home

Constellation 1AC - Moderate Contention One: Space Leadership The ending of the Constellation program will cause uncertainty in the leadership of the US, triggering other countries to take that leadership. Eric ** Sterner ** 20** 10 **, George C. Marshall Institute, “Worthy of a Great Nation? NASA’s Change of Strategic Direction,” Apr. The United States can only continue to set a global agenda in space by challenging countries to work together in pursuit of a unifying purpose. It took decades after the Apollo program and the stunning loss of seven astronauts aboard the space shuttle Columbia for U.S. policymakers to establish a bipartisan, bicameral consensus on the future of the human exploration program. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposal has already undone that consensus, dividing proponents of a forward leaning civil space program from advocates of space commercialization, human spaceflight from robotic exploration, and one state from another. In retreating from an exploration program focused on establishing a permanent presence on the moon and reaching Mars within a specific timeframe, the United States will create uncertainty about its plans, leaving others to take the initiative, lay moral claims to a leadership role, and increase their influence in establishing the formal and informal norms that will govern human space exploration for decades. Leadership requires the reverse. The continuation of the Constellation program will enhance international cooperation and put US in the leader position John** Logsdon, **20** 11 **, space policy institute, “Change and continuity ins US space policy,” Volume 27 Issue 1, Feb 2. Enhanced international cooperation The new National Space Policy directs US government agencies to look for increased opportunities for international cooperation in a wide variety of areas, ranging from space science to space surveillance and maritime domain awareness. This approach reflects the broader foreign policy strategy of the Obama administration. For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a July 2010 speech: Our approach to foreign policy must reflect the world as it is, not as it used to be. It does not make sense to adapt a 19th-century concert of powers or a 20th-century balance-of-power strategy. We cannot go back to Cold War containment or to unilateralism…. We will lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multi-polar world and toward a multi-partner world. This approach stands in rather stark contrast to the unilateralist path to leadership articulated in the 2006 Bush administration space policy. It also recognizes that in the space arena other nations and groups of nations have developed, and are continuing to develop, world-class space capabilities, and that unless they are engaged with the USA as they pursue their own objectives, other poles of space leadership will emerge. Included in areas for increased cooperation are several national security and dual use space activities, in particular space situational awareness. In pursuit of the policy’s objectives, representatives of the Department of State and Department of Defense have in recent months carried out a series of consultations in various venues around the world regarding ways of working together in such areas; this represents a significant departure from past US practice, and could represent a significant change in how the USA advances its own interests in the security space arena. NASA is currently constrained in its ability to seek new cooperative opportunitie s, although outreach in space and Earth science to new as well as traditional partners is being pursued. However, the confusion in the US human spaceflight effort makes it particularly difficult for the USA to maintain its leading position in this arena. After spending several years following the US lead in planning for a Moon-focused global exploration program, other countries (or at least their space agencies) were among those surprised by the unilateral US decision to abandon the lunar goal. The choice of a near Earth object as the initial destination for US exploration does not offer many opportunities for non-US contributions. Only if the USA reverses its policy of not accepting non-US contributions to future space transportation systems could there be a significant global exploration effort initially focused on destinations other than the Moon; indeed, such a policy reversal might even enable a truly international return to the Moon.

US space leadership is key to national security and overall cooperative US hegemony Stone 20 11, Christopher, policy analyst and strategist, “American leadership in space: leadership through capability,” The Space Review, Mar. 15, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1 The world has recognized America as the leaders in space because it demonstrated technological advancement by the Apollo lunar landings, our deep space exploration probes to the outer planets, and deploying national security space missions. We did not become the recognized leaders in astronautics and space technology because we decided to fund billions into research programs with no firm budgetary commitment or attainable goals. We did it because we made a national level decision to do each of them, stuck with it, and achieved exceptional things in manned and unmanned spaceflight. We have allowed ourselves to drift from this traditional strategic definition of leadership in space exploration, rapidly becoming participants in spaceflight rather than the leader of the global space community. One example is shutting down the space shuttle program without a viable domestic spacecraft chosen and funded to commence operations upon retirement of the fleet. We are paying millions to rely on Russia to ferry our astronauts to an International Space Station that US taxpayers paid the lion’s share of the cost of construction. Why would we, as United States citizens and space advocates, settle for this? The current debate on commercial crew and cargo as the stopgap between shuttle and whatever comes next could and hopefully will provide some new and exciting solutions to this particular issue. However, we need to made a decision sooner rather than later. Finally, one other issue that concerns me is the view of the world “hegemony” or “superiority” as dirty words. Some seem to view these words used in policy statements or speeches as a direct threat. In my view, each nation (should they desire) should have freedom of access to space for the purpose of advancing their “security, prestige and wealth” through exploration like we do. However, to maintain leadership in the space environment, space superiority is a worthy and necessary byproduct of the traditional leadership model. If your nation is the leader in space, it would pursue and maintain superiority in their mission sets and capabilities. In my opinion, space superiority does not imply a wall of orbital weapons preventing other nations from access to space, nor does it preclude international cooperation among friendly nations. Rather, it indicates a desire as a country to achieve its goals for national security, prestige, and economic prosperity for its people, and to be known as the best in the world with regards to space technology and astronautics. I can assure you that many other nations with aggressive space programs, like ours traditionally has been, desire the same prestige of being the best at some, if not all, parts of the space pie. Space has been characterized recently as “congested, contested, and competitive”; the quest for excellence is just one part of international space competition that, in my view, is a good and healthy thing. As other nations pursue excellence in space, we should take our responsibilities seriously, both from a national capability standpoint, and as country who desires expanded international engagement in space. If America wants to retain its true leadership in space, it must approach its space programs as the advancement of its national “security, prestige and wealth” by maintaining its edge in spaceflight capabilities and use those demonstrated talents to advance international prestige and influence in the space community. These energies and influence can be channeled to create the international space coalitions of the future that may desire and benefit mankind as well as America. Leadership will require sound, long-range exploration strategies with national and international political will behind it. American leadership in space is not a choice. It is a requirement if we are to truly lead the world into space with programs and objectives “worthy of a great nation.” US Leadership critical to prevent hostile rivals and global nuclear war Khalilzad 19 95, Zalmay, Rand Analyst, Envoy to Afghanistan, “Losing the Moment,” Washington Quarterly, Spring Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Contention Two: Aerospace Industry Cancellation of Constellation resulted in catastrophic job loss--exacerbates the national unemployment rate Air Force Association, accessed June 27, 20 11 , “Cancellation of NASA’s Constellation Program”, http://www.afa.org/edop/2010/nasas_constellation_program.asp, originally published 2010 There is no question that the cancellation of the Constellation program will result in the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs around the country. Not only will major suppliers feel the impact, but so will second and third tier suppliers, not to mention other collateral business fallout. The magnitude of the job loss is catastrophic enough, particularly when the nation is experiencing an unemployment rate of nearly 10%, but compounding the effect is the fact that jobs being lost are exactly the types we would like to retain if we are serious about remaining in a position of world leadership …highly technical design, engineering, and manufacturing jobs, most of which are fairly high paying. There is also a significant negative impact on the United States aerospace industrial base. As an example, we currently have but one or two companies in this country that can reliably produce large scale solid rocket boosters. The elimination of Constellation eliminates the need to produce those boosters, and as a result, the capability to do so will likely wither away. There is money in the NASA budget for research on large rockets, but there is a huge difference between R&D capability and production capability. Let us also not forget that our Armed Forces depend on these same companies to produce large missiles and boosters for our national defense. The DOD is not currently procuring enough large missile or booster systems to keep these companies afloat, either. In fact, it was the combination of military and NASA business that enabled a booster production capability to be maintained in this country. Since the NASA aerospace industrial base and the DOD aerospace industrial base are inherently intertwined, a significant negative impact on one has the same impact on the other. Huge gaps in shuttle programs eliminate thousands of jobs with adverse effects on the scientific community Patrick R. Stoffel, Masters in Space Studies at the University of North Dakota, June 5, 20 08 , “Mission Critical Jobs”, Science Progress, http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/06/nasa-jobs/ If all goes according to plan, the National Aeronautical and Space Administration’s current schedule for shutting down the Space Shuttle program and launching its future Constellation leaves a five-year gap in which thousands of highly skilled aerospace industry workers will be left out in the cold. This gap in U.S. manned space launch capability means the United States will either have to depend on the private sector for space access (which is currently impossible because no private corporations have come close to launching a human rated spacecraft into orbit), or have to hitch a ride with the Russians or the Chinese. Here on Earth, though, that five-year gap means that close to 10,000 NASA employees and aerospace workers connected with manned U.S. space operations will have to find other work until the new Constellation system is up and running. Some of the people laid off during the transition will go to work for industries working with the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services programs, which is an effort by NASA to stimulate commercial access to space (manned and unmanned) by providing “seed money” to companies with promising ideas, but most of them will have to hope they will be rehired and/or retrained to work on the Constellation programs’ Ares V and lunar programs—if these programs are eventually funded by Congress. But even if Congress acts quickly to fund the Constellation program, NASA’s Workforce Transition Study indicates that an estimated 9,000 aerospace jobs may be lost because of this gap, 6,400 from Kennedy Space Center alone. A handful of congressional proposals would boost NASA funding and save some of these jobs. These efforts are worth strong consideration because they would support the high-tech industries powered by these aerospace workers. These NASA and aerospace workers employ critical skills and engineering know-how vital to keeping the U.S. competitive and at the forefront of cutting-edge technology and innovation. Their expertise is employed in a broad range of high-tech fields, including: robotics, solar energy, life support system research, remote sensing (including environmental applications), ion propulsion, hypersonic flight, composite heat shielding, nano and computer technologies, and biomedical applications.

The end of Apollo proves – gaps in NASA missions severely affect the economy. Nicholas Wethington. Reporter for Universe Today. 15 January 20 10. Universe Today. "End of Shuttle Program Will Slow Florida's Economy." . The end of the shuttle program will potentially eliminate as many as 7,000 – 8,000 jobs, some of which will need to be filled once again when the Constellation program is in full swing. But during the gap, many workers are expected to vacate the area in search of jobs elsewhere. This will impact the local economy that relies on these residents, and as many as 14,000 workers in the area may be indirectly affected. According to a state study, in the 2008 fiscal year NASA generated $4.1 billion dollars in revenue and benefits for the state. $2.1 billion of that was in household income, and over 40,000 jobs were created due to NASA-related activities. The local unemployment rate has already risen to 11.9 percent at present, largely due to the nationwide economic problems. Housing and construction have taken a hit as well, and will continue to suffer as the area sees the space workers leave. This is the second time in NASA’s history that they’ve had to wind down a human space program, the first being the Apollo missions which ended in 1972. After the end of Apollo, Brevard county saw a dramatic downturn in the economy, as 10,000 workers left the region to find jobs and unemployment rose to 15 percent. Constellation is necessary to create thousands of jobs across 40 states. W.J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times Writer, February 4, 20 10 , “Proposed NASA budget plots entrepreneur-friendly course”, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/04/business/la-fi-nasa4-2010feb04 But canceling Constellation is not expected to be easy. The government has already poured $9 billion into the program, which has created thousands of jobs in about 40 states -- and that's not including the hundreds of small-business suppliers across the country. "When the president says that he's going to cancel Constellation, I can tell you that to muster the votes and to overcome that, it's going to be very, very difficult," said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), whose state is expected to lose 7,000 jobs when the space shuttle program is mothballed. Obama's plans for the space agency also call for restructuring the way that big contracts are awarded. Typically, multibillion-dollar projects such as Constellation have been awarded to a major aerospace firm, which in turn doled out work to subcontractors. Economic decline during crises slips into depression, causing war Mead 20 09 (Henry, Sr fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, The New Republic, 2/4/09, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2) ET So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes --as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.

Plan: The United States Federal Government should reinstate and fully fund the Constellation Program under a mission of returning to the moon by 2022. Contention Three: Solvency The commission recommending cancellation was rigged – it inflated the predicted future costs, leading to NASA money being wasted without a commitment to get back to the moon. With reinstated funds, we can get back to the moon by 2022. Horowitz 20 11, Scott, former NASA Associate Administrator of Exploration Systems Missile Directorate; re-published by AmericaSpace via Jim Hillhouse, prolific space columnist and shuttle technician, “A Trajectory to Nowhere, May 8, http://www.americaspace.org/?p=7621 The commission also used data provided to them by the Aerospace Corporation to come to the conclusion that the Constellation Program was on an “unsustainable trajectory”. The commission took the budget estimates for the Constellation Program and added 50% to the costs. While this may be appropriate for a brand new program in the early formulation stages, this is completely inappropriate for a program that has passed its early milestones and has a very detailed basis of estimate appropriate for having completed its Preliminary Design Review (PDR). So the combination of a reduced budget (FY 2010) and an inflated cost estimate produced the desired result (the program would take forever to complete). The fact is, that with the FY 2011 top-line budget submit (the best top-line budget NASA has had since the inception of Constellation) there are plenty of funds available for NASA to complete Ares I/Orion by 2015 and to return astronauts to the moon by 2022 using the Ares V as a first step to moving further out into the solar system (NEOs, Mars, LeGrange Points, etc.) The president’s FY 2011 NASA budget request doesn’t save the taxpayers any money , in fact it increases NASA’s budget and proposes to spend it on technology development projects, robotic missions, and increased earth-science missions. While these are worthy endeavors, they are not “sustainable ”. Every time NASA has gone down the “technology development” path without a clearly defined mission to focus “technology development”, the result has been the same: no operational system gets developed, and NASA’s top-line budget becomes a target for OMB and Congress and gets reduced by 25%. Private space development is nonexistent Newton & Griffin 2011, Elizabeth & Michael D., Center for System Studies, University of Alabama in Huntsville, “Viewpoint: United States space policy and international partnership,” Space Policy 27, 7e9 2.4. Market creation The president’s new policy endeavors to jump-start a private sector-led space transportation market by canceling plans for a government transportation system to deliver cargo and crew to low-Earth orbit and redirecting the funds toward procuring a yet-to-be developed commercial solution which proponents purport will be more cost-efﬁcient. This decision has its curious origins in a juncture of circumstances: ﬁrst, the Ofﬁce of Management and Budget’s drive to downsize the agency; second, ascendant special interests over-anxious for market conditions that do not yet exist and frustrated with a status quo manifested in a mature bureaucracy’s methodical execution. Commercial demand for cargo and crew transport to low-Earth orbit is currently non-existent, and will be so for the foreseeable future, so it is specious to characterize the government’s paying for system development to meet limited government demand as ‘market creation’. Historically, market creation has occurred when the government’s long-term needs guaranteed a predictable and relatively high-volume of purchases, or when the government served as an anchor tenant, establishing a long-term need for service, rather than serving as an ‘investor of last resort’ to underwrite the entirety of system development because private capital markets will not. Space will only truly be brought into the USA’s economic sphere when some commercially viable enterprise is invented that either serves a stable user-base in space or that uses the resources of low-Earth orbit, the lunar surface, or other destinations. It is worth noting that an international, government lunar base would have constituted one such stable market for logistics and supplies that could have spawned a commercial market. ISS utilization, in contrast, will not require a comparable magnitude or frequency of service.

NASA is key to spur commercial development of space Mike **Griffin**, former NASA administrator, Oct 20, **2006**, “X Prize Comments by Mike Griffin,” Commercial Space Watch, http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=22396 But the kind of things we need to do have been done before. We know how it should go. Many of you have in the past heard me allude briefly to the story of how the U.S. Post Office Department, with the help of the War Department, helped spur our nation's aviation industry when it started the air mail service routes in 1918. I very strongly believe that we can, and should, draw certain lessons from this event ; that it can be a historical paradigm for how NASA might fill a similar role in spurring our emerging commercial space industry in concert with the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration. However, a review of this history shows that it was not an easy proposition then, and it is likely to be just as difficult to pursue in the present era. But, as President John Kennedy said at Rice University in 1962, we do these things, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard ." So let us look again at what was once done, and then let us think about what might yet be done.

=Topicality=

A: Interpretation - “Space Exploration” is the physical traveling to areas in space.
Columbia Encyclopedia 8 "space exploration." The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. 9 May. 2011 . [] With over 51,000 entries The Columbia Encyclopedia (Sixth Edition) is an authoritative and exhaustive reference guide. Each entry is thorough and clear, the result of over 200 editors and academic advisors striving for depth and accuracy in the oldest, most venerable English language encyclopedia in the world. //space exploration// the investigation of physical conditions in space and on stars, planets, and other celestial bodiesthrough the use of artificial satellites (spacecraft that orbit the earth), space probes (spacecraft that pass through the solar system and that may or may not orbit another celestial body), and spacecraft with human crews. Satellites and Probes Althoughstudies from earth using optical and radio telescopes had accumulated much data on the nature of celestial bodies, it was not untilafter World War II thatthe development of powerful rockets made //direct space exploration a// technological possibility. The first artificial satellite, Sputnik I, was launched by the USSR (now Russia) on Oct. 4, 1957, and spurred the dormant U.S. program into action, leading to an international competition popularly known as the "space race." Explorer I, the first American satellite, was launched on Jan. 31, 1958. Although earth-orbiting satellites have by far accounted for the great majority of launches in the space program, even more information on the moon, other planets, and the sun has been acquired by space probes.

C: Standards –

 * 1 - Limits: ** We need to limit the topic to physical exploration of space, if we don’t do this then other affs can claim that looking through a telescope, this allows for affirmatives that just deploy a telescope to look at the moon. You can “explore” your room by looking at it!
 * 2 – Ground ** : Major neg ground steal, we can never predict what exploration will mean round-to-round and whether or not we actually travel somewhere. We lose links on DA’s that rely on the perception of actually touching space
 * 3 – Education ** : Without physically exploring space we can’t really understand the question of whether or not we should explore it, we need to know if human expansion in space is a good idea – Key to Topic Education.

D: Topicality is a Voter –
- Fairness: Need T to check unpredictable affs - Education: Need T to make sure affs stay on Topic, otherwise there is not point to having a resolution - Competing Interpretations: Without this it is up to the judge and judge only on whether or not the aff is “topical”. Need to compare our interpretations to make us logically understand who’s interpretation is better.

=China Coop CP= Plan: The United States federal government should offer the People’s Republic of China for participation in a cooperative mission _______________________________________. The United States federal government will only act if the People’s Republic of China agree on a cooperation. Observation 1: Competition The counterplan is contingent on China agreeing to cooperate. Any perm is severance on the immediacy of the plan. The counter plan also competes through net benefits.

Observation 2: Solvency And China Says Yes – They want to cooperate with the US in space Pasztor 10 (Andy Pasztor, Andy Pasztor, senior special writer at the Los Angeles bureau of The Wall Street Journal, has more than 25 years experience covering local, national and international politics and business. The Wall Street Journal. U.S. News: China Sets Ambitious Space Goals. April 15 2010.) __China's manned space program aims to leapfrog the U.S. by deploying advanced spacecraft and in-orbit refueling systems as early as 2016__, when American astronauts still may be relying on rides on Russian spaceships. __Wang Wenbao, the head of China's manned space engineering office, disclosed the new details about Beijing's growing exploration ambitions__ in an interview Wednesday. In less than 20 years, China has come from having no space program to one that seeks to move into the lead by relying on an extensive web of universities, government research offices and manufacturing facilities. With unwavering government support and more than 100 facilities contributing to manned exploration projects, Beijing appears committed to independent missions in deep space, perhaps as soon as the end of this decade. China is putting the pieces in place to be able to assemble large spacecraft in orbit, which is the only way to have manned vehicles penetrate deeper into the solar system. The American space shuttle fleet is to retire in a few months, and -- even under the most optimistic projections -- the National Aeronautics and Space Administration over the next several years will have to rely on Russia to get its crews to the international space station. NASA officials already have said it would take them until at least 2015 just to decide on the design of a U.S. heavy-lift rocket. The Obama administration has indicated its desire to expand international cooperation in manned exploration. NASA head Charles Bolden has said: "We won't be able to go to Mars, we won't be able to go back to the moon, unless we partner with other countries." In his first interview ever with Western reporters, __Mr. Wang said that before 2016 Chinese astronauts are expected to be practicing docking maneuvers__ between orbiting spacecraft and cargo vehicles. __That would be a prelude to "long-term operation of a space station____ ," __ he said. __Looking ahead__ to an expected visit to China by Mr. Bolden, __Mr. Wang indicated that Beijing was ready to discuss various forms of cooperation. Considering the "need for a large plan and budget" for space missions, Mr. Wang said it was important for "various countries to cooperatively explore" deep space.__ Without going into details, he also said that "for the moment, __we think there is a [possibility] of a joint space flight" using both U.S. and Chinese crews.__ But no details have been discussed. In a speech to an international space symposium here, Mr. Wang said his agency recently finished choosing its latest crop of astronauts, and that two of the seven are women, another first for Beijing. China has focused on space not just as a dramatic symbol of national pride but also as a potentially huge commercial and national-security advantage. __By leveraging the central government's ability to set sweeping industrial policy, Chinese space officials also are in the midst of ambitious efforts to launch a host of commercial and scientific satellites,__ and to develop robotic rovers for the lunar surface. Commenting on NASA's push to cut costs by relying on commercial solutions, Mr. Bolden's Chinese counterpart said, __"__ __We can understand the practical problems the Americans face" in space-exploration budgets. Mr. Wang said one way to make space exploration affordable was to step up discussions of international cooperation.__

Rutkowski 09 Ryan Rutkowski – masters candidate specializing in international relations in U.S.-Sino cooperation at Johns Hopkins University, February 21, 2009, “The Prospect of US – China Collaboration for Manned-Space Exploration”, Lexis However, __the continued reluctance to pursue U.S. and China space cooperation, ignores the benefits of such cooperation__, namely __promote mutual understanding, cost savings, improved transparency, and ensuring long-term gains in human space exploration__. __Similar with US-Russian cooperation, US-Chinese space cooperation will allow for a cultural exchange through collaboration with__ US and Chinese __astronauts and scientists__. __China could be a vital source of funding to reduce the rising costs for an expanding U.S. space program__. Indeed, China and the US could collaborate on joint-projects, such as ISS or even a lunar base that could help __reduce the cost of investment in space exploration for both countries. US-China space collaboration would__ also __reduce security tensions__, __especially in space-based weapons, by increasing transparency of the long-term intentions of both countries in space technolog__y. Finally, U.S. and Chinese civilian space __programs could recognize a common purpose and commitment to the development of space technology to promote progress in human space exploration to__ the moon, __mars__, and beyond. U.S-China space cooperation is vital to future progress in space technology and space exploration. The U.S. and China could engage in non-sensitive data and information sharing from satellites, such as debris management, environmental and meteorological conditions, and navigation. The two countries could also engage in a space policy dialogue similar to the annual strategic economic dialogue to build a better understanding of civilian and military space objectives and a common vision for space exploration initiatives. Finally, __the U.S. and China could launch bi-lateral and multi-lateral joint-projects with__ ISS, lunar expeditions, and eventual __mars exploration__. Ultimately, __the future of U.S.-China space cooperation is a necessity for continuation of human progress in exploring our planet__, solar system, and worlds beyond.
 * Cooperating with China solves best **

US-China space coop prevents miscalculation in space Hayes 09 Tracey L. Hayes -- Lieutenant at the US Air Force, (“Proposal for a Cooperative Space Strategy with China”, 12/06/2009) Prevent Crisis Escalation __. Communication between the U.S. and China on space issues has been limited.__ Accordingly __, there is a great deal of misinterpretation,__ misrepresentation and poor assumptions __made by each side as to their__ respective __intentions in space__. The U.S. must not assume it understands the intentions of China and should strive to learn more from China through study and personal interaction. Two Congressmen, Reps. Mark Kirk and Rick Larsen reinforce this idea. They serve as cochairs of the U.S.-China Working Group in the House of Representatives (as of Jan 2006). The working group was formed in Jun 2005 to raise awareness about China among Congressional members and advise them on how to work with the country. Rep. Kirk has stated that “the House view toward China is relentlessly negative and highly misinformed.”119 __Lack of communication breeds mutual suspicion and uncertainty. The more informed one is__ about another nation’s culture, history and normal social behaviors, __the more the tide of misperception can be stemmed. Increased dialogue__ between the U.S. and China __would lay the ground work for bilateral security arrangements__, force posture __and the use of space__. Even during the most tenuous times in the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia were able to agree to treaties such as Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty (SALT) and the 1972 ABM Treaty. Although these treaties were arguably the result of a common understanding that national survival was at stake, lessons learned can and should be effectively applied in other situations. Strategic dialogue also helps to “put a face to the name” and increase familiarity between both parties. Over time, such __communication will__ facilitate a shared vocabulary and establish formal and informal __guidelines to distinguish between appropriate and destabilizing behavior.__ Further, data shared between countries would be considered more trustworthy. This would create an atmosphere such that the U.S. may open opportunities to share pertinent information or intelligence on potential anti-U.S. actors to help China assess their future relationships and collaboration with those countries__.__ __If agreements__ between China and the U.S. were made today before a potential “space race” begins, this would __help both sides avoid miscalculation by tempering mistrust and uncertainty with__ a degree of __transparency and predictability,__ thus __preventing__ potential __crisis escalation.__ China will agree - they want want U.S-Chinese cooperation Cheng et. al 6 (Dean, Chinese Affairs, 8-6, http://www.highfrontier.org/Archive/hf/Finkelstein%20China's%20Space%20Program.pdf, accessed 6-30, JG) Despite much recent talk of Chinese development of ASATs, the speaker noted that no ASAT facilities have been publicly identified. The speaker wondered whether this is because such facilities exist hut are hidden, or whether it is because they do not, in fact, actually exist. In this regard, it was observed that __China is actively supporting efforts to prohibit ASAT technology, and__ at international negotiations and conferences __has generally opposed the weaponization of space__. The speaker further suggested that China's interests in space arms control were linked to preventing further advances in US missile defense capabilities, and that China is more concerned about forestalling US development of an ABM capability (especially one that had space-based components) than about necessarily limiting current space technologies and capabilities. __In light of this, it was proposed that the U__ nited __S__ tates __and the PRC might find common ground in stopping the development of ASAT capabilities__ and promoting mutual transparency. __Cooperation in this area would simultaneously protect US assets and help Chinese commercial efforts__. Another suggestion was that the United States cooperate with the PRC in developing international norms, perhaps in such areas as orbital crowding and controls on debris. The speaker also raised the possibility of joint satellite tracking and joint development of space surveil-lance data. Given the American lead in space surveillance, the speaker suggested that the US might forestall Chinese development of an indigenous space surveil-lance system by sharing such data with Beijing… Moreover, __US-Chinese space cooperation is unlikely to occur on its own terms__. __Rather, it likely would occur only as part of a "grand bargain"__ ( a phrase that was specifically used) __marking a broader, strategic-level change in US-Chinese relations__. This change would require the perception that cooperation would he mutually beneficial—i.e., that __the U__ nited __S__ tates __would gain something from the Chinese, as well as vice versa__. From the US Government's perspective, it was suggested, __space cooperation with the PRC is possible only if there is a quid pro quo__. That has been a hallmark of both major ongoing US cooperative space efforts: those with Russia, and those with India.

=China Relations DA=

US-China realtions are high due to cooperation – Communication proves Tran 10 Euhwa Tran December 17, 2010 (Euhwa, http://www.ewi.info/discreet-communication-bolster-us-china-relations ,6/22/11) __ More discreet communication and non-official forms of candid exchange would bolster relations between the U __ nited __S__tates and __China__, suggests Wang Jiarui, Minister of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (IDCPC). __Wang spoke at the EastWest Institute (EWI) on December 8, 2010, to an audience that included EWI Co-Chairman Ross Perot, Jr.__ (who chaired the event); __Edward Cox__, Chairman of the New York Republican State Committee; __Maurice Greenberg__, Chairman __and CEO of C.V. Starr & Co., Inc__.; __Winston Lord, former U.S. Ambassador to China; and Frank G. Wisner, Jr., International Affairs Advisor at Patton Boggs LLP. Wang shared his__ first-hand __impressions of the United States and China’s approach__ to __addressing various global challenges__. In his speech, Wang endorsed a piece of advice given to him by Henry Kissinger, a former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor who helped normalize relations between the U.S. and China in the 1970s__. Kissinger had suggested__ that __the two countries find solutions to differences in private__ __rather than present the contents of all conversations publicly to the media.__ Wang emphasized the value of this kind of discreet communication in approaching the North Korean leadership, particularly during the current crisis on the peninsula. Regarding U.S. calls for China to take more forceful action against North Korea, he noted that his country does not publicize all that it does. __Therefore,__ simply __because__ __China has not announced that it is conducting quiet diplomacy does not mean that it__ i__s not doing so.__ __Wang also suggested more candid exchanges between the U__nited __S__tates and __China__, __similar to the 2nd U.S.-China High-Level Political Party Leaders Dialogue recently convened in Washington, D.C.__ __Lauding the dialogue__ as an important new platform for promoting relations between the two countries__, he proposed the possibility of organizing additional dialogues between various groups, such as businessmen or youth.__ Citing interest by Ohio political leaders in attracting Chinese businesses to their state, __Wang stressed__, for example, __the constructive role that a dialogue between Chinese and U.S. businessmen could play.__ This speech came at the end of a nine-day, four-city visit of the United States by a 22-member Communist Party of China (CPC) delegation led by Wang. __Following the dialogue sessions in Washington, D.C. with Democratic and Republican leaders, the CPC delegation visited Chicago, Illinois, and Columbus, Ohio, before concluding their trip in New York City. In Chicago and Columbus, the delegation had meetings with a number of prominent local Republicans and Democrats__ (including Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, and Ohio Governor-Elect John Kasich), __members of the Midwest U.S.-China Association, leading Ohio businessmen, and The Ohio State University President Gordon Gee. In New York, the delegation also met with Dr. Henry Kissinger.__ And, the US and China are already cooperating on space issues, unilateral action by the US crushes all relations Klotz 2010 [Space reporter for Discovery News. Irene. “ U.S. Opens Space Doors to China.” Discovery News. http://news.discovery.com/space/nasa-space-china.html Accessed on June 26] __The next time the United States decides to venture into space, it won't be going alone. Future missions beyond Earth will include Russian, European, Japanese, Canadian and possibly Chinese partners, under a new national space policy unveiled by the Obama administration__ this week. __The ventures will start with projects to build confidence, gain trust and find common ground, such as cleaning up orbital debris, sharing climate information about the planet and collaborating on science missions.__ The International Space Station could even be tapped for trial runs, though obstacles remain. "I think it's a little premature to talk about China and the space station," said Jim Kohlenberger, chief of staff of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. "It's obviously a very complex policy issue." __China carries__ considerable baggage, including its development, sales and use of military technologies, but also a key asset: __a proven space transportation system, something the United States will soon be without. Two space shuttle missions remain before the fleet is retired after 30 years of service, primarily because of high operating costs.__ Obama wants to buy astronauts rides on commercial carriers, but none currently exist. That leaves the United States dependent on Russia to fly astronauts to the station. "We're rather thin in launch capabilities right now," said Joan Johnson-Freese, who oversees the Naval War College's department of National Security Studies. China's human space program made its debut in 2003 with the launching of its first astronaut into orbit aboard a capsule known as Shenzhou. Five more Chinese astronauts flew during follow-on missions in 2005 and 2008, the latter of which included a spacewalk. China has announced plans to build a space station, the first piece of which is scheduled for launch next year. Under the new U.S. space policy, "at least we're going to stop pretending that the Chinese don't exist in terms of space exploration," Johnson-Freese told Discovery News. "Now the doors are open." The biggest stumbling block is going to be the fact that technologies developed for space can be used for military applications. "It's going to be politically difficult," said Johnson-Freese. "If we were to be doing a manned mission (with China), there will be many people anxious to point out what the technology can do in a nefarious state. The list will be long and endless since we already have these people who are making a career out of portraying the Chinese manned space program as a military program." __Preliminary steps to space partnerships could include Chinese involvement in tracking and cleaning up space debris.__ China intentionally destroyed one of its weather satellites in orbit to test a missile, creating more than 2,300 pieces of debris large enough to be tracked by ground radars and millions of smaller pieces. __The debris is a collision threat to operational spacecraft orbiting Earth. Chinese and U.S. scientists already have been collaborators on a few research projects, including an exchange of Earth environmental data. "Initially, we'll start out with science,__ just like what we did with Japan and Russia," said Johnson-Freese __. "Then we'll see what it is that the Chinese can contribute beyond launch capability."__

Maintaining US-China realtions are critical to solve the economy, energy security, climate change, proliferation, and terrorism – The alternative is extinction. Cohen 2009 [Maurice R. Greenberg is chairman and CEO of C.V. Starr & Co., Inc. “Smart Power in U.S.-China Relations,” pg online @ http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090309_mcgiffert_uschinasmartpower_web.pdf //ef) The evolution of __Sino-U.S. relations__ over the next months, years, and decades __has the potential to have a greater impact on global security__ and prosperity than any other bilateral or multilateral arrangement. In this sense, many analysts consider the US.-China diplomatic relationship to be the most influential in the world. Without question, strong and stable U.S. alliances provide the foundation for the protection and promotion of U.S. and global interests. Yet within that broad framework, the trajectory of __U.S.-China relations will determine the success__, or failure , __of efforts to address the toughest global challenges:__ global __financial stability, energy security and climate change, nonproliferation, and terrorism__ , among other pressing issues__.__ Shepherding that trajectory in the most constructive direction possible must therefore be a priority for Washington and Beijing. Virtually __no major global challenge can be met without U.S.-China cooperation__. The uncertainty of that future trajectory and the "strategic mistrust" between leaders in Washington and Beijing necessarily concerns many experts and policymakers in both countries. Although some U.S. analysts see China as a strategic competitor—deliberately vying with the United States for energy resources, military superiority, and international political influence alike— analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has generally found that China uses its soft power to pursue its own, largely economic, international agenda primarily to achieve its domestic objectives of economic growth and social stability.1 Although Beijing certainly has an eye on Washington, not all of its actions are undertaken as a counterpoint to the United States. In addition, CSIS research suggests that growing Chinese soft power in developing countries may have influenced recent U.S. decisions to engage more actively and reinvest in soft-power tools that have atrophied during the past decade. To the extent that there exists a competition between the United States and China, therefore, it may be mobilizing both countries to strengthen their ability to solve global problems. To be sure, U.S. and Chinese policy decisions toward the respective other power will be determined in large part by the choices that leaders make about their own nations interests at home and overseas, which in turn are shaped by their respective domestic contexts. Both parties must recognize—and accept—that the other will pursue a foreign policy approach that is in its own national interest. Yet, in a globalized world, challenges are increasingly transnational, and so too must be their solutions. As demonstrated by the rapid spread of SARS from China in 2003, __pandemic flu can be spread rapidly__ through air and via international travel. Dust particulates from Asia settle in Lake Tahoe. An economic downturn in one country can and does trigger an economic slowdown in another. These challenges can no longer be addressed by either containment or isolation. What constitutes the national interest today necessarily encompasses a broader and more complex set of considerations than it did in the past As a general principle, the United States seeks to promote its national interest while it simultaneously pursues what the CSIS Commission on Smart Power called in its November 2007 report the "global good."3 This approach is not always practical or achievable, of course. But neither is it pure benevolence. Instead, a strategic pursuit of the global good accrues concrete benefits for the United States (and others) in the form of building confidence, legitimacy, and political influence in key countries and regions around the world in ways that enable the United States to better confront global and transnational challenges. In short, the global good comprises those things that all people and governments want but have traditionally not been able to attain in the absence of U.S. leadership. Despite historical, cultural, and political differences between the United States and China, Beijing's newfound ability, owing to its recent economic successes, to contribute to the global good is a matter for common ground between the two countries. Today there is increasing recognition that __no__ major global __challenge can be__ addressed effectively, much less __resolved, without__ the active engagement of—and __cooperation between—the United States and China__.

=Spending DA= Unfortunately, **__the Administration’s initial suggestions to freeze spending at current levels, combined with its continued commitment to more failed stimulus-style spending __**, eludes the real kind of change that needs to take place in Washington. **__With our national debt soaring past $14 trillion and our deficit reaching nearly $1.5 trillion, freezing spending at an artificially high and accelerated level is not enough. And with unemployment continuing to remain at an unacceptable rate, the last thing we need is more government spending, more taxing, and more borrowing. __**To truly turn our economy around, we need a renewed commitment to the kinds of policies that will inject a level of certainty into our economy that will give our job creators the confidence necessary to hire and expand once again. **__Reining in government spending and returning to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, reducing unnecessary regulations, and forcing our government to live within its means by passing a balanced budget amendment are all steps in the right direction __**. The actions next week in the House will seek to continue to move our economy forward as we chart a new course of fiscal discipline and restraint. For the first time in years, the House will debate cutting government spending rather than increasing it as we initiate the consideration of a budget proposal for the remaining seven months of this fiscal year. This historic bill stands in direct contrast to last year’s Congress, which failed to propose or even pass a budget **__, allowing government spending to go unchecked and putting us on an unsustainable path that threatens the economic outlook of our country. __**
 * A. Uniqueness - Spending decreasing now, NASA budgets are constrained. **
 * Space Politics.com 5/13/11 ** “Another sign of tight budgets ahead” http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/05/13/another-sign-of-tight-budgets-ahead/
 * __It’s been clear for some time that the budget environment for the next fiscal year (and beyond) will be constrained, given concerns about __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> massive budget **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">deficits __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> and the nation’s growing debt. **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">This week has given another clue about how tight those budgets might be for __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> next year for **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">NASA __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">and other agencies. **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">The House Appropriations Committee released __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> its draft **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">funding allocations __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> for FY12, broken down by subcommittee. **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">For Commerce, Justice, and Science, which includes NASA, the current “notional” spending allocation is $50.2 billion, compared to __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> $53.3 billion in 2011 and nearly **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">$57.7 billion in the administration’s 2012 budget request __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">. In 2011 NASA’s funding of just under $18.5 billion accounted for nearly 35 percent of the subcommittee’s total; **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">if that fraction holds in 2012 NASA would end up with about $17.5 billion, or more than $1 billion less than the agency’s request of $18.7 billion __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">.
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;">B. Link – New Spending destroys fiscal discipline **
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;">Hurt **<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">2-14- **<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;">11 **<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> [Robert Hurt, Virginia Congressman, “Charting A New Course Of Fiscal Discipline And Restraint,” February 14, 2011, []]

<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">On Monday, the United States reached the legal limit of its borrowing authority – further evidence that **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">out-of-control spending is a matter of national security. __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> Serious reforms and government **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">spending cuts need to be made to avoid severe economic disruptions __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> – both __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">in the short and long-term __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">. The national debt and deficits are rising at an unconscionable rate. The national debt now exceeds $14 trillion, and the government is still piling up debt at the rate of $200 million an hour, $30 billion a week, $120 billion a month and $1.6 trillion a year. It’s clear we don’t have a revenue problem – we have a spending problem. Raising the debt ceiling without these serious reforms will only burden our future generations with outrageous debt. Worse, the president and Senate Democrats are saying they want a “clean” debt ceiling increase, which means that they want to continue spending and borrowing more money with no strings attached. My view is we must not raise the debt ceiling by $1 without simultaneously making deep cuts in spending and taking real steps towards a balanced budget. **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">It is imperative to the future of the country that we fight for an immediate shift toward fiscal responsibility __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">. __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 7pt;">That is why I, along with my colleagues in the Republican Study Committee (RSC), wrote a letter to House Speaker John Boehner asking him to “Cut, Cap and Balance.” Specifically, we advocated for discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year; enacting statutory, enforceable total-spending caps to reduce federal spending to 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); and a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and including a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA). This proposal will put us on a path to prosperity, and I will work to see provisions like this are included in any final agreement. I believe it is prudent to limit the extension of borrowing authority as much as possible, in order to demand accountability from Senate Democrats and the Obama Administration. Every day, we see more and more evidence of the need to confront the problem now <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">. **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">The __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">International Monetary Fund **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">( __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">IMF __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">) __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">report __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> released in April **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">adds urgency to the need for meaningful actions __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> — both short and long-term — __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">to confront the nation's debt head-on __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">. __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">Additionally, **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">Moody's __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">Analytics **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">released a report __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> several weeks ago **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">forecasting a downgrade in our country’s bond rating __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">. It’s clear that __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">if we fail to stop the spending spree, our nation will face economic collapse __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">in the long-term. __** <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">global chaos __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">followed __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> hard on economic collapse __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">. __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">The threat of instability is a pressing concern __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">China faced __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> upward of **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">70,000 labor uprisings a year __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">. __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">A __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">Russia __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> continuing __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">threatening posture toward __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">Russia's __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">neighbors __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">, __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">is likely __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">. __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">Europe __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">. __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">A __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> prolonged global downturn __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">, __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">let alone a collapse __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">, __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">would dramatically raise tensions __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> inside these countries __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">. __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">Couple that with __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> possible protectionist legislation in the United States, **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. **__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">The result may __****__<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang __**<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">.
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;">C. Impact - Continued deficit spending collapses the economy **
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;">Roe 11 **<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> (Phil, member of the Education and Workforce Committee and Representative from Tennessee, “Cut, cap and balance: A fight toward fiscal responsibility,” 5-18, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/05/navy_plebes_scale_herndon_monu.html)
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;">D. Global nuclear war **
 * <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">Auslin 9 **<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187)

=NASA Tradeoff DA=
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Unique link- Congress will force an internal tradeoff for new NASA spending **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13pt;">Svitak, 3/29 **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;"> [Amy Svitak; Senior Writer – Space.com, “NASA’s Budget Could Get Infusion From Other U.S. Departments,” March 29, 2011, [], DA 7/24/11]//RS

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;">C __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">ongressional appropriators could tap the funding accounts of the U.S. departments of Commerce and Justice to help cover __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;"> what some see as __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">a $1 billion shortfall in NASA’s __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;"> $18.7 billion __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">spending plan for 2012 __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;">, which allocates less money for a heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule than Congress directed last year. “There’s over a billion-dollar difference between the budget request and the authorized levels in [20]12 for the launch system and the crew vehicle, and now that falls squarely back on the shoulders of [the appropriations committees] to try and figure out where to come up with that money,” said a panelist at a March 23 breakfast on Capitol Hill. Sponsored by Women in Aerospace (WIA), the breakfast was held under the Chatham House Rule, an 84-year-old protocol fashioned by the London-based nonprofit think-tank to promote frank discussion through anonymity. [What Obama and Congress Should Do for Spaceflight] __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">The panelist, __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;"> one of six whose names and job titles were circulated by WIA prior to the meeting, __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">said funding requested in NASA’s 2012 spending plan does not square with levels Congress set in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;">U.S. President Barack __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">Obama signed into law in October __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;">. Specifically, the request called for spending $1.2 billion less than the $4 billion Congress authorized for the heavy-lift launch vehicle and crew capsule in 2012. At the same time, the request includes $350 million more than the $500 million Congress authorized to nurture development of commercial vehicles to deliver cargo and crews to the International Space Station after the space shuttle retires later this year. Consequently, the panelist said, __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">it is now up to congressional appropriators __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;"> “to find a billion dollars in other places in NASA to pay for those activities or __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">to decide to make those tradeoffs and take that money out of __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;">the departments of Commerce or Justice __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;"> or the other agencies that are funded in the same bill as NASA __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;">.” NASA’s annual appropriation is part of a broader spending package totaling nearly $65 billion that funds the U.S. Commerce and Justice departments, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and related agencies. But __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">with NASA __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;">and other federal agencies __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">operating in a fiscally constrained environment, the panelist said Congress could struggle to fund new multibillion-dollar programs next year __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;">. “It’s not impossible but the ability to do that is severely constrained in the environment we’re working in now, and that’s exacerbated by budget requests coming up from the administration that don’t track with the authorization,” the panelist said. __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">Congress has yet to pass an appropriations bill for 2011, leaving NASA and most federal agencies to subsist at 2010 spending levels in the current budget year __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;">. T __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">he panelist said passing spending legislation for NASA “is a complicated and challenging thing this year, and it will be again next year” given a fiscal climate that has changed dramatically authorized funding levels for the space agency were set last fall. __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 8pt;">However, the panelist said the appropriations subcommittees that fund NASA are “very supportive of the agency, they’re supportive of the authorization, they want to see NASA get as close as possible to those authorized levels, so that will be a work in progress.”


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Empirically true- NASA administrators empirically cut science research to fund exploration **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13pt;">SSB 06 **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;"> (Space Studies Board, AN ASSESSMENT OF BALANCE IN NASA’S SCIENCE PROGRAMS, http http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11644&page=6)

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">Thus, **__a broad program of scientific studies continues to be an integral element of NASA’s charter, but a challenge remains to accomplish a balanced scientific program within a broader__**, balanced **__portfolio of commitments that also must include human spaceflight__** and aeronautical research. In presenting NASA’s proposed program and budget for FY 2007 to the House Science Committee on February 16, 2006, **__Administrator Griffin said,__** “**__The plain fact is that NASA simply cannot afford to do everything__** that our many constituencies would like the agency to do. **__We must set priorities, and we must adjust our spending to match those priorities. NASA needed to take budgeted funds from the Science__** and Exploration **__budget__** projections for FY 2007-11 **__in order to ensure that enough funds were available__** to the Space Shuttle and the ISS. Thus, **__NASA can not afford the costs of starting some new space science missions.”__** With respect to research in the microgravity sciences Griffin noted, “While **__NASA needed to significantly curtail projected funding for__** biological and physical **__sciences research__** on the [ISS] as well as various research and technology projects **__in order to fund development for__** the CEV [Crew **__Exploration__** Vehicle], the U.S. segment of the [ISS] was designated a National Laboratory in the NASA Authorization Act…. However, the research utilization of the ISS is limited primarily due to limited cargo and crew transportation.”

__<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">Until this year, America’s civil space policies—and the budgets that derive from it—were shaped to a considerable degree by the political imperatives of the past and by the romantic fiction of spaceflight. We believe there is a new imperative—climate change—that should take precedence in our national plans for space and that the goal for space spending in the next decade should be to create a robust and adequate Earth observation architecture**. There is unequivocal evidence, despite careless mistakes and noisy protests, that Earth’s climate is warming** __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">. While the effects and implications of this are subject to speculation, there should be no doubt that the world faces a major challenge. There are important shortfalls in data and analysis needed to manage this challenge. __Inadequate data mean that we cannot determine the scope or nature of change in some key areas__, such as the melting of Antarctic sea ice. Long-term changes in daily temperature are not adequately understood, in part because of limited observations of atmospheric changes. Our understanding of how some anthropogenic (man-made) influences affect climate change is still incomplete. 1 These shortfalls must be remedied, if only to overcome skepticism and doubt__. Climate change now occupies a central place on the global political agenda, and the United States should adjust its space policies to reflect this. Assessing and managing climate change will require taking what has largely been a scientific enterprise and “operationalizing” it__. Operationalization means creating processes to provide the data and analysis that governments will need if they are to implement policies and regulations to soften the effects of climate change. Operationalization requires the right kind of data and adequate tools for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating that data in ways that inform decisionmaking at many levels of society**__. Satellites play a central role in assessing climate change because they can provide a consistent global view, important data, and an understanding of change in important but remote areas__**. Yet there are relatively few climate satellites—a total of 19, many of which are well past their expected service life. Accidents or failures would expose the fragility of the Earth observation system. 2 We lack the required sensors and instruments for the kinds of measurement that would make predictions more accurate and solutions more acceptable. Weather satellites, which take low-resolution pictures of clouds, forests, and ice caps, are not adequate to the task. **__NASA builds impressive Earth observation satellites for climate change__**, but these have been experimental rather than ongoing programs. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">A good example of how scientific evidence drives our understanding concerns how __we know that humans are the dominant cause of global warming__. This is, of course, the deniers’ favorite topic. __Since it is increasingly obvious that the climate is changing and the planet is warming__, the remaining deniers have coalesced to defend their Alamo — that human emissions aren’t the cause of recent climate change and therefore that reducing those emissions is pointless. Last year, longtime Nation columnist <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">Alexander Cockburn wrote <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">, “There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world’s present warming trend. __The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind’s sinful contribution__.” In fact, the evidence is amazingly strong. Moreover, if the relatively complex climate models are oversimplified in any respect, it is by omitting amplifying feedbacks and other factors that suggest human-caused climate change will be worse than is widely realized. The <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">IPCC concluded <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;"> last year: “__Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely (>90 percent) caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years__. This conclusion takes into account … the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models.” Scientists have come to understand that “__forcings__” (natural and __human-made__) __explain most of the changes in our climate and temperature__ both __in recent__ __decades__ and over the past millions of years. __The primary human-made forcings are the heat-trapping greenhouse gases we generate, particularly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and natural gas__. The natural forcings include fluctuations in the intensity of sunlight (which can increase or decrease warming), and major volcanoes that inject huge volumes of gases and aerosol particles into the stratosphere (which tend to block sunlight and cause cooling)…. Over and over again, scientists have demonstrated that observed changes in the climate in recent decades can only be explained by taking into account the observed combination of human and natural forcings. Natural forcings alone just don’t explain what is happening to this planet. For instance, in April 2005, one of the nation’s top climate scientists, NASA’s James Hansen, led a team of scientists that made “precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years,” which revealed that the Earth is absorbing far more heat than it is emitting to space, confirming what earlier computer models had shown about warming. <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">Hansen called <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;"> this energy imbalance the “smoking gun” of climate change, and said, “There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming.” Another 2005 study, led by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, compared actual ocean temperature data from the surface down to hundreds of meters (in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans) with climate models and <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">concluded <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">: A warming signal has penetrated into the world’s oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically [human-caused] forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Such studies are also done for many other observations: land-based temperature rise, atmospheric temperature rise, sea level rise, arctic ice melt, inland glacier melt, Greeland and Antarctic ice sheet melt, expansion of the tropics (desertification) and changes in precipitation. Studies compare every testable prediction from climate change theory and models (and suggested by paleoclimate research) to actual observations. How many studies? Well, the IPCC’s definitive treatment of the subject, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change,” has 11 full pages of references, some 500 peer-reviewed studies. This is not a consensus of opinion. It is what scientific research and actual observations reveal. And the science behind human attribution has gotten much stronger in the past 2 years (see a recent literature review by the Met Office <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">here <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">). That brings us to another problem with the word “consensus.” It can mean “unanimity” or “the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.” Many, if not most, people hear the second meaning: “consensus” as majority opinion. The scientific consensus most people are familiar with is the IPCC’s “Summary for Policymakers” reports. But those aren’t a majority opinion. Government representatives participate in a line-by-line review and revision of these summaries. So China, Saudi Arabia and that hotbed of denialism — the Bush administration — get to veto anything they don’t like. The deniers call this “politicized science,” suggesting the process turns the IPCC summaries into some sort of unscientific exaggeration. In fact, the reverse is true. The net result is unanimous agreement on a conservative or watered-down document. You could argue that rather than majority rules, this is “minority rules.” Last April, in an article titled “Conservative Climate,” <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">Scientific American <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;"> noted that objections by Saudi Arabia and China led the IPCC to remove a sentence stating that __the impact of human greenhouse gas emissions on the Earth’s recent warming is five times greater than that of the sun__. In fact, lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England said, “__The difference is really a factor of 10__.” Then I discuss the evidence we had even back in 2008 that the IPCC was underestimating key climate impacts, a point I <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">update here <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">. __The bottom line is that recent observations and research make clear the planet almost certainly faces a greater and more imminent threat__ than is laid out in the IPCC reports. __That’s why climate scientists are so desperate__. __That’s why they keep begging for immediate action__. And that’s why the “consensus on global warming” is a phrase that should be forever retired from the climate debate. The leading scientific organizations in this country and around the world, including all the major national academies of science, aren’t buying into some sort of consensus of opinion. They have analyzed the science and observations and expressed __their understanding of climate science and the likely impacts we face on our current emissions path__ — an understanding that has grown increasingly dire in recent years (see “__An illustrated guide to the latest climate science” and “An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water__“).
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">NASA is key to keeping global warming in check **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13pt;">Lewis, Ladislaw, and Zheng 10 **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;">[Lewis - senior fellow and director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at CSIS. Sarah O. - senior fellow in the Energy and National Security Program at CSIS Denise E. Zheng, June 2010, “ Earth Observation for Climate Change,” []]
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Warming leads to extinction – try or die **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 13pt;">Romm 10 **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 10pt;"> (Jon, Editor of Climate Progress, “Disputing the “consensus” on global warming,” http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/16/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-climate-science/, JG)

=Militarization DA= US is not weaponizing space now de Selding 2-20- 0 9, Peter B.: Space News Staff Writer [“Pentagon Official: U.S. Is Not Developing Space Weapons,” @http://www.space.com/news/090220-pentagon-space-weapons.html ]

STRASBOURG, France - The U nited S tates is not developing space weapons and could not afford to do so even if it wanted to, an official with the Pentagon's National Security Space Office said Thursday. Pete Hays, a senior policy analyst at the space office who is also associate director of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said U.S. policy on space weaponry has remained pretty much the same over the last 30 years despite the occasionally heated debate on the subject during the administration of former U.S. President George W. Bush. "There has not been one minute spent on this issue as far as I know," Hays said of U.S. Defense Department policy on using weapons in space. "There are no space weaponization programs. It's an issue that academics like to flog now and then, but in terms of funded programs, there aren't any . I can tell you that categorically." Hays made his remarks during a space security conference organized by the International Space University here. He said that even if the United States decided to embark on a space-based weapon system, it could not pay for it given its current military program commitments. Hays said the U.S. policy of refusing to sign a treaty banning space-based weapons has not changed since the 1970s. Despite occasional efforts, no administration, Democrat or Republican, has been able to craft an acceptable treaty. Hays said he cannot explain why a policy statement from the new administration of President Barack Obama appears to highlight a priority of seeking a worldwide ban on weapons that would interfere with satellites. "This will be an extremely difficult policy to adopt" for the same reasons that other administrations have fallen short, Hays said. "It is not for lack of trying that the United States and others have been unable" to produce a treaty. Space exploration leads to militarization Duvall & Havercroft '6 – *Professor of Political Science @ Univ. of Minnesota and Associate Director of the Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Global Change AND **Assistant Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Oklahoma (Raymond and Johnathan, March 2006, "Taking Sovereignty Out of This World: Space Weaponization and the Production of Late-Modern Political Subjects," Ebsco, RG) The weaponization of space  the act of placing weapons in outer space  has an intimate relationship to space exploration, in that the history of the former is embedded in the latter , while the impetus for space exploration , in turn, is embedded in histories of military development. Since the launch of Sputnik, states that have ability to access  and hence to explore outer space have sought ways in which that access could improve their military capabilities. Consequently, militaries in general and the U.S. military inparticular have had a strong interest in the military uses of space forthe last half century. Early on, the military interest in space had two direct expressions: enhancingsurveillance; and developing rocketry technologies that could be put to use for earth-based weapons, such as missiles. Militaries also have a vested interest in the “dual-use” technologies that are often developed in space exploration missions. While NASA goes to great lengths in itspublic relations to stress the benefits to science and the (American) public of its space explorations, it is noteworthy that many of the technologies developed for those missions also have potential military use. The multiple interests that tie together space exploration andspace weaponization have been vigorously pursuedand now are beginning to be substantially realized by a very small number of militaries, most notably that of the United States. For example, since the 1990 Persian Gulf War, the U.S. military has increasingly reliedon assets in space to increase its C3I (Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence) functions. Most of these functions are nowrouted through satellites in orbit. In addition, new precision weapons, such as JDAM bombs, and unmanned drones, such as the Predator,rely on Global Positioning System satellites to help direct them to their targets, and often these weapons communicate with headquartersthrough satellite uplinks. For another instance, NASA’s recently completed Deep Impact mission, which entailed smashing part of aprobe into a comet to gather information about the content of comet nuclei, directly served the U.S. military in developing the technologyand the logistical capabilities to intercept small objects moving at very fast speeds (approximately 23,000 miles per hour) (NASA, 2005).As such, the technologies can be adapted for programs such as missile defense, where a similar problem of intercepting an object movingat a very high speed is confronted No space arms race now, but US militarization causes nuclear war with Russia Rozoff '9 – Correspondent on Geopolitics and US Foreign Policy with the Centre for Research on Globalization (Rick, 6/19/09, "Militarization Of Space: Threat Of Nuclear War On Earth," http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/militarization-of-space-threat-of-nuclear-war-on-earth-by-rick-rozoff/, RG) On June 17, immediately after the historical ninth heads of state summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Yekaterinburg, Russia on the preceding two days, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao announced that their nations were drafting a joint treaty to ban the deployment of weapons in outer space to be presented to the United Nations General Assembly. A statement by the presidents reflected a common purpose to avoid the militarization of space and said: “ Russia and China advocate peaceful uses of outer space and oppose the prospect of it being turned into a new area for deploying weapons. “ The sides will actively facilitate practical work on a draft treaty on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space, and of the use of force or threats to use force against space facilities, and will continue an intensive coordination of efforts to guarantee the security of activities in outer space .” [1] The statement also addressed the question of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its global expansion as well as an integrally related danger, the US-led drive to development a worldwide – and more than worldwide – interceptor missile system aimed at neutralizing China’s and Russia’s deterrent and retaliation capacities in the event of a first strike attack on either or both. The section of the joint communique addressing the above stated, “Russia and China regard international security as integral and comprehensive. The security of some states cannot be ensured at the expense of others, including the expansion of military-political alliances or the creation of global or regional missile defense systems.” [2] The two leaders’ comments assumed greater gravity and legitimacy as Medvedev and Hu had both just attended the two-day SCO summit which included heads of states and other representatives of the SCO’s six full members [China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), its four observer states (India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan, with the heads of state of all but Mongolia participating, the first time for an Indian prime minister), the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, and attendees from Belarus and Sri Lanka, the latter also for the first time at an SCO summit. The statement by the Russian and Chinese presidents also came the day after the first-ever heads of state summit of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) nations in the same Russian city. To confirm the seriousness and urgency of Hu's and Medvedev's concerns over the expansion of the arms race and potential armed conflict into space, on the same day as their statement was released Russian Deputy Defence Minister Vladimir Popovkin addressed a press conference in Moscow and issued comments that were summarized by the local media as "Russia warns that technology failure with weapons in space may accidentally invite a massive response amounting to nuclear war." He warned that his nation's "response to American weapons in orbit would be asymmetric but adequate." [3]