the high costs and uncertain benefits. Recent estimates suggest that a manned mission to Mars would cost $55 billion. 37 The establishment of bases or other such infrastructure could cost significantly more, and the value of such improved land is at best uncertain, especially since its expected utility may depend on some as yet unknowable future eventuality on Earth. In contrast, equal distribution of Martian land in line with the Common Heritage principle would lead to no profit in the economic sense and would inevitably result in the “tragedy of the commons,” the risk of self- interested over-exploitation or under-exploitation of shared resources if there is no enforcement mechanism that ensures each user pulls their own weight. 38 If each nation or person has equal claim to Mars as a matter of right and not as a function of contribution, then non-space faring nations and their taxpayers will avoid contributing to the efforts to reach and develop Mars. No country is likely to undertake the enormous risks, economic and otherwise, associated with Mars colonization without the legal certainty that their rewards will not be distributed to others. 39 The private property rights to exclude others from specific developed areas of Mars, to transfer that right to others in a market, and to use the land in a productive manner are crucial incentives. A key advantage of recognizing private ownership of real property on Mars is that non-state bodies could become committed to the productive use of land on the planet. Financing a Mars mission as a business venture could be an efficient way to reach the planet and to establish human habitation there. 40 Individuals or organizations could buy shares in the Mars mission to be compensated by land claims on the planet that would rise in value in proportion to the extent of colonization. The uncertain legal framework of the existing treaty regime would undermine optimal investment since there would be fear of uncompensated expropriation under the auspices of the UN or some other international organization favoring absolute common ownership of all extra-planetary resources. Thus, as Hoffstadt has noted, a stable legal regime is required in order for investment in space exploration to be viable. 41 A clear and consistent legal regime will induce productive private capitalization of Mars missions in the future and would be advantageous in the development of Mars. 42 While the negotiation of a legal framework fostering investment in extra planetary land has the potential itself to be costly, it is expected that the relative costs will only increase over time as more nations and corporations become involved, suggesting that earlier settling of legal entitlements is favorable. Although at present it seems unlikely that interplanetary travel, let alone planetary colonization, could be achieved by a corporation or other private body due to insufficient resource consolidation, there are signs that private space exploration is becoming more relevant. Growing interest in private space exploration is evidenced by the numerous non-market initiatives to encourage a non-state role in space exploration, such as the Ansari X prize for suborbital spaceflight and Google’s recent To the Moon prize to be awarded to the first individual to successfully place an object on the Moon. 43 Recent successful advancements in private space flight, such as SpaceShipOne and the voyage of tourist Dennis Tito to the International Space Station, may be indicative of future trends for involvement of private enterprise in this field. 44 Non-state space exploration has the economic advantage of capitalization from sources that would be unavailable to a publicly funded agency like NASA, such as selling the broadcast rights to video and audio images of the mission. The Mars Rover and Mars Explorer photographs UTD - 2010 90

were among the most popular images on the Internet for some time. 45 It is unlikely that private space exploration initiatives, such as ones involving the development of land on Mars, would occur without the prospect of economic recovery if not surplus profit. UTD - 2010 91

XT – Cooperation Key

Exploration must comply with current treaties—allows for peaceful management of Moon Moltz, 9- associate professor in the Department of National Security Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School (James Clay Moltz, associate professor in the Department of National Security Studies at the Na val Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, Fall 2009, “Toward Cooperation or Conflict on the Moon? Considering Lunar Governance in Historical Perspective”, http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2009/Fall/moltz.pdf, AD: 6/21/11, SL) Of all these factors, the first two—the status of international relations among participants and their willingness to comply with existing space treaties and norms—may be the most important, even above resource scar city or the availability of technology. It almost goes without saying that friendly relations and cooperative exploratory projects on the moon and in the solar system will greatly increase the chances of successful management of moon conflicts. This suggests that realist factors alone are not likely to [97] dictate a break-up of the OST or the existing consensus on cooperative restraint on the exercise of military power. Of course, hostile relations (such as between the United States and China) cannot be ruled out and could lead to unilateral efforts to seize locations and establish nationally oriented keep-out and governance regimes, whether or not resources are scarce. However, violation of the OST in this manner could have other repercussions on space security and would have to be considered carefully by any state undertaking such policies. Hostile or self- serving actions on the moon could harm a country’s interests in other areas of space or on Earth, leading to rival coalitions against it and efforts to undercut its attempted unilateral gains—possibly through military means.

Multilateral cooperation key to peaceful exploration Moltz, 9- associate professor in the Department of National Security Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School (James Clay Moltz, associate professor in the Department of National Security Studies at the Na val Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, Fall 2009, “Toward Cooperation or Conflict on the Moon? Considering Lunar Governance in Historical Perspective”, http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2009/Fall/moltz.pdf, AD: 6/21/11, SL) In a provocative recent article, space analyst Andrew Brearley argues for the OST’s continued relevance, albeit with possible future modifications or clarifications. He makes the point that “even though the OST prevents states from owning the moon, it does not prevent them from exploiting it.”37 Brearley compares the future lunar legal environment to that associated with the seabed, a similar “global commons.”38 He makes the case that an international management organization modeled on the UNCLOS arrangement could serve as an effective governance tool for the moon. Pointing specifically to follow-on implementation agreements in 1996 associated with the UNCLOS to make it more palatable to major states that might become engaged in seabed mining, Brearley argues that similar implement agreements might be reached regarding the Moon Treaty, if agreed to by major space-faring states.39 He proposes what he calls a Lunar Resource Authority to govern applications for and management of mining operations by states or commercial consortia. This agreement would allow profit making, but without transferring actual ownership of sections of the moon to specific countries or enterprises, thus remaining consistent with the OST. One option would be through a licensing system, which would create the “pseudo property rights” that Brearley believes are needed to allow successful commercial operations to be pursued.40 UTD - 2010 92

Reducing the risks before we get to the moon are key. Moltz, 9- associate professor in the Department of National Security Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School (James Clay Moltz, associate professor in the Department of National Security Studies at the Na val Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, Fall 2009, “Toward Cooperation or Conflict on the Moon? Considering Lunar Governance in Historical Perspective”, http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2009/Fall/moltz.pdf, AD: 6/21/11, SL) The debate on the issue of commercial development of the moon’s resources is an important and still unresolved one. As Brearley notes, it would be highly desirable for states to settle these issues before the next humans set foot on the moon. Once humans begin landing and staying on the moon, complex issues will quickly arise. Key variables in the process of international discussion and possible negotiation include (1) the nature of the leading space actors and their interrelations at the time of the moon’s settlement, ( 2) the status of existing space-related treaties and restraint-based norms, (3) the prospects for lucrative contracts (which could promote either competition or cooperation), (4) the extent of the resources and locations available (more likely to promote competition), and (5) the availability of cost-effective technology for their exploitation.

The counterplan has to precede the plan --- only way to avoid conflicts and counterbalancing that undercuts solvency

Moltz, 9 – associate professor in the Department of National Security Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School (James Clay, Fall 2009, Strategic Studies Quarterly, “Toward Cooperation or Conflict on the Moon? Considering Lunar Governance in Historical Perspective,” http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2009/Fall/moltz.pdf, JMP) The debate on the issue of commercial development of the moon’s resources is an important and still unresolved one. As Brearley notes, it would be highly desirable for states to settle these issues before the next humans set foot on the moon. Once humans begin landing and staying on the moon, complex issues will quickly arise. Key variables in the process of international discussion and possible negotiation include (1) the nature of the leading space actors and their interrelations at the time of the moon’s settlement, ( 2) the status of existing space-related treaties and restraint-based norms, (3) the prospects for lucrative contracts (which could promote either competition or cooperation), (4) the extent of the resources and locations available (more likely to promote competition), and (5) the availability of cost-effective technology for their exploitation. Of all these factors, the first two—the status of international relations among participants and their willingness to comply with existing space treaties and norms—may be the most important, even above resource scarcity or the availability of technology. It almost goes without saying that friendly relations and cooperative exploratory projects on the moon and in the

solar system will greatly increase the chances of successful management of moon conflicts . This suggests that realist factors alone are not likely to dictate a break-up of the OST or the existing consensus on cooperative restraint on the exercise of military power. Of course, hostile relations (such as between the United States and China) cannot be ruled out and could lead to unilateral efforts to seize locations and establish nationally oriented keep-out and governance regimes, whether or not resources are scarce. However, violation of the OST in this manner could have other repercussions on space security and would have to be considered carefully by any state undertaking such policies. Hostile or self-serving actions on the moon could harm a country’s interests in other areas of space or on Earth, leading to rival coalitions against it and efforts to undercut its attempted unilateral gains—possibly through military means.

Legal regime is key to prevent conflict with other space faring nations. Bilder, 9 - Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School [Richard, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Option, Fordham International Law Review, 33:2, 2009, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei- redir=1#search="united+states+helium+3+mining+law+review"] However, the growing interest in lunar He-3 poses its own problems. As yet, there is no international consensus on whether, or how, any nation or private entity can exploit or acquire title to lunar resources. The U.N.- developed 1967 Outer Space Treaty 7 does not specifically address this question. The related U.N.- sponsored 1979 Moon UTD - 2010 93

Agreement 8 purports to lay the groundwork for the eventual establishment of a regime for the exploitation of lunar resources, but that agreement has thus far been ratified by only a very few countries-not including the United States and none of which are currently leading space powers. 9 Absent an agreed international legal framework, attempts by the United States or any other nation or private entity to acquire and bring to Earth significant quantities of He-3 could give rise to controversy and conflict. Indeed, without the security of an established legal regime, nations or private entities might well be reluctant to commit the very substantial money, effort, and resources necessary to mine, process, and transport back to Earth the amounts of lunar He-3 sufficient to support the broad-scale terrestrial use of He-3-based fusion energy.

U.S. and NASA prefer legal space regime- it's more stable Tannenwald 03 (Nina Tannenwald is Director of the International Relations Program and Joukowsky Family Research Assistant Professor at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. April 2003. Law Versus Power on the High Frontier: The Case for a Rule-Based Regime for Outer Space Accessed: 6/21/11 http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei-redir=1#search= %22mining+moon+legal+regime%22 GR) A more elaborated legal regime would be aimed at preventing destabilizing conflicts over the use of space . The problem posed is how to balance the interests of the United States with those of the rest of the world. The U.S. position, if seriously pursued, would pit the United States against everyone else, and the support of even close allies could be in question. Equally if not more important, other significant interests of the United States in space will be jeopardized if an extended battle over superiority in space develops. Given the inherent vulnerability of space activities, traditional military support activities (including space-tracking, early warning, communications, reconnaissance, weather, and navigation) will be in jeopardy. The viability of commercial and scientific activities in space would be in serious question as well. In a conflict, terrestrial components of space activities could become objects of attack, while attacks against satellites could litter space with speeding debris that might rip into commercial satellites and space vehicles, disrupting commercial and scientific activity and communications on the ground. 25 Although SPACECOM and its supporters aggressively assert their views, advocates of weapons in space may be in the minority, even in the Pentagon. As many observers recognize, the interests of the United States in space are much broader than SPACECOM presents. U.S. testing and deployment of orbital weapons could make using space for other military and commercial purposes more difficult. Many in the military, especially those involved in crucial military support activities, are quietly aware of this, as are officials at NASA and the international space station, and their supporters in Congress. 26 Congressional support for antisatellite (ASAT) programs does not appear to be deep or widespread. Serious questions remain as to whether the threats to U.S. assets in space are really as great as SPACECOM argues, and whether, even if the threats were real, expensive and difficult space-based weapons would really be the most effective way to deal with them. In many cases, those wishing to hurt the United States will likely find it much easier, and more effective, to attack terrestrial targets. 27 Overall, the risks brought on by a competition for national dominance in space would ultimately be detrimental to the United States. The United States is by far the nation most reliant on space for its military and economic well-being. It has an estimated 600 satellites, both military and commercial, in orbit, a number that is expected to more than double during the next ten years. Although in the short term the U.S. technological and financial edge in space will grow, ultimately the United States will see that advantage diminish over time. Current U.S. doctrines for space such as Vision for 2020 likely underestimate the speed with which U.S. advantage as a space power will erode (although SPACECOM advocates hope to preserve this advantage through dominating space). The choice between a competition for national superiority and a strengthened legal regime that preserves and balances the interests of all in space will have profound consequences. If the United States aggressively moves weaponry into space, it will likely provoke other nations to pursue countermeasures, with destabilizing consequences for global and national security. In addition, by encouraging nations who do not currently have an interest in placing weapons in space to compete directly and immediately with U.S. space-based assets, the United States will almost certainly guarantee the loss of the advantages it seeks to protect. Although an arms race in ASAT weapons is one of the dangers, currently of greatest concern to states such as China and Russia is the U.S. use of space systems to augment its nuclear and conventional strategic strike capabilities. From their perspective, the U.S. decision to expand strategic capabilities into space represents the collapse of the Cold War bargain of strategic stability based on mutual vulnerability. A military competition in space could thus invigorate a high-tech arms race and could renew emphasis on doctrines of nuclear warfare. 29 Finally, a military competition in space would largely extinguish the role of law in space in favor of a regime of power. Despite the narrow organizational appeal of the latter to SPACECOM, the much broader interests of the United States in space lie in the promotion of the rule of law. The United States has long been a strong advocate of the rule of law both at home and in global affairs, in the latter case seeing it as the best way to promote its interests in an interdependent world. When presented with the choice, it is likely that most users of space--including the satellite communications industry, those involved in military support operations, and the scientific community, including NASA---would prefer the more stable protection provided by the rule of law rather than the more uncertain and potentially disruptive protection of untested and complex weapons systems. In sum, the United States and the international community have a strong interest in UTD - 2010 94

preventing a destabilizing military competition in space through the timely negotiation of a more elaborated legal regime for space.

Legal regime is key to solve - resources. Bilder, 9 - Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School [Richard, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Option, Fordham International Law Review, 33:2, 2009, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei- redir=1#search="united+states+helium+3+mining+law+review"] The need for affordable, safe, and non-polluting energy to serve the Earth's growing population is increasingly evident and urgent. The development of lunar He-3-based fusion energy, while still uncertain of achievement, offers humanity a credible prospect of meeting that need for centuries to come. Thus, it is not surprising that the United States and other nations proposing the eventual establishment of lunar bases have expressed interest in the possible mining and exploitation of lunar He-3. However, neither nations nor private commercial enterprises are likely to be willing to commit resources to an He- 3-based fusion energy program absent a stable and predictable legal regime governing lunar resources that provides reasonable assurance that any such effort and investment will be rewarded and can be carried on without controversy or disruption. Yet, at present, international space law fails to establish any detailed rules governing the mining, ownership, and exploitation of He-3 and other lunar resources or to provide such assurance. Consequently, if the United States seriously contemplates the possible development of He-3-based fusion energy, it is in its national interest to take steps to establish what it would consider as an acceptable and agreed-upon international lunar resource regime-and to do so relatively soon.

He3 requires international cooperation - only way to ensure feasibility. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] The potential of He-3 as a major energy source is immense and its development and adoption will bring powerful changes to the very spinal chord of a petroleum-based and Earth based society. Through this project we have offered a comprehensive understanding of the technical difficulties engrained in the acquisition and processing of He-3 for energy production. Furthermore, we have presented and analyzed the legal obstacles and the framework that would direct an expedition to the Moon posing multiple scenarios for He- 3 harvesting including private development, international cooperative development, single government development and a combination of these. The interest and initiatives of a number of space-faring nations in developing lunar resources was also presented, UTD - 2010 95

exhibiting the relevance of He-3 in international politics and science today. Moreover, the commercial viability of the project was put into perspective through a rough overview of the advantages, difficulties and costs of the project. Finally, multiple scenarios for developing He-3 were analyzed evaluating their impact on society on multiple levels including political power distribution, economic distribution, scientific breakthroughs, birth of new industries, the growth of global inequality and the changes in conceptual paradigms that space exploration will certainly bring. The possibility of using He-3 as an energy source for the future is definitely a reliable option after looking into the energetics and economics of developing a He-3 economy on Earth. Even though there are many obstacles in this task, with the current research devoted to He-3 fusion technology, He-3 can be a useful energy source in the future years. The scenarios that were discussed in this paper can be realized if government and private enterprises highlight this venture as important for confronting the ongoing energy crisis. The public should also be made aware of the sources that exist to alleviate our ongoing energy crisis, and He-3 should be highlighted as one such option. He-3 certainly is a powerful option that allows us to overcome the current crises and brings with it many added benefits if used in a judicial and humanitarian manner. International interest in developing a He-3 economy should be of prime importance so that the countries of the world can work jointly in this venture. Though we recognize that the spectrum of the project is vast and that what we have posed as “ideal” scenarios are far too ideal to be conceivable, like many space enthusiasts, we are dreamers. But dreamers were exactly what were needed to land Man on the Moon and it is our chance to do so again, and this time in a more lasting manner.

Go it alone strategy will fail - the conditions are essential to guaranteeing a regime that favors the US interests in He3. Bilder, 9 - Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School [Richard, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Option, Fordham International Law Review, 33:2, 2009, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei- redir=1#search="united+states+helium+3+mining+law+review"] It is true, of course, that U.S. accession to the Moon Agreement would involve risks, such as those raised in the 1980 Senate hearings, based on a pessimistic prediction of the likely outcome of any eventual article 11 and 18 negotiations. 152 Thus, U.S. accession might well encourage wider participation in the agreement by many non-space powers and developing statescountries that might have a different ideology and approach to the exploitation of lunar resources from that of the United States. Conceivably, if these nations constituted a majority of parties to the agreement, they might succeed in imposing a resource regime unacceptable to the United States in any future article 11 and 18 negotiations. In this event, U.S. accession to the Moon Agreement could result in embedding and legitimating a lunar resource regime embodying principles contrary to U.S. interests. Moreover, U.S. accession might, in this case, effectively preclude its pursuit of alternative, more hopeful strategies. While it is true that under the agreement the U.S. is not legally obliged to agree to any eventual international regime that it does not like, it might by that time be impractical for the United States to either "go it alone" or seek some other agreement. However, there are various approaches the United States could employ to alleviate these concerns. For example: 0 The United States could indicate to the current parties to the Moon Agreement that it was prepared to ratify and accede to the agreement conditional on their first acting under article 11 and 18 to adopt a lunar resource regime reflecting principles acceptable to the United States. Conceivably, the present parties might value U.S. adherence sufficiently to adopt such a regime. However, UTD - 2010 96

since none of the current parties are now, or likely in the future to be, involved in lunar resource activities, they might not be best suited to fashioning the kind of resource regime the United States would hope to have established. The United States could negotiate an agreement with likeminded countries having a present or potential spacefaring capability and concern with the effective development of lunar resources, such as China, the European Union, India, Japan, and Russia, for the proposed simultaneous accession by each of them to the Moon Agreement, coupled with a joint declaration indicating their intent, upon their accession, to move under article 18 to establish an acceptable resource regime meeting U.S. requirements. The combined influence of these major powers would presumably be sufficient to ensure the adoption by all of the parties to the agreement of such a regime. * Perhaps preferably, the United States could, more broadly, negotiate with both the current parties to the agreement, the other principal space powers, and other interested states for specific terms of an acceptable proposed lunar resource regime, with the understanding or express agreement that, if the United States and other non- party states then joined the agreement, both the old and new parties would then promptly agree to call an article 18 conference to formally adopt this previously agreed upon lunar resource regime. " Alternatively, while the United States could not propose amendment of the Moon Agreement since it is not a current party, it could, as a member of COPUOS, propose the negotiation in COPUOS, and perhaps adoption by the U.N. General Assembly, of a protocol or additional instrument supplementing the Moon Agreement providing for a lunar resource regime acceptable to the United States, with the understanding that it would ratify the agreement and protocol or additional instrument only if the protocol or additional instrument received sufficient acceptance, including acceptance by the other principal space powers, so as to enter into force as binding upon all parties. This approach would, of course, be similar to that followed by the U.N. General Assembly in its adoption of an implementation agreement in 1994 effectively nullifying the provisions of part XI of the LOSC to which the United States and some other states objected. 153 As already mentioned, the current parties to the agreement might be willing to agree to one of these possible arrangements in order to encourage and facilitate participation by the United States and other space powers in the agreement. 154 Discussions in recent meetings of the Legal Committee of COPUOS suggest that the parties to the Moon Agreement, as well as other states, are actively exploring the possibility of reisions, arrangements, or other accommodations that might persuade the United States and other countries to ratify and accede to the agreement. 55 Once again, international experience with the analogous situation involving seabed minerals is suggestive, where a majority of states in the U.N. General Assembly were prepared to negotiate and adopt the 1994 implementation agreement modifying the mineral resource regime set out in part XI of the LOSC in the hope of encouraging the United States and other important states to join the LOSC. 156 UTD - 2010 97

AT: China Says No

China will support cooperation. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] China’s interest in becoming a nuclear power coincides with its interest and prowess in becoming a space explorer. In what is a significant indicative of its determination, China held the first international conference on Cold Fusion of the 21st century. China’s incursion into manned space flight began in 1999 with the launch of the first space vehicle capable of transporting people into outer space. Chinese officials have voiced their government’s interest in space race explicitly. Luo Gen, the foreign affairs director of the China National Space Administration declared that: “the Chinese government will attach more attention to the development and application of space science and technology and speed up the development of the space industry.” The Chinese National Space Administration says that “China carries out its space activities for the purpose of satisfying the fundamental demands of its modernization drive;” however, it is vague as to which projects this “modernization drive” is going to encompass. The most relevant mission for further space exploration and especially in regard to mining operations is the manned space missions. China’s manned space program began in 1992 and within seven years it launched its first vehicle able to transport human beings the Shenzhou was launched and successfully recovered in November 1999. The Chinese objectives for the upcoming 20 or more years would be to explore and utilize space resources to meet a wide range of “economic construction, state security, science and technology development and social progress, and contribute to the strengthening of the comprehensive national strength." With regards to He-3 China has explicitly stated that one of the objectives of the manned Moon landing projected for 2017 is to “provide the most reliable report on helium-3 to mankind.” China is now designing a rocket with a transport capacity of 25 tons, which might lead one to believe that it is preparing for a He-3 harvesting and transportation venture. Nonetheless China also recognizes the need for international cooperation and claims to “support activities involving the peaceful use of outer space, and maintains that international space cooperation shall be promoted and strengthened on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, mutual complementarity and common development.” 82 Furthermore, China seems to be committed to the principle of developing space technology and utilizing space resources for the development and benefit of all of mankind. In fact, China’s has participated in join space ventures with other nations. With Germany it developed the satellite Sinosat-1 and it is working with Brazil is developing Earth resources satellite. UTD - 2010 98

A2: US Appropriating Land Illegal

Not a US land grab – settlement would require international cooperation Wasser & Jobes 2008 (Alan Wasser: Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, former CEO of the National Space Society, former member of the AIAA Space Colonization Technical Committee, former member of the Board of Directors of ProSpace, and a former Senior Associate of the Space Studies Institute; Douglas Jobes is the President of The Space Settlement Institute; Journal of Air Law and Commerce “SPACE SETTLEMENTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: COULD A LUNAR SETTLEMENT CLAIM THE LUNAR REAL ESTATE IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE” http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/jal73-1Wasser.pdf; bh)

Some of those who have written on this subject recognize the need for property rights as an incentive for space development and the ambiguity of the Outer Space Treaty, but are still mired in the concept that space development can only be achieved as it was during the Cold War—by nations and for parochial national interests. For example, in his Seton Hall Law Review article, lawyer Brandon Gruner portrays the question of whether the Outer Space Treaty permits private property solely in terms of whether a nation, presumably the U.S., could use that permission to cheat the no-sovereignty rules. 64 What Gruner does not mention is the possibility of good faith claims made by genuine private enterprise settlements, rather than citizens of any single nation, and not acting as a front for any nation trying to slip national appropriation past the rest of the world. But such good faith property claims are the only kind that should be encouraged and allowed. Any effort to establish a human space settlement is almost certainly going to be a multi-national effort. No U.S. company could build a Lunar settlement alone. 65 Participation by international companies will be a requirement in practice and could be made part of the law. 66 Financially, building a settlement will be so expensive that it will have to be financed and owned by stockholders from many different countries. 67 The Settlement would have to use rockets and other components built in many countries, be inhabited by the citizens of many other countries, and would almost certainly launch from someplace outside the U.S., such as Kazakhstan or the Kourou launch pad in French Guiana. 68 As Fountain describes it: Given the high cost of space development, the formation of international partnerships among private entities will be crucial in any future development of outer space. Such cooperation has the added benefit of ensuring that no one state monopolizes too many of the resources. Additionally, partnerships would provide developing states the opportunity to participate in ventures on a modest scale . . . . Such states could provide scientists, engineers, and/or a smaller percent of investment capital in exchange for a smaller percent of the profits. 69 Therefore, there is no reason at all for a settlement company to place itself on the U.S. registry or choose to be under U.S. jurisdiction , and there are good reasons for not doing so. Today, few, if any, ocean-going ships, choose U.S. registry rather than a “flag of convenience.” 70 Therefore, the fact that the U.S. chooses to recognize the land claims of Kazakh or Guyanese companies, for example, could in no way be considered a U.S. attempt to appropriate the Moon. 71 UTD - 2010 99

US not appropriating land – recognizing private ownership is not the same as granting it. Wasser & Jobes 2008 (Alan Wasser: Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, former CEO of the National Space Society, former member of the AIAA Space Colonization Technical Committee, former member of the Board of Directors of ProSpace, and a former Senior Associate of the Space Studies Institute; Douglas Jobes is the President of The Space Settlement Institute; Journal of Air Law and Commerce “SPACE SETTLEMENTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: COULD A LUNAR SETTLEMENT CLAIM THE LUNAR REAL ESTATE IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE” http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/jal73-1Wasser.pdf; bh)

There are other critics of Lunar land claims recognition who, although they admit that the Outer Space Treaty does not prohibit a settlement from claiming private property, nevertheless claim it would be an act of “national appropriation,” and hence a violation of the treaty, for any nation to publicly recognize that fact. 72 Their position boils down to the following: it is acceptable for a private entity to claim property, but it is a crime for a nation to recognize such a claim publicly. The reason these individuals fall into a “do not ask, do not tell” approach appears to be a misunderstanding or a confusion between the terms “recognize” and “confer.” “To recognize” means to “acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of,” 73 or “accepts, acquiesces to, decides not to con- test.” 74 In contrast, “to confer” means to “grant (a title, degree, benefit, or right).” 75 If a nation claims the right to confer, give, or grant title to Lunar land, then it could be violating the ban on national appropriation. But if a settlement is established and the settlers claim private ownership of land around their settlement, and a dozen of Earth’s nations recognize the settlers’ claim, it is not reasonable to say that all dozen nations are trying to appropriate the land and thus are violating the Outer Space Treaty. 76 As the proposed Space Settlement Prize Act points out, U.S. courts already recognize, certify, and defend private ownership and sale of land which is not subject to U.S. national appropriation or sovereignty, such as a U.S. citizen’s ownership (and right to sell to another U.S. citizen, both of whom are within the U.S.) a deed to land which is actually located in another nation. U.S. issuance of a document of recognition of a settlement’s claim to land on the Moon, Mars, etc., can be done on a basis analogous to that situation. 77 UTD - 2010 100

A2: Breaks Outer Space Treaty

Real property rights legal – no language in Outer Space Treaty that indicates private entities cannot own land. Wasser & Jobes 2008 (Alan Wasser: Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, former CEO of the National Space Society, former member of the AIAA Space Colonization Technical Committee, former member of the Board of Directors of ProSpace, and a former Senior Associate of the Space Studies Institute; Douglas Jobes is the President of The Space Settlement Institute; Journal of Air Law and Commerce “SPACE SETTLEMENTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: COULD A LUNAR SETTLEMENT CLAIM THE LUNAR REAL ESTATE IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE” http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/jal73-1Wasser.pdf; bh)

But the treaty clearly does not contain any language explicitly saying that states may not authorize their citizens to do anything that they themselves cannot do, contrary to what some authors appear to assume. The treaty does not say that what is prohibited to states is therefore prohibited to private entities nor that what is prohibited to the regulator is therefore always prohibited to the regulated. A baseball coach gives “authorization and continuing supervision” to his players. Does the fact that the coach is not allowed to run onto the field to catch a fly ball mean the players he supervises cannot either? There are plenty of longstanding precedents demonstrating actions that the U.S. itself cannot perform legally, but which it can authorize its citizens to do and can recognize when they have done so, such as adopting a particular religion, numerous trade and commercial activities, getting married,—or claiming land on the Moon on the basis of use and occupation. Private citizens do not suddenly become mere legal parts, “creatures,” or branches of the State because the State authorizes and supervises their space activities. 81 Citizens retain their independent existence as separate legal entities. 82 Therefore, if the framers of the Outer Space Treaty had intended to mean that States may not authorize their citizens to do anything which they themselves cannot do, they would have written such language into the Treaty explicitly. However, the framers did not do this. 83 They deliberately required only undefined “authorization and continuing supervision” and compliance with the Treaty. 84 Declassified U.S. State Department records of the treaty negotiations between the delegations headed by Arthur Goldberg of the U.S. and Platon D. Morozov of the U.S.S.R. show how these articles came to impose only that nominal burden on private enterprise in space. 85 The Americans, adamantly opposed to the Communist proposal to ban all private enterprise space activity, stood fast until the U.S.S.R. agreed to those substantially meaningless face-saving formulations.

OST doesn’t prohibit moon mining. Carswell, 2 [Bill, The Outer Space and Moon Treaties and the Coming Moon Rush, Space Dail, April 18, 2002, http://www.sps.aero/Key_ComSpace_Articles/CSA-006_Moon_Rush.pdf] According to some analysts, such as Glenn Harlan Reynolds, the Outer Space Treaty doesn't impose any egregious restrictions on the commercial development of the moon. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits national appropriation, not private appropriation of lunar resources. In fact it was this very loophole, according to Reynolds, that was the main driver behind the drafting of the Moon Treaty. If this is the case then it appears that the Outer Space Treaty presents no real impediment to lunar resource utilization by commercial entities. UTD - 2010 101

AT: No Launch Vehicle

Once there is a push for a moon base private sector and other countries will find ways to make it feasible. Carswell, 2 [Bill, The Outer Space and Moon Treaties and the Coming Moon Rush, Space Dail, April 18, 2002, http://www.sps.aero/Key_ComSpace_Articles/CSA-006_Moon_Rush.pdf] Once these space power and lunar resource utilization activities have begun, other countries will feel compelled to match those efforts. The response of the United States is an example worth considering. When a credible effort is undertaken to begin using the resources of the moon to develop a significant power collection and transmission capability in space, the United States will respond for several reasons. The first is that its general public general public will feel threatened. The public likely will not understand the intricate details of the technical and political issues, but it will be afraid of the idea that another nation might capture and control "the high ground." The military will rightfully fear that any state with control of that much power in space is a force to be concerned about. They will demand that the United States build its own power farms in space as well. Finally the entrenched, established business communities will finally develop a credible economic model based on real cost numbers and be driven by the profit motive to join the effort. Other nations are also likely to join the fray as well. Japan, according to press reports, is already planning a solar power satellite demonstration project. The next space race, the moon rush, will have begun. And this time it will be here to stay.

Securing a moon agreement will jump start US moon programs. Bilder, 9 - Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School [Richard, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Option, Fordham International Law Review, 33:2, 2009, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei- redir=1#search="united+states+helium+3+mining+law+review"] However problematic and seemingly remote, the question of the exploitation of He-3 and other lunar resources warrants the U.S. government's-and international lawyers'-present attention. While President Obama's recent proposal to eliminate funding for NASA's Moon-bound Constellation program raises doubts as to whether NASA will, at least in the immediate future, implement the previous administration's program, 82 it seems likely that the United States, and at least some other nations, will eventually establish bases on the Moon-and perhaps on Mars or other planets or their moons. Beginning now to think about and craft collective solutions to the issues which may well arise from such programs may not only facilitate such national activities but avoid difficulties and disputes in the future. Moreover, international cooperation in developing-and making available to all nations and people-a prospectively ideal and abundant source UTD - 2010 102

of affordable, safe, and nonpolluting energy could usher in a new and hopeful era for all humanity. UTD - 2010 103

***Feasibility UTD - 2010 104

Moon Mining

Moon is relatively easy to mine – current technology meets requirements. Bilder 2009 (Richard, J.D., Harvard University Law School & has served as Vice-President of the American Society of International Law; Fordham International Law Journal: Vol. 33 Issue 2, Pgs. 254-255 “A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options”; bh) How would lunar He-3 be extracted and transported to Earth? 29 Because the solar wind components are weakly bound to the lunar regolith, 0 it should be relatively easy to extract them utilizing reasonable extensions of existing technology. In one proposed scenario, once a lunar base is established, robotic lunar mining vehicles fitted with solar heat collectors would: (1) traverse appropriate areas of the Moon's surface-probably, in particular, the lunar maria, or "seas"-scooping up the loose upper layer of the lunar regolith and sizing it into small particles; (2) utilize solar energy to process and heat the collected regolith to the temperatures necessary to release, separate, and collect in a gaseous state the He-3, along with certain other solar-wind elements embedded in the regolith particles; (3) discharge the spent regolith back to the lunar surface; and (4) return with the collected He- 3 and other gaseous byproducts to the lunar base. The collected He-3 gas could then be liquified in the lunar cold and transported to Earth, perhaps in remotely-operated shuttles. 3 2 Importantly, this type of mining operation could result in the collection not only of He-3 but also significant amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water, all potentially very useful-indeed, perhaps indispensable-for the maintenance of a lunar base or further outer space activities such as expeditions to Mars or other planets. 33 Since He-3 is believed to comprise only a small proportion of the lunar regolith, it will probably be necessary to process large amounts of lunar regolith in order to obtain the quantities of He- 3 necessary to sustain a large-scale terrestrial He-3-based power program. However, the extraction of He-3 and other solar wind components from the lunar soil seems in itself unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on the lunar environment because the regolith will be discharged back to the Moon's surface immediately after processing. 34

Mining for He3 is essential – safe and efficient fusion is crucial for future leadership. Lasker 2006 (John, freelance journalist and contributor for Wired and Christian Science Monitor; December 15th; “Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel” http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276?currentPage=2; bh) NASA's planned moon base announced last week could pave the way for deeper space exploration to Mars, but one of the biggest beneficiaries may be the terrestrial energy industry. Nestled among the agency's 200-point mission goals is a proposal to mine the moon for fuel used in fusion reactors -- futuristic power plants that have been demonstrated in proof-of-concept but are likely decades away from commercial deployment. Helium-3 is considered a safe, environmentally friendly fuel candidate for these generators, and while it is scarce on Earth it is plentiful on the moon. As a result, scientists have begun to consider the practicality of mining lunar Helium-3 as a replacement for fossil fuels. "After four- and-half-billion years, there should be large amounts of helium-3 on the moon," said Gerald Kulcinski, a professor who leads the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Last year NASA administrator Mike Griffin named Kulcinski to lead a number of committees reporting to NASA's influential NASA Advisory Council, its preeminent civilian leadership arm. The Council is chaired by Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Hagan "Jack" Schmitt, a leading proponent of mining the moon for helium 3. Schmitt, who holds the distance record for driving a NASA rover on the moon (22 miles through theTaurus-Littrow valley), is also a former U.S. senator (R-New Mexico). The Council was restructured last year with a new mission: implementing President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration," which targets Mars as its ultimate destination. Other prominent members of the Council include ex-astronaut Neil Armstrong. Schmitt and Kulcinski are longtime friends and academic partners, and are known as helium-3 fusion's biggest promoters. At the Fusion Technology Institute, Kulcinski's team has produced small-scale helium-3 fusion reactions in the basketball-sized fusion device. The reactor produced one milliwatt UTD - 2010 105

of power on a continuous basis. While still theoretical, nuclear fusion is touted as a safer, more sustainable way to generate nuclear energy: Fusion plants produce much less radioactive waste, especially if powered by helium-3. But experts say commercial-sized fusion reactors are at least 50 years away. The isotope is extremely rare on Earth but abundant on the moon. Some experts estimate there a millions of tons in lunar soil -- and that a single Space-Shuttle load would power the entire United States for a year. NASA plans to have a permanent moon base by 2024, but America is not the only nation with plans for a moon base. China, India, the European Space Agency, and at least one Russian corporation, Energia, have visions of building manned lunar bases post-2020. Mining the moon for helium-3 has been discussed widely in space circles and international space conferences. Both China and Russia have stated their nations' interest in helium-3. "We will provide the most reliable report on helium-3 to mankind," Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China's lunar program, told a Chinese newspaper. "Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first." Russian space geologist Erik Galimov told the Russian Izvestia newspaper that NASA's plan to colonize the moon will "enable the U.S. to establish its control of the global energy market 20 years from now and put the rest of the world on its knees as hydrocarbons run out." Schmitt told a Senate committee in 2003 that a return to the moon to stay would be comparable "to the movement of our species out of Africa." The best way to pay for such a long-term mission, he said, would be to mine for lunar helium-3 and process it into a fuel for commercial fusion.

Helium 3 unrivaled – efficiency and safety make it invaluable Hurtack 2004 (Timothy J.; April 8; English 202c – Section 3 “Helium 3 Fusion and the Development of the Moon” https://www.courses.psu.edu/engl/engl202c_jck14/engineers/timrpt.pdf) As the world’s natural energy supply diminishes, researchers have been looking for new source of clean energy. Helium 3 seems to be the answer. The substance is almost foreign to Earth; however the Sun produces it in large quantities in a natural fusion reaction. The Helium 3 could be transported to Earth and used in a nuclear reaction that produces no radiation or radioactive waste. The only bi-product is oxygen and water. The technology is not advanced enough to make Helium 3 a plausible alternative yet, but new techniques are improving its efficiency every year. Once the technology has developed into a sustaining energy producer, many see Helium 3 as the perfect answer to the world’s future energy needs. Introduction Energy is the driving force behind the Industrialized United States. Coal, petroleum, and natural gas power the industries that drive America. Oil has become a key issue in world affairs, especially after the second war with Iraq. Alternative energy sources have been sought after for the last 30 years, first being fueled by the depletion of coal. During the space race with the Soviets, U.S. astronauts brought back samples of moon rocks that were found to contain the gas Helium 3. Helium 3 research falls in the middle of space colonization, the fight between superpowers for control over special resources. Helium 3 research came to the forefront in 1988 at a convention held by NASA in conjunction with University of Wisconsin-Madison. Helium 3 is significant because it only has 1 neutron instead of two neutrons found in regular Helium. This absence of one Helium 3 Fusion 3 neutron makes the isotope very volatile in a fusion reaction. Scientists discovered Helium 3 in 1939, and astronauts found in on the Moon in 1969. It wasn’t until 1986 that the fusion scientists stumbled across the isotope lunar geologists had been studying for almost twenty years. The unique chemical properties of Helium 3 make it an ideal substance for nuclear fusion because it produces nearly zero radiation. The fusion reaction of Helium 3 has an efficiency of about 80 percent when it is converted into energy. This efficiency is much greater that current hydrogen fusion reactions that also produce large quantities of radiation. Helium 3 is created in large quantities by the sun. In its core, the sun’s huge gravitational pull creates a natural fusion chamber that creates regular Helium into its valuable isotope Helium 3. Standard Helium contains 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Helium 3 still contains 2 protons but loses one of its neutrons. The sun naturally produces the isotope and is propelled into space. Solar winds have been carrying Helium 3 throughout the solar system since the birth of the Sun. These solar winds have been depositing Helium 3 in the soils of the Moon for almost the same amount of time. Scientists have been using satellite technology to begin mapping the lunar surface to find the large deposits of Helium 3 that are present. Helium 3 fusion reactions produce extreme amounts of energy that can be converted into electricity. Quantities of Helium 3 have been estimated by K. Kulcinski at around 1,100,000 metric tones. Only 30 tons of Helium 3 gas will produce enough energy to UTD - 2010 106

power the entire country for an entire year. With new deposits of Helium 3 being dumped on the Moon from solar winds, the supply of Helium 3 would virtually be endless.

Mining for Helium 3 feasible – easy to extract and not relatively expensive Schmitt 2004 (Harrison H., Ph.D. in Geology Harvard University & former NASA astronaut, October; Popular Mechanics: “Mining the Moon” pg 60; bh)

Samples collected in 1969 by Neil Armstrong during the first lunar landing showed that helium-3 concentrations in lunar soil are at least 13 parts per billion (ppb) by weight. Levels may range from 20 to 30 ppb in undisturbed soils. Quantities as small as 20 ppb may seem too trivial to consider. But at a projected value of $40,000 per ounce, 220 pounds of helium-3 would be worth about $141 million. Because the concentration of helium-3 is extremely low, it would be necessary to process large mounts of rock and soil to isolate the material. Digging a patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters of a square mile to a depth of about 9 ft. should yield about 220 pounds of helium-3—enough to power a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year. Although considerable lunar soil would have to be processed, the mining costs would not be high by terrestrial standards. Automated machines, perhaps like those shown in the illustrations on pages 56 and 57, might perform the work. Extracting the isotope would not be particularly difficult. Heating and agitation release gases trapped in the soil. As the vapors are cooled to absolute zero, the various gases present sequentially separate out of the mix. In the final step, special membranes would separate helium-3 from ordinary helium. UTD - 2010 107

He3 k2 Fusion

Fusion not possible now—not enough helium Nuttall, 8- University Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at the University of Cambridge (W. J. Nuttall, University Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at the University of Cambridge, September 2008, “Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities”, http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2008/file_38224.pdf, AD: 6/22/11, SL) While the fuels for fusion power are abundant and easily obtained, this does not mean that a fusion power station would be free from energy security risks. Central to such risks must be the long-term availability of affordable helium used for tokamak pumping, purging and, above all, cooling superconducting magnets. While helium could in principle be obtained from the atmosphere at great cost, and while it is also possible that economically viable helium gas wells could be developed, the reality today is that all commercial helium is obtained as a by-product of the natural-gas industry. That industry is expanding and, as it moves towards liquefied production and supply, the economics of helium production are favoured. While it is likely that abundant helium will be available in the short term, the natural- gas industry is a fundamentally unsustainable process of resource depletion. These issues are considered by a joint UKAEA, Linde-BOC and University of Cambridge research project considering global helium resources.32 Helium availability and cost are potentially serious issues for the large-scale deployment of fusion energy systems. A move to liquid hydrogen for superconductivity would eliminate the jeopardy, possibly extant, in an over-reliance on helium.

Helium 3 key for fusion – it’s uniquely safe, clean, and efficient Wakefield 2000 (Julie, science journalist featured in publications such as the Smithsonian, Scientific American, IEEE Spectrum, etc; June 30; “Moon’s Helium-3 Could Power Earth”; http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/gallery/pdf/space_com063000.pdf; bh) Researchers and space enthusiasts see helium 3 as the perfect fuel source: extremely potent, nonpolluting, with virtually no radioactive by-product. Proponents claim its the fuel of the 21st century. The trouble is, hardly any of it is found on Earth. But there is plenty of it on the moon. Society is straining to keep pace with energy demands, expected to increase eightfold by 2050 as the world population swells toward 12 billion. The moon just may be the answer. "Helium 3 fusion energy may be the key to future space exploration and settlement," said Gerald Kulcinski, Director of the Fusion Technology Institute (FTI) at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Scientists estimate there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, according to

Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt. Cash crop of the moon When the solar wind, the rapid stream of charged particles emitted by the sun, strikes the moon, helium 3 is deposited in the powdery soil. Over billions of years that adds up. Meteorite bombardment disperses the particles throughout the top several meters of the lunar surface. "Helium 3 could be the cash crop for the moon," said Kulcinski, a longtime advocate and leading pioneer in the field, who envisions the moon becoming "the Hudson Bay Store of Earth." Today helium 3 would have a cash value of $4 billion a ton in terms of its energy equivalent in oil, he estimates. "When the moon becomes an independent country, it will have something to trade." Fusion research began in 1951 in the United States under military auspices. After its declassification in 1957 scientists began looking for a candidate fuel source that wouldn't produce neutrons. Although Louie Alvarez and Robert Cornog discovered helium 3 in 1939, only a few hundred pounds (kilograms) were known to exist on Earth, most the by-product of nuclear-weapon production. Apollo astronauts found helium 3 on the moon in 1969, but the link between the isotope and lunar resources was not made until 1986. "It took 15 years for us [lunar geologists and fusion pioneers] to stumble across each other," said Schmitt, the last astronaut to leave footprints on the moon. For solving long-term energy needs, proponents contend helium 3 is a better choice than first generation nuclear fuels like deuterium and tritium (isotopes of hydrogen), which are now being tested on a large scale worldwide in tokamak thermonuclear reactors. Such approaches, which UTD - 2010 108

generally use strong magnetic fields to contain the tremendously hot, electrically charged gas or plasma in which fusion occurs, have cost billions and yielded little. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor or ITER tokamak, for example, won't produce a single watt of electricity for several years yet. Increases production and safety costs "I don't doubt it will eventually work," Kulcinski said. "But I have serious doubts it will ever provide an economic power source on Earth or in space." That's because reactors that exploit the fusion of deuterium and tritium release 80 percent of their energy in the form of radioactive neutrons, which exponentially increase production and safety costs. In contrast, helium 3 fusion would produce little residual radioactivity. Helium 3, an isotope of the familiar helium used to inflate balloons and blimps, has a nucleus with two protons and

one neutron. A nuclear reactor based on the fusion of helium 3 and deuterium, which has a single nuclear proton and neutron, would produce very few neutrons -- about 1 percent of the number generated by the deuterium-tritium reaction. "You could safely build a helium 3 plant in the middle of a big city," Kulcinski said. Helium 3 fusion is also ideal for powering spacecraft and interstellar travel. While offering the high performance power of fusion -- "a classic Buck Rogers propulsion system" -- helium 3 rockets would require less radioactive shielding, lightening the load, said Robert Frisbee, an advanced propulsion engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena California. Recently Kulcinski's team reports progress toward making helium 3 fusion possible. Inside a lab chamber, the Wisconsin researchers have produced protons from a steady-state deuterium-helium 3 plasma at a rate of 2.6 million reactions per second. That's fast enough to produce fusion power but not churn out electricity. "It's proof of principle, but a long way from producing electricity or making a power source out of it," Kulcinski said. He will present the results in Amsterdam in mid July at the Fourth International Conference on Exploration and Utilization of the Moon.

Helium 3 significantly increases feasibility of fusion success – safer and more efficient Bilder 2009 (Richard, J.D., Harvard University Law School & has served as Vice-President of the American Society of International Law; Fordham International Law Journal: Vol. 33 Issue 2, Pgs. 253-254 “A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Options”; bh) For a number of reasons, including the limited terrestrial availability of He-3 and the very high temperatures required to achieve He-3-based fusion, most current research, and any first generation fusion power reactors, will likely be based on a fuel cycle involving the fusion of deuterium ("D") and tritium ("T"), two isotopes of hydrogen available on Earth and capable of fusing at considerably lower temperatures. 2 5 However, an He-3-D fuel cycle, if and when technically achievable, theoretically offers significant advantages as compared with the D-T fuel cycle. Unlike a D-T fusion reaction, which results in considerable neutron radiation, an He-3-D fusion reaction would produce little radioactivity and a substantially higher proportion of directly usable energy. 26 More specifically, the comparative advantages of an He-3-D fuel cycle over a D-T fuel cycle would include: (1) increased electrical conversion efficiency; (2) reduced radiation damage to containment vessels, obviating the need for frequent expensive replacement; (3) reduced radioactive waste, with consequent reduced costs of protection and disposal; (4) increased levels of safety in the event of accident; and (5) potentially lower costs of electricity production. 27 In particular, an He-3-D fuel cycle would significantly reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation because an He-3-D reaction, unlike a D-T reaction, would produce few neutrons and could not be readily employed to produce plutonium or other weapons-grade fissile materials. 28 Consequently, interest in developing He-3-fueled thermonuclear energy is likely to continue.

Helium-3 will play a critical role in deep space exploration and Mars colonization Carpenter 98 (Scott A. Carpenter, Engineering Design Enviornments, August 11, 1998: “Prelimniary Assessment of Space Colonization Strategies Based on Nuclear Fusion Propulsion” http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/moocol.html) Some fusion propulsion concepts for space travel have matured to a level where we can estimate the fuel and propellant needs for various space mission scenarios. A solar system UTD - 2010 109

colonization/outpost strategy is assumed to take place in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the 21st Century. NASA, and others, have identified the moon as a candidate source for large quantities of helium-3, which is needed for fusion-electric power. The energy content of helium-3 is so high that one space shuttle returning to Earth with 20 tons of helium-3 represents $320 billion (1991 $) to an Earth-based energy market. 20-tones per year (under the assumed colonization strategy) is the approximate amount of helium-3 required to support growth of one colony on Mars and outposts at each of the gas- giant planets. Estimated propellant requirements for the solar system colonization strategy are extremely huge amounts, and means to minimize these resource requirements will be discussed. On the positive side, it is determined that nuclear fusion can provide a robust transportation infrastructure to sustain a major solar system colonization effort in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the 21st Century. UTD - 2010 110

Fusion Possible

Fusion safest energy form—no nuclear meltdown, can’t be stolen, no fissile material Nuttall, 8- University Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at the University of Cambridge (W. J. Nuttall, University Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at the University of Cambridge, September 2008, “Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities”, http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2008/file_38224.pdf, AD: 6/22/11, SL) Fusion is inherently safer than fission in that it does not rely on a critical mass of fuel. This means that there are only small amounts of fuel in the reaction zone, making nuclear meltdown impossible. Fusion power stations would present no opportunity for terrorists to cause widespread harm (no greater than a typical fossil-fuelled station) owing to the intrinsic safety of the technology. Fusion in a tokamak relies on a continuous supply of fuel, without which the process soon dies away. Furthermore, the process is only sustained via careful use of the controlling magnetic fields. While the magnets contain some limited stored energy, the fusion reactor does not. This is in contrast with other low-carbon electricity sources, fission and conventional hydropower, which require the safe control of large amounts of stored energy, even when not operating. Fusion power stations would not produce fissile materials and make no use of uranium and plutonium, the elements associated with nuclear weapons. This reduces proliferation concerns associated with these elements, although fusion is not completely free from proliferation risks.

He3 is safe—low levels of waste and radioactivity El-Guebaly and Zucchetti 8 - Research Professor at College of Engineering at University of Wisconsin-Madison and Professor at the Department of Energy at the Torino Polytechnic (Laila El-Guebaly, Research Professor at College of Engineering at University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Massimo Zucchetti, Professor at the Department of Energy at the Torino Polytechnic, April 2008, “Recent Developments in Environmental Aspects of D-3He Fueled Fusion Devices”, http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1296.pdf, AD: 6/21/11, SL) Several studies have addressed the physics and engineering issues of D-3He fueled power plants [20]. High beta and high field innovative confinement concepts, such as the field- reversed configuration [21,22], Ring Trap concept [23], and, to a lesser extent, the tokamaks are suitable devices for advanced fuel cycles. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the University of Wisconsin Fusion Technology Institute developed a series of tokamak- based D-3He Apollo designs [24-28] while the D-3He ARIES-III tokamak was developed within the framework of the ARIES project [29-31]. The Apollo series, along with ARIES-III and other studies, demonstrated the reduction in radioactivity and the particularly advantageous effect of the D-3He safety characteristics [32-35] that include low activity and decay heat levels, low-level waste (WDR < 0.1), and low releasable radioactive inventory from credible accidents. Due to the lack of data, no clearance indices were evaluated in the early 1990s.

Nuclear fusion now feasible with technological advances – only hurdle is political. Potts 2004 (Peter, Technology and Science reporter for Christian Science Monitor; December 4; The Christian Science Monitor: “Fusion: Stepping closer to reality”; http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1209/p15s01-stss.html; bh) Fusion, in other words, is generating renewed excitement among scientists in the field. Given the challenges facing today's nuclear reactors, they have long dreamed of harnessing the same energy source that powers the sun. In theory, they could generate power more efficiently, more safely, and with less UTD - 2010 111

nuclear waste than today's reactors, and use a virtually limitless source of fuel - hydrogen. Fusion reactors represent a kind of holy grail for an energy-dependent world. Now, researchers are poised to take the next big step in evaluating the technology's commercial potential. Scientists say they are more confident than ever that they can successfully build and operate a planned experimental fusion reactor. The bigger hurdle now looks political. The six-nation project - called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER - is caught in a big-money squabble over where to put the $5 billion reactor. Japan and France both want the privilege. Scientists, meanwhile, are chafing to loose the bulldozers. "There have been dramatic advancements in our scientific understanding" over the past five to 10 years, Goldston notes. The basic conclusion: The "fire" in the type of reactor planned for ITER may not be as finicky to control as many had previously believed. Initial simulations had suggested that triggering and sustaining the fusion reactions might be too difficult. But "we've made enormous steps forward," says Anne Davies, director of the US Energy Department's Office of Fusion Energy Science. An International Atomic Energy Agency meeting last month in Portugal generated considerable excitement because experiments with test reactors around the world suggested ITER's reactor would work as designed. The idea behind fusion is fairly straightforward. Today's nuclear reactors derive their energy by splitting atoms in a process called fission. Fusion works by combining them - actually the nuclei of two forms of hydrogen known as deuterium and tritium. Fusing nuclei requires more energy than splitting them, but the payoff is larger. A fusion reaction gives off three to four times as much energy as a fission reaction does. The challenge: For fusion to occur, the surroundings must be torrid. Researchers anticipate their experimental reactor will run at 100 million degrees C - roughly six times as hot as the sun's core. At these temperatures, atoms and their electrons part company and form a roiling particle soup called a plasma. Such temperatures also give the nuclei of the atoms enough speed to fuse with other nuclei when they hit them. But because the plasma is filled with electrically charged particles, many researchers hold that the only way to keep the plasma bottled up is with magnetic fields. Enter ITER, which would represent a major step toward a commercial fusion reactor. Researchers have designed it to generate at least five times the amount of power it consumes in sustaining fusion reactions. It would use a reactor roughly shaped like a hollow doughnut, surrounded by magnets. The plasma forms and the reactions occur within the doughnut. The magnetic fields are designed to keep the plasma from hitting the reactor walls. If it did, it would cool sufficiently to snuff the reactions. "No one would get hurt, but if you were trying to sell electricity, you wouldn't be very happy," Goldston quips. For years, researchers worried that at the energy levels ITER was aiming for, the plasma would fail to remain stable or that the magnetic fields would fail to keep the plasma bottled up. But since the mid-'90s, technological advances have yielded fresh insights into the way such reactors can operate. They include improved test equipment, new ways to tweak the reactions from outside the reactor vessel, and more-powerful computers that model the conditions in the reactors. "Now we know what we're looking at," Goldston says. UTD - 2010 112

Nuclear fusion making large strides – NIF proved successful in key laser experiment PHYSorg 2010 (staff publication, October 8; “First successful integrated experiment at National Ignition Facility announced” http://www.physorg.com/news205740709.html; bh)

“ NIF is an example of what the NNSA labs do best,” said NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Don Cook. “We are bringing together the best minds in science, engineering and technology to solve some of the nation’s greatest challenges. With NIF, the nation has a critically important asset that supports our national security priorities, pushes the frontiers of science and discovery, and carries the potential for critical advances in energy security.” NIF, the world’s largest and highest-energy laser system, is expected to be the first laser system to demonstrate reliable fusion ignition – the same force that powers the sun and the stars – in a laboratory environment. When NIF’s lasers fire, more than one million joules of ultraviolet energy are focused into a pencil-eraser-sized gold cylinder that contains a peppercorn-sized plastic capsule filled with the hydrogen fuel. The experiment demonstrated the integration of the complex systems required for an ignition campaign. This target was filled with a mixture of tritium, hydrogen and deuterium tailored to enable the most comprehensive physics, a necessary step on the path to demonstrating fusion ignition. All systems operated successfully, and 26 target diagnostics participated in the shot. “From both a system integration and from a physics point of view, this experiment was outstanding,” said Ed Moses, Director of the National Ignition Facility. “This is a great moment in the 50-year history of inertial confinement fusion. It represents significant progress in our ability to field complex experiments in support of our NNSA Stockpile Stewardship, Department of Defense, fundamental science and energy missions.” NIF was built as a part of the NNSA’s program to ensure the safety, security and effectiveness of the nuclear weapons stockpile without underground testing. With NIF, scientists will be able to evaluate key scientific assumptions in current computer models, obtain previously unavailable data on how materials behave at temperatures and pressures like those in the center of a star, and help validate NNSA’s supercomputer simulations by comparing code predictions against laboratory observations. Other missions include advancements in fusion energy technology and enabling scientists to better understand the makeup of stars in the universe and planets both within and outside our solar system.

He3 abundant on the moon and sufficient to resolve terrestrial energy shortages. Bilder, 9 - Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School [Richard, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Option, Fordham International Law Review, 33:2, 2009, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei- redir=1#search="united+states+helium+3+mining+law+review"] During the past several years, the United States and three of the world's other leading space powers, Russia, China, and India, have each announced their intent to establish a base on the Moon, in part with the purpose-or, in the case of the United States, at least the exploratory goal-of seeking to mine and bring to Earth helium-3 ("He-3"), an isotope' of helium rarely found naturally on Earth but believed to be present in large amounts as a component of the lunar soil.2 The potential value of He-3 is that it is theoretically an ideal fuel for thermonuclear fusion power reactors, which could serve as a virtually limitless source of safe and non-polluting energy. 3 For example, it is estimated that forty tons of liquefied He-3 brought from the Moon to the Earth-about the amount that would comfortably fit in the cargo bays of two current U.S. space shuttles-would provide sufficient fuel for He-3 fusion reactors to meet the full electrical needs of the United States, or one quarter of the entire world's electrical needs, for an entire year. 4 While the technological and economic feasibility of fusionbased nuclear energy, particularly fusion reactors utilizing He-3 as fuel, is still uncertain and contested, and its commercial realization at best decades away, 5 the implications of such a development could be far-reaching and profound. Fusion energy could significantly reduce the world's heavy dependence on fossil fuels, which are associated with environmental pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and global warming-not to mention their rising price and role in recurrent geopolitical and economic tensions. Fusion energy could also provide a safer alternative to many countries' growing reliance on energy generated from nuclear fission reactors, which hold the potential dangers of nuclear accidents, terrorism, weapons proliferation, and radioactive waste disposal. Moreover, in contrast to the prospect of depletion of terrestrial fossil fuels, it is estimated that there is sufficient He-3 present on the Moon to meet humanity's rapidly growing energy needs for many centuries to come. 6 Thus, despite the problematic future of He-3-based fusion energy, it is not surprising that the United States and other major powers are beginning to position themselves to ensure their future access to lunar He-3 resources. UTD - 2010 113

Science spin-offs even if He3 isn't feasible. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] An additional scenario envisions an active competition for lunar He-3. Under this scenario we would be faced with a global space race, in which many nations compete amongst each other to establish the most effective lunar base for He-3 extraction. Hopefully, the memory of the former space race would stimulate mutual cooperation. Also, other countries would voice their right to obtain some kind of retribution for the use of lunar resources, since it has been established in the Moon Treaty that the Moon is the heritage of all mankind and not only the minority of mankind that can actually reach it. Regardless of the scenario, mining He-3 will open a huge resource and base for space science. It is a medical challenge to evaluate and mitigate the impact of reduced gravity in the human body. In fact, a return to the Moon and a lunar settlement for any reason would lower the cost of a number of ancillary activities such as space tourism and recreation, which will transform near space from the “final frontier” to a “just across the boarder frontier.” One of the most dramatic impacts of He-3 mining and commercialization might not be directly linked to its use as an energy source, but rather to the role that a permanent lunar colony can play on the mindsets of people on Earth. Just like the gold from the Americas was not the prime revolutionary agent for change in medieval times, but rather the newfound knowledge that the world was larger than the “old world”, human settlement in space will open the mindsets of many, who will learn to perceive the near universe as part of our immediate environment. The Apollo missions have already had tremendous effects on science and technology and these were limited in extent and duration. The technical infrastructure that needs to be developed for a permanent mining mission is astounding and will result in a number of new jobs in the technical field. The offer and demand dynamics will respond to a shift in interest of young people to more scientifically oriented careers, especially in those countries with active resources dedicated to space exploration. However, we may also expect a renaissance of philosophy and the humanities, which would bloom as a response to the new horizons that space exploration opens. The questions of what is our role in the universe and what the limits to humanity are will be more relevant than ever before. The question then becomes: how does exploring space change life on Earth? The answer is most probably “in more ways than we can foresee.” The palpable is, of course, the technological drive that will accompany space missions. The new scientific horizons will open branches of science that are either unknown or that had remained practically stagnant for the last couple of decades. Fusion technology will revive quantum electrodynamics, for example, and space flight will appeal again to classical mechanics in a powerful way.

Portable IEC reactors are sufficient to harness He3. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] The idea of mining and getting the He-3 to Earth is very attractive, as has been recognized by the scientists at the University of Wisconsin, because of its efficiency and potential. He-3 is considered to have a value of about $1 billion a ton on Earth, and its energy potential is considered to be 10 times more than what is contained in all the known recoverable fossil fuels on Earth, and about twice that is contained in the uranium which is used in fast breeder reactors (Lewis, 1990). Another fascinating estimation is that 25 metric tons of He-3 reacted with deuterium UTD - 2010 114

would have provided all the electricity used in the United States in 1986. The following is an example of how advantageous it is to use He-3 as a fuel source compared to fossil fuels like oil: One ton of He-3 burned with 0.67 ton of Deuterium can produce 10,00MWof energy. If the same amount of energy were to be produced from oil it would require 130,000,000 barrels of oil. At 20$ per barrel, this would cost $2.6 Billion totally. Thus the energy from one ton of Helium is worth ~ 2.6 billion dollars (Kulcinski, 2004). 25 metric tons of He-3 would fit into the cargo bay of a space transport the size of a shuttle (Lewis, 1990). This information was estimated around the 1990s and the feasibility of mining and transporting the He-3 to Earth was very positive. One of the possible uses of He-3 does not even massive scale energy production, but instead makes use of the relative portability of inertial electrostatic confinement reactors (IEC), which will be described in greater detail in a later section of this document. The deuterium He-3 reaction could be profitable even if it does not yet reach break even energy potential, that is, even if does not produce as much power as is required to begin and sustain the reaction. One of the fields of interest is medical imaging. In this application, Deuterium and He-3 are reacted to form protons which are then used in the conversion of stable isotopes of various gases to positron emission tomography (PET) images, which are used in medical imaging.

He3 can be extracted with current technology. Bilder, 9 - Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School [Richard, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Option, Fordham International Law Review, 33:2, 2009, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei- redir=1#search="united+states+helium+3+mining+law+review"] How would lunar He-3 be extracted and transported to Earth? 29 Because the solar wind components are weakly bound to the lunar regolith, 0 it should be relatively easy to extract them utilizing reasonable extensions of existing technology. In one proposed scenario, once a lunar base is established, robotic lunar mining vehicles fitted with solar heat collectors would: (1) traverse appropriate areas of the Moon's surface-probably, in particular, the lunar maria, or "seas"-scooping up the loose upper layer of the lunar regolith and sizing it into small particles; (2) utilize solar energy to process and heat the collected regolith to the temperatures necessary to release, separate, and collect in a gaseous state the He-3, along with certain other solar-wind elements embedded in the regolith particles; (3) discharge the spent regolith back to the lunar surface; and (4) return with the collected He-3 and other gaseous byproducts to the lunar base. 31 The collected He-3 gas could then be liquified in the lunar cold and transported to Earth, perhaps in remotely-operated shuttles. 3 2 Importantly, this type of mining operation could result in the collection not only of He-3 but also significant amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water, all potentially very useful-indeed, perhaps indispensable-for the maintenance of a lunar base or further outer space activities such as expeditions to Mars or other planets. 33 Since He-3 is believed to comprise only a small proportion of the lunar regolith, it will probably be necessary to process large amounts of lunar regolith in order to obtain the quantities of He-3 necessary to sustain a large-scale terrestrial He-3-based power program. However, the extraction of He-3 and other solar wind components from the lunar soil seems in itself unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on the lunar environment because the regolith will be discharged back to the Moon's surface immediately after processing. 34 UTD - 2010 115

***AT: Private***

Legal regime encourage private investment. Bilder, 9 - Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School [Richard, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Option, Fordham International Law Review, 33:2, 2009, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei- redir=1#search="united+states+helium+3+mining+law+review"] A role for private enterprise. The regime should expressly allow and encourage private enterprise to play a significant role in the exploration and use of lunar resources, subject to appropriate and reasonable regulation. This means that private enterprise must have assurance of security of tenure during the life of mining operations and the right to earn and retain reasonable profits. Environmental regulations should be designed and used solely to minimize the impact of mining operations on the environment, to a degree consistent with economic viability of the operations. Any permitting process should be simple, direct, and prompt.

Plan is vital to ensuring investment security. Bilder, 9 - Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School [Richard, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Option, Fordham International Law Review, 33:2, 2009, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei- redir=1#search="united+states+helium+3+mining+law+review"] Provisions permitting and facilitating the exploration and development of lunar resources by the United States or its private companies. To begin, the regime should permit the United States or its private companies to conduct, without burdensome regulation or interference, any and all of the activities reasonably necessary to prospect for, explore, mine, process, and either use or transport to Earth lunar resources, in particular He-3. The regime must clearly provide for acquiring property rights in minerals or other substances removed from the Moon's surface or subsoil, the effective operation of and control over necessary stations or facilities, jurisdiction over necessary personnel, some measure of exclusivity over areas subject to resource activities, and some measure of privacy over proprietary information. The regime should also provide or permit a national or international management structure for He-3 production, marketing, and sales that permits timely decisions, within general guidelines, on all aspects of operational management. In particular, the regime should ensure the retention by the United States or its private companies of reasonable proceeds or profits commensurate with the effort involved and sufficient to encourage and warrant the level of investment involved. UTD - 2010 116

ONLY NASA control guarantees He3 is used for future explanation. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] Another pertinent question is whether the US will use He-3 to power its economy on Earth or if it will use it as an astrofuel for further space exploration. The answer to this question depends largely on whether NASA is the agency directing He-3 mining on the Moon or whether it is a private enterprise. NASA has voiced its objective of using resources on space almost uniquely for space exploration and expansion, but private enterprises would most likely want to seek profits on Earth before they embark into a long and very uncertain space exploration.

Securing exclusive rights is key to private investment. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] The peculiarity of He-3 is that the resources in space are practically unlimited for a human lifespan. Thus a surge in cost is not expected to occur, at least not within what in human time standards is considered relevant (>1000 years). Because of the costs inherent in producing energy from He-3, He-3 would become a consumer good, much like energy derived from petroleum is a consumer good, and would potentially be sold as such. In fact, the cost of initially producing He-3 will most likely only be undertaken if whoever ventures into it is guaranteed exclusive rights over exploitation at least until it obtains profit from its investment. This kind of situation is analogous to the pharmaceutical industry, in which the expenses of R&D for drug development are compensated by giving the company exclusive rights over selling the product for a number of years. UTD - 2010 117

***Politics*** UTD - 2010 118

POLITICAL CAPITAL LOW

Obama's influence is low- failed Libya campaign Silverleib 6/24 (Alan Silverleib, Washington Editor for CNN News, June 24th, 2011 "House Rejects Bill Restricting Funding for Libya Mission" Accessed: 6/24/11 http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/24/libya.congress/index.html?hpt=po_t2 GR) Earlier in the day, House members delivered a rebuke to the Obama administration by voting down a resolution expressing support for the war. The resolution, defeated 123-295, was similar to a measure introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona. Republicans voted overwhelmingly against the measure, while Democrats voted more narrowly in favor of it. White House press secretary Jay Carney expressed disappointment in the first House vote and told reporters the "writing is on the wall" for longtime Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi. Now is not the time to let up, he said. Much of the House's disapproval of the Libya campaign has been fueled by a belief that President Obama failed to sufficiently consult with Congress before committing to military engagement. Specifically, representatives from both political parties say the administration has violated the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which gives the president 60 days to get congressional approval for sending U.S. forces to war, followed by a 30-day extension to end hostilities. The combined 90-day period ended last Sunday. Support for the war has also been further shaken by evidence of several noncombatant deaths caused by recent NATO airstrikes. The White House says Obama didn't need congressional authorization because U.S. forces are playing only a supporting role in Libya and haven't engaged in what the law defines as hostilities. The president, however, personally overruled contrary legal opinions put forward by both the Pentagon and the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, according to a report published Saturday in The New York Times. Speaker John Boehner , R-Ohio, said during Friday's debate on the House floor that Obama's authority under the Constitution "does not free the president from accountability to the American people, this Congress or the rule of law." The War Powers Resolution "is the law of the land and simply cannot be ignored," he said. The GOP-sponsored bill is necessary to "defend the constitutional authority of the legislature" and provides "much-needed accountability." Some Democrats, however, blasted Republicans, accusing them of playing politics with what they called a critical foreign policy priority. " This was not handled right" by the White House , said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. But the House votes are "nothing but politics," and "I don't want to abandon my friends in the Arab states who are now struggling for democracy

Obama's political capital low- democrats vote on Libya Radia and Parkinson 6/24 (Kirit Radia is a special reporter on foreign policy and international relations. John Parkinson is a special reporter on politics. 6/24/11 "Libya: House Rejects Obama Authorizing US Strikes, Threatens to Cut Funding" Accessed 6/24/11. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-rejects-authorizing-us-libya-threatens-cut-funding/story?id=13923365 GR) The House of Representatives this afternoon declined to grant the president the authority to continue supporting the NATO mission in Libya , another sign of rebellion brewing thousands of miles away on Capitol Hill as NATO's bombing campaign in support of Libyan rebels enters its fourth month. Frustrated lawmakers from both parties have threatened to cut off funding for U.S. operations there amid concerns about their cost and growing dissatisfaction with the Obama administration's skirting of the War Powers Resolution. With wide bipartisan opposition, a vote on a resolution to authorize operations failed today 123-295, with 70 Democrats joining 225 Republicans in opposing authorization. Just eight Republicans and 115 Democrats voted to give the president the authority. Aside from granting the president power to wage operations in Libya for the next year, the resolution would have expressed opposition to U.S. ground forces "unless the purpose of the presence is limited to the immediate personal defense of United States Government officials (including diplomatic representatives) or to rescuing members of NATO forces from imminent danger." Finally, the measure declares that the president shall consult frequently with Congress regarding U.S. efforts in Libya. The War Powers Resolution requires the president to seek Congressional approval for its engagement there within 90 days of entering hostilities. That period has ended, so the president needed authorization, according to the law. White House and State Department lawyers have argued no approval from Congress is needed given the limited scope of U.S. involvement, which they do not consider hostilities.

Obama no PC now—military funding votes prove Moody, 6/24 (Chris Moody, a reporter for The Cato Institute and the Daily Caller, June 24, 2011, “House rejects approval of Libyan operations, but does not vote to defund”, http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110624/ts_yblog_theticket/house-rejects-resolution- endorsing-libya-operations-expected-to-deny-funding, AD: 6/24/11, SL) The House of Representatives on Friday rejected a resolution endorsing limited military operations in Libya, but fell short of cutting off funds for U.S. military action in the region. The measures were largely symbolic--but showed a growing rift between Congress and the White House on presidential war powers, even within President Obama's own party. Seventy-two Democrats joined the Republican majority to kill the resolution approving of the operations. During the second vote, 89 Republicans voted to continue the war funding. This is the first time in 12 years that Congress has not voted to support a national military operation. The last instance was in 1999, when the House voted 213-213 on a resolution that would have approved of Bill Clinton's military action in Kosovo. In preparation for today's set of resolutions, the Obama administration scrambled to keep the level UTD - 2010 119

of embarrassment to a minimum. The White House sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to meet with Democratic House members Thursday night, and White House officials spent the evening contacting Democratic members of Congress to sway their votes, Politico reported. UTD - 2010 120

POLITICAL CAPITAL HIGH

Obama's political capital increased in the drawdown from Afghanistan Cavuto and Reeder 6/22 Neil Cavuto, senior vice president of business news. Joe Reeder, former US Army Undersecretary. 6/22/11 "Don't Pull Out of Afghanistan?" Accessed: 6/24/11 http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/cavuto/transcript/dont-pull-out-afghanistan GR) NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: This Fox Business alert; the county down to the pullout. In a little more than an hour, the president is expected to tell the nation that he is beginning that withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Although it might not be as many and it won't be as fast as some would like. I think they're talking about 10,000 this year. Maybe it will be double that next year at this time. Hard to say. We'll get the firm word from the president in little more than an hour. Count former Undersecretary Joe Reeder happy if troop strength remains kind of where it is, right? Your big concern, secretary, is what? That we overdo it now? JOE REEDER, FMR. U.S. ARMY UNDERSECRETARY: I'm fine, Neil, with the pullout that I think is going to be announced at 10,000 troops. We've got -- that will leave, 90,000 boots on the ground, special-ops, Army, Marines, and Air Force. And that's three times what -- what President Bush had on the ground. So I'm perfectly comfortable with the 10,000. I'm very uncomfortable when pre-announced, all-out kind of broadcast that it would be an incredible gift to the Taliban. CAVUTO: Yeah. By that, he is telegraphing and letting them sort of wait for the troop draw down? So what do you want to hear out of him tonight to alleviate those concerns? REEDER: Well, what we don't want to hear, Neil, is I don't want to hear political expedience in taking away the flexibility of the commander. The commanders with 90,000 troops have got more than enough assets to deal with any Taliban threat. We've eliminated Osama bin Laden. And I think we've eliminated at least for the near-time future al Qaeda being there in Afghanistan as a training ground. I don't want to hear any promises preordained about what we're going to do as of election time in 2012. CAVUTO: Isn't it fairly inevitable, secretary, that come election time, we will be seeing that downdraft. And that will be -- I don't know any other crass way to put this -- political capital for the president? REEDER: It is political capital, Neil, if the reason for it is that we've done our job. We have established stability. Hey, look, it is up to Afghanistan and the Afghans to bring about long-term tranquility and peace and stability there in that nation. But if we give them stability -- and their troops are building up and training every single day -- it is perfectly OK to pull out. UTD - 2010 121

NASA K2 POLITICAL CAPITAL

NASA can drain or boost political capital – positive support is key. Houston Chronicle 2010 (Editorial, No Author Given; June 6; “President’s NASA policy could haunt his party at the polls in Harris County” http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/7039839.html BH) A parade of administration officials, starting with the president, has gone to Florida to promise federal assistance. In a speech at KSC, where some 20,000 NASA and contract workers are affected, Obama pledged an additional $40 million in job assistance. No such consideration has been shown toward other NASA facilities around the country, including the Johnson Space Center in Clear Lake. It stands to lose up to 7,000 NASA and contractor jobs. We smell the stench of political favoritism in the consideration lavished by the administration upon Florida, a presidential swing state, while facilities in Alabama and Texas, two reliable GOP strongholds, are ignored. Houston Mayor Annise Parker says she's “very concerned that the president is focused on Kennedy Space Center in Florida and has not indicated that he is paying attention to Johnson Space Center.” The head of the Bay Area Economic Partnership, Bob Mitchell, called the Solis grant announcement a political statement by the White House. Playing politics can cut both ways. Houston and Harris County went for Obama two years ago, in the process boosting Democrats to victory in countywide races for the first time in more than a decade. If NASA's Texas workforce continues to get the cold shoulder, the president's party may get some payback at the polls come November. UTD - 2010 122

MOON MINING UNPOPULAR

Moon exploration unpopular—2010 budget proves CBS News 10 (CBS News, 9/30/10, “House passes Senate version of 2011 NASA funding bill (UPDATED)”, http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/spacenews/files/f6c2fdb6a9f8121253de03b802377eff-76.html, AD: 6/24/11, SL) The House of Representatives voted late Wednesday to accept the Senate's version of NASA's $19 billion fiscal 2011 budget proposal, which would provide money for an additional shuttle flight, kick-start development of a new heavy-lift booster for deep space exploration and fund the development of commercial manned spacecraft for trips to and from low-Earth orbit. The administration proposed canceling the Bush administration's Constellation moon program and its Ares rockets and Orion capsules, arguing the program was not affordable. In their place, the president proposed extending space station operations through 2020, developing new technologies needed for future heavy lift rockets and, in a particularly controversial move, shifting to commercial launch providers to ferry astronauts to and from low-earth orbit. UTD - 2010 123

MOON MINING POPULAR

Lunar science still alive- NASA Malik 10 (Tahir Malik Managing Editor of SPACE.COM. 9/30/10 "Moon Exploration is Not Dead, NASA official says" Accessed: 6/24/11 http://www.space.com/9237-moon-exploration-dead-nasa-official.html GR) This story was updated at 11:46 p.m. ET. NASA's new space exploration program may be skewed toward sending astronauts to an asteroid and onto Mars, but a return to Earth's moon is not completely lost, NASA's deputy chief told reporters today (Sept. 30). NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver, the space agency's second-in-command, said the moon has a role to play in the new space exploration plan set by President Obama and approved by Congress this week. NASA, she added, won't turn its back on Earth's nearest neighbor. "Lunar science and lunar exploration is alive and well in NASA," Garver said in a teleconference. Congress approved a NASA authorization bill late Wednesday (Sept. 29) that would give the space agency a $19 billion budget for 2011. The bill supports President Obama's plan to send astronauts to visit an asteroid by 2025 and then target a manned trip to Mars in the 2030s. Obama's plan cancels NASA's moon-oriented Constellation program set forth by former President George W. Bush, which sought to return astronauts to the moon by 2020, but was found to be underfunded and untenable during a White House review last year. But Garver said the moon is a symbol of inspiration for many people on Earth, in part because of NASA's manned lunar landings of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The moon is also the most visible of off-world destinations to the public, she added. "I just won't agree that this ends the moon as a destination," Garver said. "We look up in the night sky and see the moon and it is an inspiration to us all. My first son's first word was 'moon.'" lan popular – public still supports human space exploration. CS Monitor 2010 (The Christian Science Monitor’s Editorial Board; April 16, 2010; “NASA and Obama's budget: the politics and ideals of human space exploration”; http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors- view/2010/0416/NASA-and-Obama-s-budget-the-politics-and-ideals-of-human-space-exploration BH) Human travel to Mars is now back on America’s space agenda. It is just one of many course-corrections that President Obama will likely be forced to make to his January proposals for big changes at NASA. Too many Americans and lawmakers reacted negatively to the initial White House plan for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They still see human exploration to specific destinations in space as a compelling frontier – not just for the nation but humanity, too. They weren’t ready to live only vague promises of deep-space missions, as Mr. Obama made. Nor do they want the space agency more focused on earthly tasks such as climate-change monitoring, as Obama would prefer, over scientific discovery in outer space. The public reaction pushed the president on Thursday to set a timetable for the first Mars trip – by the mid-2030s – as well as a schedule to land on an asteroid (near 2025). He also had to set 2015 for starting construction of a heavy- lift launcher based on new innovative technology.

Plan Popular – NASA will spread the operation across multiple states to gain bipart Gagnon 2006 (Bruce K., Coordinator Global Network Against Weapons And Nuclear Power in Space; 12/07/06; “NASA Plans Moon Base To Control Path To Space” http://www.rense.com/general74/path.htm BH) The most likely destination for the permanent base is the Moon's south pole because it's sunlit for three-quarters of the time and has possible resources to mine in areas nearby. Just to ensure that Congress will support funding for the Moon program, NASA is spreading the operation out to 13 states : Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Pratt & Whitney in West Palm Beach, Florida is now working on the engines for a lunar lander. Bechtel is interested in building structures on the Moon for NASA. UTD - 2010 124

GOP HATES PLAN

Republicans don't support NASA- Gingrich shows Malik 6/14 (Tahir Malik Managing Editor of SPACE.COM.6/14/11 "Newt Gingrich on Space Exploration: 'NASA Is Standing in the Way"Accessed: 6/25/11 http://www.space.com/11959-gop-presidential-debate-nasa-future-republicans.html) Candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination tackled the future of NASA, without its space shuttle program, among other issues during the GOP's first debate, in New Hampshire Monday night. The question on NASA's future came from reporter Jean Mackin of news station WMUY in Hancock, N.H.: "What role should the government play in future space exploration?" Mackin directed the question at former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, noting that NASA is ending its 30-year space shuttle program next month and will pay Russia's space program $63 million per seat to fly American astronauts on Soyuz spacecraft for trips to the International Space Station until commercial U.S. spacecraft become available. The last shuttle to fly will be Atlantis, which is set to launch July 8. Gingrich, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, three of the seven candidates appearing in the nationally televised debate, weighed in on NASA's future. Here were their responses. (CNN anchor John King served as the debate's moderator.) Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House of Representatives said Well, sadly — and I say this sadly, because I'm a big fan of going into space and I actually worked to get the shuttle program to survive at one point — NASA has become an absolute case study in why bureaucracy can't innovate. If you take all the money we've spent at NASA since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles. And instead what we've had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy, and failure after failure . I think it's a tragedy, because younger Americans ought to have the excitement of thinking that they, too, could be part of reaching out to a new frontier. [Photos: SpaceX's First Private Falcon 9 Rocket Launch] You know, you'd asked earlier, John, about this idea of limits because we're a developed country. We're not a developed country. The scientific future is going to open up, and we're at the beginning of a whole new cycle of extraordinary opportunities. And, unfortunately, NASA is standing in the way of it, when NASA ought to be getting out of the way and encouraging the private sector. [Later, in response to a comment by King:] John, you mischaracterized me, I didn't say "end the space program." We built the transcontinental railroads without a national department of railroads. I said you could get into space faster, better, more effectively, more creatively if you decentralized it, got it out of Washington, and cut out the bureaucracy. It's not about getting rid of the space program; it's about getting to a real space program that works. UTD - 2010 125

GOP LOVES PLAN

GOP and NASA support moon missions Whittington 3/4 Mark Whittington has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard. 3/4/11 "NASA's Bolden: We Could Still Go Back to the Moon by 2020" Accessed: 6/24/11 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110304/sc_ac/7988568_nasas_bolden_we_could_still_go_back_to_the_moon_by2020 GR) During NASA Administrator Charles Bolden's recent testimony before the House Science Committee, Bolden had an exchange with Congressman Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, on the subject of returning to the Moon. The exchange was very illuminating. While the plan of the Obama Administration remains bypassing the Moon and going to an asteroid and eventually to Mars, Administrator Bolden suggested that American astronauts could be back on the Moon by 2020 if the decision was made to send them. The reason that Bolden's remarks were eyebrow raising is that Americans back to the Moon by 2020 was the original first goal of George W. Bush's Constellation program. The reason given for cancelling Constellation, aside that "Buzz had already been to the Moon" referring to Buzz Aldrin, is that it was said that the 2020 goal had been rendered impossible under any realistic budget, because of the underfunding of Constellation. This is not the first gaffe committed by Charles Bolden, who is most famous for his "mission to the Muslims" statement that has been widely derided. It may be the first gaffe that is defined as stating an obvious truth that is embarrassing to the person making the statement. Not to mention the man in the White House to whom he reports. The case for going to the Moon first bears repeating. Because of the deposits of frozen water, the Moon is ideal for a human settlement that can manufacture rocket fuel for space craft voyaging deeper into the Solar System. The Moon also has important resources, such as helium 3 and rare earth elements, which could prove useful for Earth. Those facts make the decision not to return to the Moon all the more inexplicable. If space exploration is to be more than just short sprints back and forth to selected destinations, going back to the Moon and building a settlement there are vital. Rep. McCaul suggests that the Congress might begin work to restore the Moon as the first destination of human explorers. While Barack Obama's NASA has been somewhat reticent to accept Congressional guidance, restoring the Moon would be a worthy undertaking. It would correct a mistake, casually made and insultingly justified, by the current President. It would help bring some order to what is now chaos ruling at NASA. It would restore a goal around which a hard won political consensus had formed, but was casted idly aside by President Obama like a bauble with which he had gotten bored. UTD - 2010 126

Moon Unpopular

Plan unpopular - common heritage. Bilder, 9 - Foley & Lardner-Bascom Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School [Richard, A Legal Regime for the Mining of Helium-3 on the Moon: U.S. Policy Option, Fordham International Law Review, 33:2, 2009, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2180&context=ilj&sei- redir=1#search="united+states+helium+3+mining+law+review"] In view of this history, it is not surprising that the Moon Agreement, since its conclusion in 1979, has also encountered substantial opposition in the United States and some other countries. The phrases "common heritage of mankind" and "international regime" in article 11 of the agreement inevitably evoked similar phrases figuring prominently in the UNCLOS-3 negotiations and the LOSC, and raised the specter that the type of lunar mining regime contemplated by article 11 would simply mirror the restrictive seabed regime ultimately embodied in part XI of the LOSC. 73 Thus, a succession of industry and other representatives strongly opposed U.S. participation in the Moon Agreement during the treaty's 1980 congressional hearings, arguing that: (1) it would create a moratorium on commercial exploitation of lunar resources pending the conclusion of a more comprehensive agreement for regulating resource activities; (2) article 11 in any case purported to establish guiding principles for the eventual negotiation of a successor agreement that would very likely be contrary to free market principles and the commercial development of outer space by private enterprise; and (3) the agreement would give other countries, particularly developing nations, political control over the permissibility, timing, and direction of expanding commercial uses of outer space. 74 Responding to these concerns, and consistent with its position on the LOSC, the Reagan administration withdrew the Moon Agreement from consideration by the Senate and, while never explicitly rejecting it, refused to either sign or ratify the agreement. 75 Subsequent U.S. administrations have also shown little interest in the agreement 76 and, as previously noted, most other countries, including all of the other space powers, have likewise refrained from accepting the agreement to date. 77 UTD - 2010 127

McCaul Scenario

A. Rep. McCaul and NASA support moon missions Whittington 3/4 (Mark Whittington has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard. 3/4/11 "NASA's Bolden: We Could Still Go Back to the Moon by 2020" Accessed: 6/24/11 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110304/sc_ac/7988568_nasas_bolden_we_could_still_go_back_to_the_moon_by2020 GR) During NASA Administrator Charles Bolden's recent testimony before the House Science Committee, Bolden had an exchange with Congressman Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, on the subject of returning to the Moon. The exchange was very illuminating. While the plan of the Obama Administration remains bypassing the Moon and going to an asteroid and eventually to Mars, Administrator Bolden suggested that American astronauts could be back on the Moon by 2020 if the decision was made to send them. The reason that Bolden's remarks were eyebrow raising is that Americans back to the Moon by 2020 was the original first goal of George W. Bush's Constellation program. The reason given for cancelling Constellation, aside that "Buzz had already been to the Moon" referring to Buzz Aldrin, is that it was said that the 2020 goal had been rendered impossible under any realistic budget, because of the underfunding of Constellation. This is not the first gaffe committed by Charles Bolden, who is most famous for his "mission to the Muslims" statement that has been widely derided. It may be the first gaffe that is defined as stating an obvious truth that is embarrassing to the person making the statement. Not to mention the man in the White House to whom he reports. The case for going to the Moon first bears repeating. Because of the deposits of frozen water, the Moon is ideal for a human settlement that can manufacture rocket fuel for space craft voyaging deeper into the Solar System. The Moon also has important resources, such as helium 3 and rare earth elements, which could prove useful for Earth. Those facts make the decision not to return to the Moon all the more inexplicable. If space exploration is to be more than just short sprints back and forth to selected destinations, going back to the Moon and building a settlement there are vital. Rep. McCaul suggests that the Congress might begin work to restore the Moon as the first destination of human explorers. While Barack Obama's NASA has been somewhat reticent to accept Congressional guidance, restoring the Moon would be a worthy undertaking . It would correct a mistake, casually made and insultingly justified, by the current President. It would help bring some order to what is now chaos ruling at NASA. It would restore a goal around which a hard won political consensus had formed, but was casted idly aside by President Obama like a bauble with which he had gotten bored.

B. Rep. McCaul has influence in Congress Powell 10 ( Stewart Powell, frequent politics writer. 11/3/10 "Texas poised to gain enormous clout on Capitol Hill" Accessed 6/25/11 http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Texas-poised-to-gain-enormous-clout-on-Capitol-851202.php GR) WASHINGTON - Texas stands to gain enormous clout on Capitol Hill , with the Republican takeover of the House potentially catapulting as many as five senior Lone Star State lawmakers into chairmanships of powerful committees. Three other Texans are angling for key positions in House leadership, offering the state a voice at the top that has not been matched since House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, commanded day-to-day operations. " It is both very positive and very rare for a single state to have so many members in line for committee chairmanships ," said James Thurber, director of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. "The results of this election are very significant for Texas." A Hearst Newspapers analysis of potential committee assignments shows the post-election switch from Democratic to Republican leadership vastly augmenting Texans' hand in writing legislation and controlling the dollars for programs affecting the nation's space program, next phases of energy development and attempted GOP repeal of Democrats' health care overhaul. "It's not some Beltway fiction that committee chairs have power," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "They're in the room when the decisions are made." Committee chairs ordinarily are chosen through an opaque process based on congressional seniority and proven loyalty to the party's House leadership, often demonstrated through behind-the-scenes legislative favors and campaign donations to allied colleagues. Presumptive House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is due to personally name chairs of key committees such as House Intelligence. In the current Congress, a lone Texan commands a House committee under outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. - Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, at the helm of the House Intelligence Committee. Before Tuesday's outcome, six other Texas Democrats chaired subcommittees, including Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee panel on military construction, who was ousted by voters. Two other Texas lawmakers won re- election but stand to lose their subcommittee chairmanships on the House Committee on Homeland Security with the turnover to the GOP - Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, and Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo. Overall, the GOP takeover of the House puts Texas Republicans in contention to lead five of the House's 25 standing committees and as many as 12 of the 102 House subcommittees . "We're used to seeing Texas Democrats build up seniority, but Texas Republicans have done it as well without getting much attention, " said Bryan Jones, a congressional scholar at the University of Texas and co-author of "The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems." " Texas Republicans have a darn good chance of becoming committee chairmen. " Among them are: . Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Rockwall, who has been in Congress for 30 years and ranks first in seniority among Texas' 32 House members, is in line to lead the House Committee of Science and Technology. . Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, is preparing to lead the House Judiciary Committee. . Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, is positioned to take over as vice chairman of the Joint House- Senate Economic Committee. . Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Amarillo, is contending with Rep. Michael Rogers, R-Mich., for chairmanship of the prestigious panel that oversees the nation's 16 intelligence agencies - a post that will be filled by Boehner. . Rep. Joe Barton, R- Ennis, is third in seniority in the Texas delegation and angling to retake chairmanship of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. A dozen other Texans could be in line to take over leadership of House subcommittees where they've been serving UTD - 2010 128

as ranking Republicans. They include Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, to lead the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over NASA; Rep. Michael McCaul , R-Austin , a former federal prosecutor, to lead a subcommittee of the House Committee on Homeland Security ; and Brady, in line to chair the House Ways and Means Committee's panel on trade

McCaul has leadership – he can twist arms and cut deals. Recio 1/9 (Maria Recio, Star-Telegram Washington Bureau Chief, 1/9/11, "Texas Clout in US House" Accessed 6/25/11 http://www.star- telegram.com/2011/01/09/2755976/texas-has-more-republicans-than.html GR) McCaul, who will be chairman of the Homeland Security Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations, was, like five of his Texas colleagues, including Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Coppell, elected after the mid-decade redistricting in 2004. As a result, they are still rising in seniority. "I feel very optimistic that we're going to be well-positioned in the next Congress and the one after that," McCaul said. In one big plus for North Texas, Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, is now a so-called cardinal, one of the powerful subcommittee leaders on the House Appropriations Committee. "I am honored to have been selected as chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations," Granger said in a statement. "My subcommittee assignments provide an extraordinary opportunity for me to help lead our nation's defense and foreign policy at a historic time while meeting the needs of my constituents in the 12th Congressional District. North Texas depends on global relationships, and the way Congress manages our role in the international community has great implications for families and businesses right here at home." Meanwhile, Barton has been given a "chairman emeritus" position, which gives him a seat on all the subcommittees and the opportunity to shape policy. "I plan to be a leader as Republicans make good on our promises to repeal Obamacare and replace it with common-sense, market-based reform, rein in federal spending, work toward a balanced budget, improve the economy and put Americans back to work," Barton said recently. The GOP planned to move quickly to try to repeal the healthcare law, but a big vote scheduled for Wednesday has been delayed after Saturday's shootings in Arizona. A likely Republican leader on healthcare is Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, a doctor who has been named vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce's health subcommittee. "Things ebb and flow," Burgess said of Texas' fortunes -- he nonetheless described the Texas GOP delegation as "the biggest and the best" in Congress. "You can say the glass is half empty or half full," he said. "There's a lot to be done." Burgess points to the Texas- heavy party leadership -- House GOP Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling of Dallas, House GOP Secretary John Carter of Round Rock, and National Republican Campaign Committee Chairman Pete Sessions of Dallas -- as an important counterweight to the relatively few congressional chairmanships. "A lot of direction in which the Congress goes is determined within the leadership table," Burgess said. "For one state to have that many people at the table is pretty good." McCaul also said that having three people in leadership setting the agenda will help the state's influence. On the Democratic side, Texas, with only nine House members, has new visibility with the elevation of Rep. Henry Cuellar of Laredo to leadership. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California appointed Cuellar and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida as vice chairmen for the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, giving Cuellar an influential spot. "I think I'll be at the table when leadership is making decisions," said Cuellar, the state's only Blue Dog Democrat. "I'm going to try and do everything I can for members of the state of Texas." Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/01/09/2755976/texas-has-more-republicans-than.html#ixzz1QK1iZusg UTD - 2010 129

***NEG*** UTD - 2010 130

AT: Terrorists Getting Nukes

Terrorists will not be capable of nukes- specialists prove Bill Gertz is national security editor and a national security and investigative reporter for The Washington Times, Eli Lake, geopolitics reporter for the Washington Times, April 14, 2010, Critics: Obama admin hyping terrorist nuclear risk, accessed June 25, 2011, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/14/obama-says-terrorist-nuclear-risk-is-growing/? page=all#pagebreak, MD The Obama administration is warning that the danger of a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons is increasing, but U.S. officials say the claim is not based on new intelligence and questioned whether the threat is being overstated. President Obama said in a speech before the 47-nation Nuclear Security Summit, which concluded Tuesday, that “the risk of a nuclear confrontation between nations has gone down, but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up.” The two-day meeting concluded with an agreement by participants to take steps to prevent non-state actors like al Qaeda from obtaining nuclear weapons, either through theft of existing weapons or through making their own with pilfered nuclear material. The joint statement called nuclear terrorism one of the most challenging threats to international security and called for tougher security to prevent terrorists, criminals and others from acquiring nuclear goods. But Henry Sokolski, a member of the congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, said that there is no specific intelligence on ongoing terrorist procurement of nuclear material. “We were given briefings and when we tried to find specific intelligence on the threat of any known terrorist efforts to get a bomb, the answer was we did not have any.” Mr. Obama told reporters that there was a range of views on the danger but that all the conferees “agreed on the urgency and seriousness of the threat.” Mr. Sokolski said the idea that “we know that this is eminent has got to be somehow informed conjecture and apprehension, [but] it is not driven by any specific intelligence per se.” “We have reasons to believe this and to be worried, but we don’t have specific intelligence about terrorist efforts to get the bomb,” he said. “So we have to do general efforts to guard against his possibility, like securing the material everywhere.” A senior U.S. intelligence official also dismissed the administration’s assertion that the threat of nuclear terrorism is growing. “The threat has been there,” the official said. “But there is no new intelligence.” The official said the administration appears to be inflating the danger in ways similar to what critics of the Bush administration charged with regard to Iraq: hyping intelligence to support its policies. The official said one likely motivation for the administration’s new emphasis on preventing nuclear terrorism is to further the president’s goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. While the U.S. nuclear arsenal would be useful in retaliating against a sovereign state, it would be less so against a terrorist group. But if the latter is the world’s major nuclear threat, the official explained, then the U.S. giving up its weapons seems less risky. The administration recently signed an agreement with Russia that would cut U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems to 1,550 warheads and 800 delivery vehicles. During the Cold War, the U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals both topped 10,000 warheads. Mr. Obama said during a news conference that the summit was part of a larger effort to “pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, said he was disappointed that the summit did not do more to focus on Iran. The nonbinding communique issued during the summit “largely restates current policy, and makes no meaningful progress in dealing with nuclear terrorism threats or the ticking clock represented by Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Mr. Kyl said in a statement. The new focus on nuclear terrorism emerged recently in the Nuclear Posture Review report made public last week that identified nuclear terrorism as “today’s most immediate and extreme danger.” By contrast, the latest CIA report to Congress on arms proliferation suggested that the threat from nuclear terrorism had diminished. It stated that several terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, “probably remain interested” in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear arms “but not necessarily in all four of those capabilities.” Additionally, the report, made public last month, said terrorists “aim to use these agents against Western targets, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The military’s blueprint for future conflicts, “Joint Operating Environment 2010,” stated that terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons or other mass-destruction arms is a “possibility” and said a major worry is that extremists could seize power in Pakistan and gain access to its nuclear arsenal. The Joint Forces Command report warned that devastating biological weapons attacks by nations or terrorist groups could produce “terror on the scale of a nuclear attack.” John Brennan, the White House’s chief counterterrorism adviser, told reporters Monday that the threat of nuclear terrorism “is real, it is serious, it is growing, and it constitutes one of the greatest threats to our national security and, indeed, to global security.” A National Security Council spokesman declined to provide further information on Mr. Brennan’s or the president’s statement that the nuclear terrorist threat is growing. Mr. Brennan said al Qaeda has sought a nuclear weapon for the past 15 years and that its efforts continue today. Al Qaeda is seeking “highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium” for a weapon that would give the Islamist group “the ability not only to threaten our security and world order in an unprecedented manner, but also to kill and injure many thousands of innocent men, women and children, which is al Qaeda’s sole agenda,” Mr. Brennan said. Al Qaeda’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons in the past have included reports that the group tried to purchase a stolen weapon in the former Soviet Union, and that it has worked with Pakistani nuclear scientists. Former CIA Director George J. Tenet disclosed in his recent memoir that a Pakistani nongovernmental organization, Umma Tameer-e-Nau, was used as cover for a covert program to send Pakistani nuclear scientists to work with al Qaeda’s nuclear weapons team when it was granted safe haven in Afghanistan before 2001. However, Brian Jenkins, author of the book “Will Terrorists Go Nuclear?” and a Rand Corp. adviser, said that al Qaeda in the past has been duped by supposed nuclear suppliers who initiated scams that suggest a “naivete and lack of technical capability on the part of the organization,” he said. “We have evidence of terrorist ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons or nuclear material but we have no evidence of terrorist capabilities to do either,” he said. In late 2001, after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, some materials were discovered in al Qaeda bases such as crude diagrams of the basic components of a nuclear UTD - 2010 131 bomb. Mr. Jenkins, however, said that U.S. technical specialists concluded from the designs that al Qaeda did not have the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. In 2002, members of al Qaeda’s affiliate in Saudi Arabia attempted to purchase Russian nuclear devices through al Qaeda’s leadership in Iran, though the transactions did not move forward. In his 2007 memoir, “At the Center of the Storm,” Mr. Tenet wrote that “from the end of 2002 to the spring of 2003, we received a stream of reliable reporting that the senior al-Qaeda leadership in Saudi Arabia was negotiating for the purchase of three Russian nuclear devices.” Graham Allison, a Harvard professor and author of a book on nuclear terrorism, said he agrees with the president that the threat is growing, based on North Korea’s nuclear proliferation to Syria and instability in nuclear-armed Pakistan. “What’s new is a willingness to put the spotlight on this issue and say, ‘This is the face of nuclear danger today,’” he said Terrorists aren’t capable of getting the bomb – no evidence Newsweek, April 13, 2011, When Will Terrorists Get Nukes?, accessed June 25, 2011, http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/04/13/when-will-terrorists-get-nukes.html, MD There's no question that Al Qaeda and its partners have shown interest in atomic weapons. There's also little doubt that they've tried to get one, and even consulted with experts on how to design and build them. And based on the public statements and private expressions of interest of Osama bin Laden and his cohorts, there's no question at all that if they had a nuclear device, they'd use it. But even as this week's nuclear summit in Washington underscores the need for tighter safeguards, current and former U.S. intelligence and nuclear-security officials believe terrorists remain years away from acquiring or building an atomic bomb. While there have been documented cases as recently as last month of criminal elements acquiring and attempting to smuggle the kind of fissile material that could be used to make a nuclear weapon, current and former officials say there's no evidence that any terrorist entity has come close to getting their hands on enough plutonium or highly enriched uranium to actually build one. And yet those experts also say intelligence on the nuclear underground is so fragmentary that a nuclear-terrorism threat could materialize almost without warning. The senior White House adviser on counterterrorism, John Brennan, spoke at a press briefing before the start of the nuclear summit on Monday. "Over the years, Al Qaeda —including some senior Al Qaeda members—have claimed that they already have such nuclear capability or weapons," Brennan said. "That's not proved, but also at the same time it's difficult to disprove something like that. There is no indication that I have that Al Qaeda has a nuclear-weapons capability." Not that there haven't been occasional scares, he added. "There have been a number of instances over the years that we know that criminal organizations have tried to sell materials that they claim are fissile materials. Fortunately, most of these instances have been—have turned out to be scams. "Red mercury" [see this NEWSWEEK story for an explanation], other types of scams that are out there. We know that Al Qaeda has been taken by some of them, but we know that Al Qaeda has not been deterred at the same time. And so they have tried to develop within the organization the expertise that would allow them to distinguish between that which is a scam and that which isn't." Nevertheless, the likely consequences of terrorists obtaining a nuclear bomb—or even the makings of a "dirty bomb"— are so dire that officials are making an all-out push to lock down all inadequately secured stockpiles of weapons-grade nuclear material. "The threat is not being hyped for political purposes, I can assure you," writes Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, one of the most esteemed U.S. experts on nuclear terrorism, in an e-mail exchange with Declassified. A veteran CIA specialist on weapons of mass destruction and former director of intelligence at the U.S. Department of Energy, which controls the country's nuclear-arms facilities and research labs, he's now a senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He cites four leading Americans in the push for nuclear disarmament: "When you can get [former secretary of state George] Shultz, [former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sam] Nunn, [former secretary of state Henry] Kissinger, and [former defense secretary William] Perry to sign onto something like "global zero" [nuclear weapons], that ought to make people stand up and take notice—couldn't pack more wisdom and nonpartisanship than that illustrious group into one cause." "Why do the four horsemen think we have to lock up the nuclear genie?" Mowatt-Larssen asks. "Because if we don't, the odds are we won't get through this century without nuclear catastrophe. The world is too interconnected and too vulnerable. Individuals and groups aspire to wield the power of states. There's more nuclear stuff everywhere—a nuclear [power] renaissance driven by acute energy demands and a future of global warming. Nuclear weapons aspirants in all the wrong places (Iran, Syria, North Korea). A rising tide of extremism and radicalized 'have nots.' Failed states affording safe haven and sanctuary for the small footprints of future 9/11s." Worse yet, Mowatt-Larssen warns, nuclear smuggling plots are a lot harder to crack than more conventional terrorist plots. "It's very hard for [us] westerners—we're focused too much on linear thinking, i.e., [that] threats follow a certain sequence of action—and everything has a cause and effect and is driven by a clock. Terrorists don't approach things that way—for example, they might procure the material in the last stages of the plan, rather than as a prerequisite to begin plotting ... [This] makes it very hard to connect the dots and establish the lineage of a potential plot." And complacency could be fatal. "Yes, until now, it appears terrorists have been denied access to bombs or materials to make a bomb. But time is not on our side— it is uncertain when and where opportunity will present itself for terrorists to acquire a bomb, but the world will be tested (as it was in the last century) and we [had] better be prepared for the challenge. It might come tomorrow or not [for] another decade—but we will be required one day to neutralize a nuclear plot or crisis in progress. Such nonlinear unpredictability is the nature of the beast. So nuclear terrorism is a real threat— but it is a preventable catastrophe. The only thing we cannot [do] is dismiss the threat or ignore it. If we do, we will surely fail." UTD - 2010 132

AT: Fusion Feasible

Not feasible- continuous power Institute of Physics, September 2008, Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities, accessed June 27, 2011, http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2008/file_38224.pdf, MD 7.1: Planned availability Large capital costs with a small marginal cost of electricity-generation force fusion power towards base-load supply. D Ladra and co-workers have reported: “to be competitive, fusion power stations should have high availability, preferably exceeding 80%, with very few unplanned shutdowns”. 30 The 80% target, now routinely achieved by fission technology, will be a stretch for any planned fusion power station. The requirement for continuous power at high availability is particularly demanding for the tokamak’s essentially pulsed output, albeit possibly operating in very-long-pulse mode. Although researchers suggest that plasma motion and stability can be maintained for many hours after the initiating voltage sweep, there is a significant availability difference between long-pulse operations and a truly continuous operation. Much consideration has been given to the challenge of continuous operation. 31 In extremis, multiple tokamaks in a single power station would be a possibility. For instance, two pulsed tokamaks operating out of phase with each other might raise steam to drive a single turbogenerator set for continuous electricity production. Not feasible- reliability Institute of Physics, September 2008, Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities, accessed June 27, 2011, http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2008/file_38224.pdf, MD 7.2: Reliability An even greater challenge than availability is the need to achieve very high levels of reliability. That is, unscheduled and unanticipated interruptions to power generation must be avoided. A fusion-based electricity company in a modern competitive electricity market will need to enter into long-term bilateral contracts with electricity suppliers to provide the necessary business stability. A rule of thumb for plasma stability in tokamaks is: the bigger the machine, the better. Also, the engineering of a fusion power station is likely to face significant economies of scale, further favouring large machines of at least 1.5 GW electrical output. If such a machine were to be forced to shut down unexpectedly then there would be significant penalties in the electricity market. In addition, intervention would be required to ensure the supply-demand balance. This represents a potential pressure on the system operator (i.e. the National Grid in the UK). If a power station were to fail during a high demand period, even if the cause of the problem was minor, the station might not be able to restart because the system operator would not be able to spare the large amounts of power required to restart the fusion process. This issue is relatively easy to address, with on-site generation and/or energy storage such as flywheels, which can already deliver many hundreds of megawatts on JET. Such items would provide the restart power but would represent a significant capital cost for the MCE power station and in a conventional concept would only be used intermittently. Not feasible- structural integrity Institute of Physics, September 2008, Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities, accessed June 27, 2011, http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2008/file_38224.pdf, MD 7.3: Structural integrity As a consequence of its basis as a transformer driven by a single sweep of the primary, a tokamak is inherently a pulsed device. A power station will operate with very long pulses, but during its life it will still be subject to many tens of thousands of pulses. Given the very large magnetic fields associated with plasma confinement and drive, each pulse will place significant magnetic stresses on the structure of the power station. The station must withstand repeated cycling of these structural loads. Much of a station’s structure, such as the blanket, will be at high temperatures at which conventional steels cease to have good tensile properties, and this will make the structural strength of the machine an even greater challenge. Lastly, some of the structural components could be exposed to significant neutron fluxes. Each fast neutron impact can cause microstructural defects in engineering materials. A tokamak power station is a major structural engineering challenge, in terms not of whether it can be built, but of whether it can survive years of reliable operation.

Not feasible- supply Institute of Physics, September 2008, Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities, accessed June 27, 2011, http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2008/file_38224.pdf, MD UTD - 2010 133

7.4: Helium supply While the fuels for fusion power are abundant and easily obtained, this does not mean that a fusion power station would be free from energy security risks. Central to such risks must be the long- term availability of affordable helium used for tokamak pumping, purging and, above all, cooling superconducting magnets. While helium could in principle be obtained from the atmosphere at great cost, and while it is also possible that economically viable helium gas wells could be developed, the reality today is that all commercial helium is obtained as a by-product of the natural-gas industry. That industry is expanding and, as it moves towards liquefied production and supply, the economics of helium production are favoured. While it is likely that abundant helium will be available in the short term, the naturalgas industry is a fundamentally unsustainable process of resource depletion. These issues are considered by a joint UKAEA, Linde-BOC and University of Cambridge research project considering global helium resources. 32 Helium availability and cost are potentially serious issues for the large-scale deployment of fusion energy systems. A move to liquid hydrogen for superconductivity would eliminate the jeopardy, possibly extant, in an over-reliance on helium.

Not feasible- the divertor Institute of Physics, September 2008, Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities, accessed June 27, 2011, http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2008/file_38224.pdf, MD 7.5: High-temperature plasma-facing materials – the divertor Components directly facing the very hot fusion plasma include the first wall of the blanket on the outer edge of the torus and the divertor, which is usually placed round the bottom of the torus. In all MCF the plasma must at some point touch the vacuum vessel. This could be using a device dedicated to that purpose (a limiter), but more conventionally that role is played by the divertor. As a result of contact with the vacuum vessel, the tiles of the divertor will glow white hot. It is expected that these tiles will need frequent replacement and, given that the tokamak vessel will be a highly radioactive environment, this will need to be done robotically. At JET, much effort has gone into such remote handling. Nevertheless, divertor component reliability and replacement represent key challenges for a fusion power station.

Not feasible- materials Institute of Physics, September 2008, Fusion as an Energy Source: Challenges and Opportunities, accessed June 27, 2011, http://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2008/file_38224.pdf, MD 7.6: Problematic materials It is often rightly stressed that, if properly developed, a fusion power programme need not lead to a legacy of long- lived radioactive waste. The waste of the fusion process is harmless helium gas in small quantities. The main issue of concern for waste is the radioactivation of the tokamak. It is possible to manufacture the device from materials known only to activate into short-lived radioisotopes. As such we can be confident that a fusion power station would leave a negligible radioactive legacy 100 years after shutdown. A more controversial matter is whether fusion energy would represent a proliferation hazard. There is agreement on the benefits of fusion making no use of fissile isotopes such as uranium-235 or plutonium-239, which are required for fission weapons, but beyond that opinion is divided. The remaining issues fall into two broad classes: tritium and fast neutrons. 7.6.1: Tritium Tritium is an intensely radioactive gas with a half-life of 12.3 years, and it is an essential fuel for a fusion power station. Despite its radioactive hazards it has numerous conventional industrial applications. It is also a material of interest to the nuclear weapons community, particularly in the context of boosted fission weapons. 33 Even in a scenario of nuclear weapons proliferation it is possible that tritium might remain as a material of only modest concern because the spread of thermonuclear fusion-boosted weapons might be prevented purely via the prevention of the spread of basic nuclear weapons technology. Such long-standing proliferation prevention methods rely on safeguards against the spread of special nuclear materials – essentially plutonium and highly enriched uranium. 34 Without such materials, fission weapons and boosted fission weapons cannot exist. At present, tritium is not a material controlled by strong international safeguards. It has numerous industrial applications and is difficult to inventory because it tends to be absorbed into metals and other structures. If nuclear proliferation grows as an international concern then it seems likely that tritium controls would increase in the coming years, possibly affecting the fusion research community in all countries. 7.6.2: Fast neutrons Deuterium-tritium fusion is a source of high-energy neutrons. Some assert that these represent a proliferation risk because they can convert mundane materials (benign fertile actinide elements), such as thorium and depleted uranium (neither of which are subject to any controls and both of which are difficult to detect), into the special nuclear materials (fissile isotopes) of proliferation concern. Such a breeder capacity would require special engineering of the tokamak, including additional cooling, shielding and a reprocessing capability. It would not be possible to establish such infrastructures at a station that was subject to rigorous international inspections. The additional equipment required, and the fissile materials produced, would be easily detected and current International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards should be sufficient to prevent illicit production of any fissile materials at a fusion facility. It is important to stress that there are much UTD - 2010 134

easier ways for proliferators to seek to make fissile isotopes than via the misuse of a future fusion facility. Nevertheless, as a source of high-energy fast neutrons, fusion energy applications will surely need to be monitored. UTD - 2010 135

AT: Russian Moon Mining

Russia invested in moon mining- 2020 Andrew Osborn, Moscow correspondent for The Independent in Europe, January 27, 2006, Russia plans to put a mine on the Moon to help boost energy supply, accessed June 28, 2011, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-plans-to-put-a-mine-on-the-moon-to-help-boost- energy-supply-524710.html, MD Russia has staked out plans to recapture its Soviet-era space-race glory and start mining the Moon for a promising energy resource that scientists say could meet the Earth's power needs for more than a thousand years. Nikolai Sevastyanov, head of Russia's giant Energia Space Corporation, has unveiled plans to build a permanent base on the Moon within a decade and to start mining the planet for helium 3, a sought-after isotope, by 2020. The idea would be to use helium 3 to power thermo-nuclear power stations, harnessing its potency to achieve nuclear fusion. The technology to exploit helium 3 is still under development, but it has been touted by a significant academic school of thought as "the ideal fuel of the future" with several countries expressing interest. The race is now on to be the first to make it work. Russian scientists have come up with the idea of using "lunar bulldozers" to heat the Moon's surface in order to get at the resource, and Mr Sevastyanov has told an academic conference that Moscow is keen to institute regular cargo flights of helium 3 back to Earth as soon as possible. His heavily state-controlled firm, one of the most powerful in the Russian space sector, is already drafting plans to turn the base and mining proposals into reality. Russia's new space shuttle Klipper would play a significant role in the project, as would the International Space Station. "We are planning to build a permanent base on the moon by 2015 and by 2020 we can begin the industrial-scale delivery ... of the rare isotope helium 3," Mr Sevastyanov said. "The Earth's known hydrocarbon reserves will last mankind 50 to 100 years at the present rate of consumption. There are practically no reserves of helium 3 on Earth. On the Moon, there are between one million and 500 million tons, according to estimates." Much of those reserves are reported to be in the Sea of Tranquillity. Mr Sevastyanov predicted that nuclear reactors capable of running on helium 3 would soon be developed and said that just one ton of the isotope would generate as much energy as 14 million tons of oil. "Ten tons of helium 3 would be enough to meet the yearly energy needs of Russia," he added. However, Russia is not the only country interested in the technology. American scientists have expressed interest in helium 3, arguing that one shuttle-load of the isotope would be sufficient to meet US electrical energy needs for a year. During the Cold War the space race had more to do with prestige but in an era when the world has become acutely aware of the finite nature of its resources, a new 21st-century race is developing with a very different aim: to secure a new source of energy for future generations. Helium 3's chief advantage is that it is not radioactive, so there would not be a problem disposing of it once it had been used. But it is not without its sceptics, who argue that it will be too costly and impractical to develop. The Russian cabinet earmarked £6.1bn last year to restore its cash-starved space agency to its former Soviet glory but whether that is enough to begin realising plans to mine helium 3 remains to be seen. Russia is investing- technology Dr. Gareth Evans, Chancellor of the Australian National University since January 2010, and a Professorial Fellow at The University of Melbourne since July 2009, and is President Emeritus of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, the independent global conflict prevention and resolution organisation which he led from 2000 to 2009, January 29, 2009, Reach for the Moon, accessed June 28, 2011, http://www.mining-technology.com/features/feature60568/, MD Designing tanks and storage solutions for some of the most difficult environments on earth is hard enough, but if Russian ambitions ultimately come to fruition, there could be some seriously bold leaps of technology required. While the Obama administration’s Augustine review into the future of Nasa’s manned space programme continues, and with it hopes of returning to the Moon, it seems its old Cold War rival is once again eyeing the possibility of a lunar adventure – with mining in mind. According to the president of Russia’s Energia Rocket and Space Corporation Nikolai Sevastyanov, by 2025 a permanent Moonbase could be home to a new generation of cosmonauts and miners in a bid to exploit rich mineral reserves beneath the lunar surface. Russian interest in mining the Moon seems to have been principally driven by the prospect of the abundant helium-3 deposits embedded in the upper layer of lunar dust and rock particles by the solar wind over billions of years. Proposed as a valuable second-generation nuclear fusion fuel, the interest in helium-3 is understandable; there could be as much as a million tonnes on the moon – and predictions suggest that the entire annual US energy demand could be met by just 25t of this rare element. Even before the Russian Government has officially signed up to Sevastyanov’s vision, there are those in Russia already beginning to look at the tank and storage technologies that will be necessary to make such a bold venture possible. As innovation drivers go, it may be a little unusual, but mining has a long history of posing difficult questions for the sector; putting tanks on the Moon – or Mars, for that matter – simply represents the latest. Wherever the future of mining ultimately leads, the storage industry, as always, will be ready for the challenge. UTD - 2010 136 UTD - 2010 137

AT: GW ADV – 1NC

Claims about global warming are exaggerated—computer models flawed Fox News, 9 (Fox News, February 29, 2009, “Scientist: Global Warming Evidence, Claims Exaggerated”, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500327,00.html, AD: 6/25/11, SL) Claims about the allegedly dire effects of global warming may be exaggerated, Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said during a Thursday lecture at the Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. Michaels, who is also a state climatologist and professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, discussed the research published in his new book, "Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know." "The discussion surrounding global warming has become wildly extreme," he told a packed auditorium. "You either believe it's the end of the world unless we do something about it right now, or you're a denier." Michaels criticized scientists' widespread acceptance of the computer climate change models, saying that the models have projected higher temperatures than have actually occurred in recent years. Prevalent claims that global warming is occurring at an ever increasing rate are troubling, Michaels said. Charts of recent temperatures show constant, linear warming, he said. Scientific literature, which Michaels said should present an equal distribution of positive and negative conclusions about climate change trends, is overwhelmingly pessimistic, Michaels said. This phenomenon can be partially attributed to the "small inbred community" of scientists who peer review global warming research, he said.

Alt cause to Global Warming that the aff can’t solve for—deforestation Howden, 7-- The Independent’s Africa Correspondent (Daniel Howden, The Independent’s Africa Correspondent, May 14, 2007, “Deforestation: The hidden cause of global warming”, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/deforestation-the- hidden-cause-of-global-warming-448734.html, AD: 6/25/11, SL) The accelerating destruction of the rainforests that form a precious cooling band around the Earth's equator, is now being recognised as one of the main causes of climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage caused by planes and automobiles and factories. Figures from the GCP, summarising the latest findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total.

No global change to fusion means aff can’t solve—China number one emitter of CO2 now Watson, 8 (Tracy Watson, staff writer, 5/1/2008, “China now No. 1 CO2 offender”, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-04-30-china-energy_N.htm, AD: 6/25/11, SL) WASHINGTON — China has overtaken the USA to become the world's No. 1 industrial source of carbon dioxide, the most important global-warming pollutant, according to a scientific study to be published today. The study and two others — one recently published and another coming — agree that China's carbon-dioxide emissions surpassed those in the USA in 2006. That's decades earlier than had been predicted by the International Energy Agency four years ago. Each group relied on different methods and data sources, among them the United Nations, the Chinese environmental agency and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Nuclear fusion can’t solve global warming—no technology until 2050 Furber et al., 8-- retired physicist and astrodynamicist UTD - 2010 138

(Robert D. Furber is a retired physicist and astrodynamicist, James C. Warf, emeritus professor of nuclear chemistry at the University of Southern California, Sheldon C. Plotkin, consulting systems and safety engineer, February 2008, “The Future of Nuclear Power”, http://monthlyreview.org/2008/02/01/the-future-of-nuclear-power#top, AD: 6/23/11, SL) In contrast, experiments using nuclear fusion, appear to offer sufficient promise that the efforts should not only be continued but enhanced if possible. Electricity generation from this source is very attractive; however, it will be so long in coming, 2050 at least, that other nonpolluting sources of electricity have to be developed as soon as possible to address the global warming problem.

No impact—adaptation solves Fox News, 9 (Fox News, February 29, 2009, “Scientist: Global Warming Evidence, Claims Exaggerated”, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500327,00.html, AD: 6/25/11, SL) There is also evidence that individuals, societies and economies can adapt to warmer temperatures, Michaels said. Agricultural adaptations may allow corn to grow at higher temperatures, he said, while crops like soybeans and sugar cane thrive in a hotter climate. When heat waves occur with higher and higher frequency, there are fewer deaths during subsequent bouts of high temperature, he added. UTD - 2010 139

XT – No Global Warming Now

First, extend the Fox News 9—global warming is exaggerated. Temperatures have been rising at a constant rate and the computer models measuring temperature changes is flawed.

AND, extend the INC Howden 7 evidence – one of the main causes of global warming is deforestation. The aff doesn’t stop this and therefore can’t stop global warming. UTD - 2010 140

XT – Solving Global Warming

First, extend the Watson 8 evidence—China has taken over as the number one carbon emitter. The aff plan doesn’t cause a global spillover therefore they can’t solve.

AND extend the Furber et al. 8 evidence – nuclear fusion using He3 can’t solve global warming because the technology won’t be available until 2050 which according to the aff is too late.

AND extend Fox News, 9—no impact to global warming because humans and food sources can adapt to changing temperatures. UTD - 2010 141

AT: China Adv

US-China cooperating on space now—joint statements Martina, 4/29 (Michael Martina, staff writer, April 29, 2011, “China astronaut calls for US cooperation”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/29/us-china-space-idUSTRE73S4BS20110429, AD: 6/25/11, SL) China's most renowned astronaut said on Friday his country and the United States should make good on their presidents' promises to cooperate in space. "I think the two countries should proactively implement the intent expressed in the joint communique to eliminate obstacles and promote exchange and cooperation in our space programs," Yang Liwei, now the vice director of the country's Manned Space Engineering Office, said. Obama and Hu, in a statement in November 2009, called for "the initiation of a joint dialogue on human spaceflight and space exploration, based on the principles of transparency, reciprocity and mutual benefit."

China’s space goals are peaceful—advance flight technology Xinhua News Agency, 6/7 (Xinhua News Agency, 6/7/2011, “Interview: Peaceful use of outer space common aspiration of people around world: Chinese space official”, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2011-06- 07/content_2835705.html, AD: 6/25/11, SL) The peaceful use of outer space is the common aspiration of people around the world, said Yang Liwei, deputy head of China's Manned Space Engineering Office, on Tuesday. "China has long set the peaceful use of outer space for the benefits of all mankind as its aim for space development," said Yang in an interview with Xinhua. According to China' s human space flight program, China will launch unmanned space module Tiangong-1 into the space late this year, followed by the spaceship Shenzhou-8, Yang said. In 2012, China will send Shenzhou-9 and Shenzhou-10 spacecraft into space and realized their manned or unmanned rendezvous and docking with Tiangong-1. These efforts are designed to make a breakthrough in the technology of mutual dockings of spaceships, Yang noted. UTD - 2010 142

XT—China Cooperation Now

First, extend Martina 4/29—China is already cooperating with the US on space now through recent agreements and meetings.

AND US-China cooperation now—recent consultations prove Xinhua News Agency, 6/21 (Xinhua News Agency, 6/21/2011, “Vice FM expresses confidence in future of China-U.S. relationship”, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-06/21/c_13941904.htm, AD: 6/25/11, SL) Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai on Tuesday said he expected China-U.S. ties to continue to warm, saying that both parties can build their cooperative partnership through enhancing mutual trust and deepening cooperation. Since President Hu Jintao visited the United States in January, China-U.S. relations have entered a new phase in which both parties are committed to working together to build a cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit, Cui said. China and the United States held their second annual high-level Consultation on People-to-People Exchange in April and the third Strategic and Economic Dialogues in May. Both parties have deepened cooperation in a variety of areas and coordinated on important international and regional issues, he said. UTD - 2010 143

XT-China Peaceful

First, extend Xinhua News Agency 6/7—China’s goals in space are peaceful. They are just trying to gather more scientific research.

AND China is not racing the US to the moon Foust, 4/11-- an aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher (Jeff Foust, an aerospace analyst, journalist and publisher, April 11, 2011, “Whither human spaceflight?”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1822/1, AD: 6/25/2011, SL) However, 20 years after the end of the Cold War, the momentum that propelled human spaceflight efforts has been spent. The International Space Station is now effectively complete, and the shuttle is now nearing its retirement. Cooperation with—even reliance on, in terms of human access to the station— Russia is now the order of the day. Efforts over the last several years to build up China as a new competitor with the United States in human spaceflight have failed to gain traction, perhaps because the Chinese government does not appear to be particularly interested in racing the United States to the Moon or elsewhere. While China does have plans for space stations and perhaps, much farther in the future, human missions to the Moon, their program has been proceeding at almost a glacial pace: the last crewed Chinese spaceflight, Shenzhou 7, was two and a half years ago.

AND China’s space program isn’t a threat—too small and modest Boozer, 5/19 (Rick Boozer, Master's degree in astrophysics and is currently pursuing his PhD in that field. , May 19, 2011, “United States Will Beat China in Newest Space Race”, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110519/sc_ac/8496119_united_states_will_beat_china_in_newest_space_r ace, AD: 6/27/11, SL) America is laying the groundwork for its greatest space endeavor since sending astronauts to the Moon. But that's not the story you will hear from a few senators and congressional representatives who are more concerned with bringing home pork than significantly advancing U.S. spaceflight prowess. Exaggerating China's future spaceflight plans is one of their favorite strategies. In fact Chinese space ambitions are modest. Their yet-to-be-started space station won't be complete until 2020 at the earliest. It will weigh only 60 tons compared to the International Space Station's 400 tons and less than half the defunct Russian MIR station's 130 tons. UTD - 2010 144

AT: Russia Adv.

US-Russia cooperation high—joint space operations prove Doarn, 10-- Department of Public Health Sciences (Charles R. Doarn, Arnauld E. Nicogossian, Anatoly I. Grigoriev, Galina Tverskaya, Oleg I. Orlov, Eugene A. Ilyin and Kenneth A. Souza, May 12, 2010, “A summary of activities of the US/Soviet- Russian joint working group on space biology and medicine”, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576510001621#sec4, AD: 6/25/11, SL) This relationship between Cold War adversaries has evolved from a joint docking in the mid 1970s to the Shuttle/Mir program and the current cooperation on the ISS. It has included a series of life sciences experiments on the Soviet/Russian Cosmos/Bion biosatellites and helped develop the concepts of telemedicine in disaster response and beyond. An ever evolving and productive group has established the very foundation with which joint space operations are taking place in the 21st century. The exploration of space and our understanding of its impact on the human systems have been further advanced by this JWG. UTD - 2010 145

XT: Russia Cooperation High

First, extend Doarn, 10—cooperation between Russia and the US is high now. The two countries have been conducting joint experiments.

AND US-Russia cooperation in space high—shared desire for knowledge Doarn, 10-- Department of Public Health Sciences (Charles R. Doarn, Arnauld E. Nicogossian, Anatoly I. Grigoriev, Galina Tverskaya, Oleg I. Orlov, Eugene A. Ilyin and Kenneth A. Souza, May 12, 2010, “A summary of activities of the US/Soviet- Russian joint working group on space biology and medicine”, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576510001621#sec4, AD: 6/25/11, SL) The very foundation of cooperation between the United States (US) and Russia (former Soviet Union) in space exploration is a direct result of the mutual desire for scientific understanding and the creation of a collaborative mechanism—the Joint Working Group (JWG) on Space Biology and Medicine. From the dawn of the space age, it has been the quest of humankind to understand its place in the universe. While nations can and do solve problems independently, it takes nations, working together, to accomplish great things. The formation of the JWG provided an opportunity for the opening of a series of productive relationships between the superpowers, the US and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR); and served as a justification for continued relationship for medical assistance in spaceflight, and to showcase Earth benefits from space medicine research. This relationship has been played out on an international scale with the construction and operation of the International Space Station. The fundamental reason for this successful endeavor is a direct result of the spirit and perseverance of the men and women who have worked diligently side-by-side to promote science and move our understanding of space forward. This manuscript provides a historical perspective of the JWG; how it came about; its evolution; what it accomplished; and what impact it has had and continues to have in the 21st century with regard to human spaceflight and space life sciences research. It captures the spirit of this group, which has been in continuous existence for over 40 years, and provides a never before reported summary of its activities.

AND US-Russia cooperation high—START treaty prove Evans, 10—Pentagon Correspondent (Michael Evans, Pentagon Correspondent, March 27, 2010, “Obama and Medvedev seal the deal on nuclear arms by phone”, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7078003.ece, AD: 6/25/11, SL) It took no more than 15 minutes yesterday for President Obama and President Medvedev to agree on the final wording of a treaty that will lead to significant cuts in American and Russian strategic nuclear warheads. Mr Obama described the cutback not only as a sign of his long-term dream of a world without nuclear weapons but also as a reflection of the “reset” relationship between Washington and Moscow. “When the United States and Russia can co-operate effectively it advances the mutual interests of our two nations and the security and prosperity of the wider world,” he said.

China’s space program isn’t a threat—too small and modest Boozer, 5/19 (Rick Boozer, Master's degree in astrophysics and is currently pursuing his PhD in that field. , May 19, 2011, “United States Will Beat China in Newest Space Race”, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110519/sc_ac/8496119_united_states_will_beat_china_in_newest_space_r ace, AD: 6/27/11, SL) America is laying the groundwork for its greatest space endeavor since sending astronauts to the Moon. But that's not the story you will hear from a few senators and congressional representatives who are more concerned with bringing home pork than significantly advancing U.S. spaceflight prowess. Exaggerating China's future spaceflight plans is one of their favorite strategies. In fact Chinese space ambitions are UTD - 2010 146 modest. Their yet-to-be-started space station won't be complete until 2020 at the earliest. It will weigh only 60 tons compared to the International Space Station's 400 tons and less than half the defunct Russian MIR station's 130 tons. UTD - 2010 147

Russia Link

Russian aerospace corporation setting sites on the moon. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] One of the reason’s for Russia resurgent interest in the Moon after the space race in the 1950’s and 1960’s is because of the He-3 deposits on the Moon. Russia's aerospace corporation Energiya, has shown interests in developing energy from He-3 on the Moon. Energiya President Nikolai Sevastyanov stated that, 80 "This is the thermonuclear energy of the future, a new environmentally clean fuel that cannot be produced on Earth; we are talking about the industrial exploration of the Moon for He-3 production." He further stated that the advantages of mining He-3 would justify the expenses of manned space exploration. Russian experts have also designed a nuclear engine that can be used as a lunar cargo vehicle. These vehicles could be used to carry equipment for mining and delivering He-3. Mr. Galimov, a scientist at the Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences believes that Russia can compete with the United States in the race for the Moon again. He believes that Russia can afford an economically profitable and inexpensive project to mine He-3 on the Moon and will cost only about “a mere $25-30 millions to extract He-3 by warming lunar soil and scraping it from the surface of the Moon with the help of lunar bulldozers” (Radyuhin, 2004). UTD - 2010 148

Investors Link

Moon mining rights lock out private investors. Souza, Otalvario & Singh, 6 - Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute [Marsha, Diana, Deep, HARVESTING HELIUM-3 FROM THE MOON, Dissertation, WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2-17-2006, http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project- 031306-122626/unrestricted/IQP.pdf] The fact that the wealth obtained from the Moon has to be shared with all the nations of the world equally does not give the private-sector a chance of developing their own lunar economic development business. The ethical issues arise when profits are earned by these businesses and supporters of the “Moon as the province of mankind” principle demand distribution of the benefits and profits from commercial lunar development (Livingston, 2000). According to the Moon Treaty, an international agency is to be created which will be responsible for and capable of distributing lunar resources equitably. However, political and economic tensions might rise between developing nations and developed nations making any attempt to enforce the “Moon as the province of mankind” principle a questionable proposition. Even if an international organization could be created to distribute benefits equally and fairly among nations, no private investor would be willing to invest capital on the Moon if it would obtain no return on its investment. In reality, “the Moon as the province of mankind” principle is a serious hurdle for the private sector in creating lunar-based businesses (Livingston, 2000). Thus, it’s up to governmental organizations of nations to develop any interests they have on the Moon. UTD - 2010 149

OST CP

OST implementation avoids hostilities—multilateral agreements prevent Moltz, 9- associate professor in the Department of National Security Studies at the Naval Postgraduate School (James Clay Moltz, associate professor in the Department of National Security Studies at the Na val Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, Fall 2009, “Toward Cooperation or Conflict on the Moon? Considering Lunar Governance in Historical Perspective”, http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2009/Fall/moltz.pdf, AD: 6/21/11, SL) In reviewing the findings of this study, we can observe that there is no predetermined outcome in regard to the moon. At the same time, there are certain tendencies that will affect lunar governance and shape the factors likely to play an important role in determining the specific regime formed. In terms of policy recommendations for avoiding hostile outcomes on the moon, several specific measures should be considered by states—and, preferably, soon. Second, national governments would be wise to clarify existing ambiguities in the OST regime. This might require a formal review of the treaty to discuss definitions and develop an implementing agreement for multilateral understandings on how to interpret the OST in regard to specific lunar activities (particularly, regarding permitted and prohibited [99] settlement practices). A similar review of clauses in the 1968 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space would be beneficial to clarify possible provisions that may foster mutual assistance during moon operations. UTD - 2010 150

UQ - Space Race – US Win

US will win the space race now. Boozer, 5-19 [Rick, United States Will Beat China in Newest Space Race, May 19, 2011, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110519/sc_ac/8496119_united_states_will_beat_china_in_newest_space_r ace] COMMENTARY | America is laying the groundwork for its greatest space endeavor since sending astronauts to the Moon. But that's not the story you will hear from a few senators and congressional representatives who are more concerned with bringing home pork than significantly advancing U.S. spaceflight prowess. Exaggerating China's future spaceflight plans is one of their favorite strategies. In fact Chinese space ambitions are modest. Their yet-to-be-started space station won't be complete until 2020 at the earliest. It will weigh only 60 tons compared to the International Space Station's 400 tons and less than half the defunct Russian MIR station's 130 tons. China's state news announced they are tentatively considering a gigantic super rocket. It prompted Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia to say, "The announcement made clear that if the United States does not get serious about its own Exploration Program, the next flag planted on the moon may be a Chinese flag." Even before the announcement, Rep. Bill Posey of Florida made similar dire predictions about future Chinese space accomplishments. However, careful reading of the Chinese article reveals it is a preliminary feasibility study, NOT any actual plan to build the rocket. Furthermore, given that the rocket would carry a 130-ton payload, which is exactly the same payload weight as the super rocket demanded by certain U.S. Senators, the Chinese study is probably just a knee-jerk response to the Senators' efforts.

Load more

  150

Copy Link