West Coast – June 2012 Policy Update · Web viewThe key word, though, is eligible. Not all...

West Coast 2012June Update

West Coast – June 2012 Policy Update


Table of Contents West Coast – June 2012 Policy Update....................................................................................................1

Table of Contents................................................................................................................................2

Pu-238 Neg..............................................................................................................................................4

SQ Solves Pu-238 Production...............................................................................................................5

SQ Solves Pu-238 Production – AT: DOE Key.......................................................................................6

SQ Solves Jupiter Orbiter.....................................................................................................................7

No Space STEM Shortage.....................................................................................................................8

Competitiveness Alt-Cause..................................................................................................................9

Pu-238 Not Key Colonization.............................................................................................................11

US Not Key.........................................................................................................................................12

No Israel Iran Strike...........................................................................................................................13

Iran Strike Doesn’t Escalate...............................................................................................................14

No Iran Prolif.....................................................................................................................................15

SQ Solves Nuclear Leadreship............................................................................................................16

Non-Nuclear CP Solves JEO................................................................................................................18

Domestic Production CP Solves.........................................................................................................19

Nuclear Launch DA............................................................................................................................21

Politics Link – Pu-238 Production Unpopular.....................................................................................22

Parasitic Satellites Neg...........................................................................................................................23

AT: Space Weaponization Inevitable.................................................................................................24

No US-China Space War.....................................................................................................................25

Chinese Space Attack Fails – AT: Space Pearl Harbor........................................................................26

Yes ASATs – Scenario Non-Unique.....................................................................................................27

No US-China Escalation......................................................................................................................28

PACS = Infeasible...............................................................................................................................29

PACS = Hoax.......................................................................................................................................30

AT: Plan = Covert...............................................................................................................................31

DOD Tradeoff Links............................................................................................................................32

Politics Links – Space Weapons Unpopular........................................................................................33

Spending Links...................................................................................................................................34

Military Satellites Neg............................................................................................................................35

AT: Seabasing – Fails – Don’t Exist.....................................................................................................36

AT: Seabasing – No Transition...........................................................................................................37


AT: Hormuz Impact............................................................................................................................38

Defense Cuts Don’t Hurt Heg.............................................................................................................39

No Defense Cuts/Sequestration........................................................................................................40

Yes Naval Power................................................................................................................................42

AT: Chinese Navy Is Scary..................................................................................................................43

SQ Solves SATCOM............................................................................................................................44

SQ Solves Commercial SATCOM........................................................................................................45


Pu-238 Neg


SQ Solves Pu-238 Production

SQ solves Pu-238 shortage – we postdate all their cardsMike Wall, senior writer, 4-6-2012, “Plutonium Production May Avert Spacecraft Fuel Shortage,” Space.Com, http://www.space.com/15184-plutonium238-spacecraft-fuel-production.htmlNew batches of plutonium-238 may become available to NASA starting in 2017, perhaps preventing feared shortages of this vital spacecraft fuel. The United States hasn't produced plutonium-238 — a radioactive isotope that's been powering NASA

space probes for five decades — since the late 1980s, and planetary scientists say stockpiles are worryingly low. But a production restart is now underway , say officials with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which supplies plutonium-238 to the space

agency. "We have turned the spade in starting the project for renewed plutonium production," Wade Carroll, DOE's deputy director of space and defense power systems, said in March at the Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS) conference in The Woodlands, Texas. "It'll take probably five or six years before the next new plutonium is available."

Status quo solves Pu-238 – production restart underwayBrahmand, 4-10-2012, “NASA’s spacecraft fuel shortage can be tackled,” Defence & Aerospace News, http://brahmand.com/news/NASAs-spacecraft-fuel-shortage-can-be-tackled-by-2017-Report/9275/1/21.htmlShortage of spacecraft fuel that has cast doubts over NASA's future space missions may soon be prevented, as the US space agency is likely to receive new batches of plutonium-238 by as early as 2017. The US hasn't produced plutonium-238 -- a radioactive isotope that's been powering NASA space probes for five decades -- since the late 1980s, and planetary scientists say stockpiles are worryingly low. But a production restart is now underway, according to officials with the US Department of

Energy (DOE) that supplies plutonium-238 to the space agency. "We have turned the spade in starting the project for renewed plutonium production," Wade Carroll, DOE's deputy director of space and defence power systems, was quoted as saying by SPACE.com. "It'll take probably five or six years before the next new plutonium is available," Carroll said at the Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space conference in Texas recently. Plutonium-238 is not used to make nuclear weapons though its isotopic cousin, plutonium-239, is a common bomb-making material. However, scientists take advantage of radioactive nature of the isotope, as they convert the heat it emits to power using a device called a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG). RTGs have long been the power system of choice for NASA missions to destinations in deep space, where scant sunlight makes solar panels impractical. RTGs have powered some of the space agency's most famous spacecraft, including the Voyager probes that are nearing the edge of the Solar System and the Cassini spacecraft currently surveying Saturn and its moons. Plutonium is also fuelling NASA's New Horizons probe, which launched in 2006 and will make a close flyby of Pluto in 2015, as well as the car-size Curiosity rover, which is due to land on the Red Planet this August. While the DOE doesn't publicly disclose the size of the nation's plutonium-238 stores, many planetary scientists think the cupboard is almost bare after the November launch of Curiosity, which carries 3.6 kg of the stuff. NASA officials, for their part, have said there's enough of the isotope left to fuel space missions through 2020 or thereabouts.

Status quo solves Pu-238 productionGregory Anderson, 4-6-2012, “Plutonium-238,” The Way Out, lnThe problem is the United States stopped producing plutonium-238 in the 1980s, and now the supply of the stuff is running low, which puts future NASA exploration of the outer planets, for example, in jeopardy. The Department of Energy, however, is restarting production, and plans to have a usable supply by 2017. Of course, because of federal government budget woes, NASA

has cut way back on its outer planets exploration prograam, but if money ever flows back into that area, there should be enough plutonium-238 to power the probes all the way out.


SQ Solves Pu-238 Production – AT: DOE Key

SQ solves – NASA has SUFFICIENT funds to restart Pu238 production without the DOERichard M. Jones, American Inst. Of Physics, 4-13-2012, “FYI: The AIP Bulletin,” Number 51, AIP, http://www.aip.org/fyi/2012/051.htmlThe outlook for large flagship missions, and smaller missions was the focus of a later exchange between Mikulski and Bolden. Mikulski asked “So right now the scientific community is concerned about where are we heading with small- and medium-sized and large science missions in the future. Based on the National Academy of Sciences . . . what is in this appropriations request that raise the groundwork for future recommendations and things like dark

energy, astrophysics, heliophysics, Earth science or, are we in such an age of frugality that we aren't going to make those

investments?” Bolden replied: “Senator, we are going to continue to make those investments. You know, people talk

about flagship missions. Flagships are . . . [of] such importance to science they answer the most challenging questions. And NASA has not given up on flagship missions.” He cited the James Webb Space Telescope, the Mars science laboratory Curiosity, and the Space Launch System and Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle as examples of ongoing flagship missions. In answer to a follow-on question about smaller missions, he mentioned the Juno and GRAIL lunar missions and the Mars MAVEN mission. In discussing all of these missions, Bolden acknowledged previous cost overruns for the Webb Telescope and said “We are doing things differently than the way we used to do it. We have to deliver. We know that. . . .or otherwise we perish.” Another issue of concern regarding NASA’s

science programs is deep space exploration. During the House appropriations subcommittee hearing, Bolden was asked about the agency’s request for Pu-238, and whether there will be sufficient supplies of it for future missions. He replied “I think we have adequately funded our pushing toward start up again of plutonium production that would take care of missions that we, NASA, envision will be doing in the foreseeable future . . . .”

Status quo restart is SUFFICIENT for all NASA missions – even without DOEMike Wall, senior writer, 4-6-2012, “Plutonium Production May Avert Spacecraft Fuel Shortage,” Space.Com, http://www.space.com/15184-plutonium238-spacecraft-fuel-production.htmlNASA officials, for their part, have said there's enough of the isotope left to fuel space missions through 2020 or thereabouts. So Stern and others have been pushing for a restart of plutonium-238 production. It's important to get things going soon, they say, because the process takes a long time.

"Targets" made of neptunium-237 must be fabricated and then irradiated in a nuclear reactor to make plutonium-238. For the past several years, both NASA and the DOE have asked for money to fund a restart. They estimate it'll cost between $75 million and $90 million over five years, and the two agencies want to split the

costs (since the DOE makes the stuff and NASA uses it). Congress has given NASA some money — $10 million both last year and this year, for example. But

lawmakers have denied the DOE 's funding request for three years in a row, Carroll said. Progress being made Despite the bad budget news, some

restart planning and technological development are already underway, according to Carroll. And NASA is doing what it can to help the project along. "Right now, I think there's $10 million in this year's budget and $10 million in next year's budget, which we do plan on sending to the Department of Energy to continue

the efforts that we've begun," Leonard Dudzinski, a NASA program executive who deals with radioisotope power systems, said at the NETS

conference. "I'm fully confident that we will be able to continue this, and ultimately have plutonium produced in this country again in kilogram quantities, on an annual basis," he added. The goal is to eventually produce between 3.3 pounds and

4.4 pounds (1.5 to 2 kg) of plutonium-238 per year, which should be enough to support NASA's robotic planetary science missions, Dudzinsky said.

DOE is already starting to produce Pu-238 at both the INL and ORNLFrank Munger, 3-30-2012, “$20M plutonium project at ORNL to support space program,” Knox News, http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/mar/30/20m-plutonium-project-at-ornl-to-support-space/Over the next two years, Oak Ridge National Laboratory will carry out a $20 million pilot project to demonstrate the lab's ability to produce and process plutonium-238 for use in the space program. Tim Powers, director of ORNL's Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities Division, said the technology demonstration will include development of neptunium-237 targets that will then be introduced into the High Flux Isotope Reactor to produce small amounts of Pu-238. Later, workers will remove the targets from the reactor core and process the radioactive materials in hot cells at the lab's Radiochemical Engineering Development Center, separating

the Pu-238 from the neptunium and purifying the plutonium. Powers said the ORNL program will support the U.S. Department of Energy's plan to eventually produce 1½ to 2 kilograms of Pu-238 per year, using existing infrastructure within the DOE complex. For years, the U.S. has relied on purchases from Russia to supplement the inventory of the radioisotope for the space power program. There have been multiple proposals to re-establish a U.S.-based production program, none of which took hold. According to Powers, very small amounts of neptunium will be introduced into the High Flux Isotope Reactor in the early stages of the demonstration project. Over time, some of the targets will be withdrawn for evaluation, while others will be left in the reactor core for longer irradiation periods, he said. Pu-238 is a sister isotope to the plutonium-239 that's used in nuclear weapons. It's considered the optimum material for power sources — known as radioisotope thermoelectric generators or RTGs — on deep space missions. The RTGs supply electricity to spacecraft that are too far from the sun to use solar panels. The heat generated by plutonium's natural decay is converted to electricity, which then powers transmitters and other instruments. In addition to using the lab's 85-megawatt research reactor and the nearby Radiochemical Engineering Development Center, ORNL plans to do some of the nuclear

processing work for the project at Building 3535 — also known as the Irradiated Fuels Examination Lab. Powers said NASA is providing funds for the project. The research money is funneled through the U.S. Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy program to the Oak Ridge lab.

ORNL is just one of the institutions participating in the program. The Advanced Test Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory also will be producing Pu-238, and Powers said Oak Ridge would provide information on target development, production evaluation and flow sheet on its processing work to Idaho.


SQ Solves Jupiter Orbiter

NASA is actively planning to do the JEO and is working it out with the DOE – as long as they have plutonium, it will happenBrian Berger, 12-11-2009, “Russia Withholding Plutonium NASA Needs for Deep Space Exploration,” Space News, http://www.spacenews.com/civil/091211-russia-withholding-plutonium-needed-nasa.htmlThe same report, “Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration,” said NASA needs

about 30 kilograms of plutonium-238 for three planetary probes planned for launch by 2020. The most plutonium-hungry of those is a

multibillion-dollar mission to Jupiter’s icy moon Europa. The flagship-class Jupiter Europa Orbiter requires 24.6 kilograms of plutonium-238 for the five Multi Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (MMRTGs) that will generate 700 to 850 watts of electrical power during the orbiter’s anticipated 14 years of operations. Jim Green, NASA’s director of planetary science, recently told scientists drafting the U.S. space agency’s next 10-year plan for robotic exploration of the solar system that the era of plutonium-powered missions could be coming to an end. He noted that not only had Congress denied Obama’s budget request for restarting plutonium-238 production, but that Russia’s Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation informed the Department of Energy this fall that it will not fulfill a 5-kilogram order of plutonium-238 that was expected to be delivered in 2010. Rosatom also said it would not accept a pending 5-kilogram order for delivery in 2011. According to Green’s Nov. 16 presentation to the Planetary Science Decadal Survey steering group, the Energy Department expects that negotiating a new agreement could delay the next delivery of Russian plutonium-238 until after 2011. Jen Stutsman, an Energy Department spokeswoman, confirmed that the department was notified in mid-September that Russia does not intend to fulfill the terms of its current contract and wants to negotiate a new deal. She told Space News in a Dec. 9 e-mail that the department is working with other U.S. government agencies “to develop a coordinated position on the appropriate next steps.” Efforts to restart a domestic production capability, meanwhile, cannot proceed

until Congress approves funding, she said. Green told Space News in an interview that NASA is moving ahead on the assumption that the Energy Department will come through with the needed plutonium. “We are marching down a course in good faith with the Department of Energy to negotiate with the Russians to procure the plutonium

that would provide what we need to the plan that we proposed,” he said. Green said a one-year delay in the delivery of the Russian plutonium should not cause problems for NASA. If the first delivery is delayed much beyond 2011, however, mission schedules could suffer because U.S. labs need a few years to prepare, package and load the plutonium into a finished power system. “We will get to some point down the road where indeed the plutonium readiness will be on the critical path,” Green said. “Once things are on the critical path, they affect schedule.” Despite the uncertainty, NASA went ahead Dec. 7 with the release of a draft announcement of opportunity for Discovery 12, inviting planetary scientists to propose a $425 million mission that would launch by 2016 and utilize a NASA-furnished radioisotope power system. NASA also continues to work with scientists on a Jupiter Europa Orbiter instrument mix that assumes a 2020 launch of a spacecraft equipped with five fully fueled MMRTGs. Ralph McNutt, a planetary scientist who co-authored the National Research Council’s radioisotope power system report and serves on the decadal survey’s steering committee, said Russia’s actions underscore how important restarting U.S. production is to NASA’s planetary science plans.

Flagship programs include the JEO – and it only takes 24.6kgBrian Berger, 12-11-2009, “Russia Withholding Plutonium NASA Needs for Deep Space Exploration,” Space News, http://www.spacenews.com/civil/091211-russia-withholding-plutonium-needed-nasa.htmlThe same report, “Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration,” said NASA needs about 30 kilograms of plutonium-238 for three planetary probes planned for launch by 2020. The most plutonium-hungry of those is a multibillion-dollar mission to Jupiter’s icy moon Europa. The flagship-class Jupiter Europa Orbiter requires 24.6 kilograms of plutonium-238 for the five Multi Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (MMRTGs) that will generate 700 to 850 watts of electrical power during the orbiter’s anticipated 14 years of operations.


No Space STEM Shortage

Low retirement rate prevents workforce shortage – its impossible to predictJohn Hollon, writer for Workforce Management, 5-26-2009, “When Workforce Planning Meets the Talent Shortage Myth,” http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2009/05/26/when-workforce-planning-meets-the-talent-shortage-myth/In fact, a lot of baby boomers want to stay on the job longer these days given what the recession and economic

downturn have done to their IRAs, 401(k)s and other retirement accounts. These are people are a lot like me—boomers who

want to work as long as they can, or at least until age 70 so they can maximize their Social Security payout. But in an odd twist, a lot of boomers are now retiring unexpectedly, and “Instead of seeing older workers staying on the job longer as the economy has worsened, the Social Security system is reporting a major surge in early retirement claims that could have implications for the financial security of millions of baby boomers,” according to a story in the Los Angeles Times. “Since the current federal fiscal year began Oct. 1, [Social Security retirement] claims have been running 25 percent ahead of last year,” the Times story adds, and “that compares with the 15 percent increase that had been projected as the post-World War II generation reaches eligibility for early retirement, according to Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration.” This shows you just how hard it is getting a fix on where workers’ heads are and what they might do, and it makes long-range workforce planning extremely difficult. In fact, just last December, a CareerBuilder survey found that 60 percent of workers older than 60 said they planned to postpone retirement and stay on the job. What has changed, of course, is the economy. While I believe the CareerBuilder survey accurately captured the mood of boomers wanting to continue working back in December, it clearly didn’t anticipate the huge plunge in the economy and job losses in the first quarter of 2009. Yes, a lot of older workers want to keep working, but what do you do if you lose your job, can’t find a new one, and have the Social Security retirement option available? If you are in that kind of fix, you do what most people would do: You take the retirement money and run, even if that’s not what you planned or wanted to do. Here’s what is

going on, the Times story indicates: “Many of the additional retirements are probably laid-off workers who are claiming Social Security early, despite reduced benefits, because they are under immediate financial pressure, Goss and other analysts believe.” And, the story adds, “The ramifications of the trend are profound for the new retirees, their families, the government and other social institutions that may be called upon to help support them. On top of savings ravaged by the stock market decline and the loss of home equity, many retirees now must make do with Social Security benefits reduced by as much as 25 percent if they retire at age 62 instead of 66.” This just goes to show you how ridiculous it is trying to make broad-brush assumptions—like baby boomers retiring in a huge wave—given how unpredictable the economy can be. And it just shows again that no matter what part you play in the workforce—employer, manager or down-in the-trenches employee—the smart thinking in this economy continues to be pretty simple: Always hope for the best, but make certain that you prepare for the worst.

No workforce shortage – retirements will be slow and smallA.J. Mackenzie, Staff writer for Space Review, 6-9-2003, “Is NASA’s brain drain a myth?” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/24/1For years NASA and its friends in Congress and elsewhere have been beating the drums about problems with the agency’s workforce. Indeed, it’s accepted as a given now that the agency’s technical staff is getting old. If one believes the dire predictions of some, a torrent of workers will soon escape from their cubicles for retirement homes in Florida and Arizona, depriving the agency of its best and brightest at its most critical time. These predictions of doom-and-gloom are not new. For the last several years the independent Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) has warned NASA about workforce issues in its annual report. “The extended hiring freeze has resulted in an older workforce that will inevitably suffer significant departures from retirements in the near future,” ASAP warned in its 1998 report. “The resulting ‘brain drain’ could represent a future safety risk unless appropriate succession planning is started expeditiously.” ASAP, NASA’s independent safety panel, has repeatedly warned that a “brain drain” from retirements could threaten shuttle safety. NASA and others continue to beat the drum of impending retirements today, as Boehlert’s quote above illustrates. They also express concerns at the opposite end of the workforce spectrum, regarding the

number of young employees at NASA. Part of the perceived problem is a lack of graduates in aerospace engineering and other fields. “The reinforcement pipeline is shrinking, producing fewer science and engineering graduates interested in aerospace careers,” ASAP noted in its 2002 report. Once NASA hires them, it seems to have a problem retaining them: Sean O’Keefe said in Congressional testimony last year that outside the age 55 and over retirement age group, NASA lost the most scientists and engineers among those aged 25-39. Put together, these all appear to paint a dire picture at NASA. Because of these problems, Boehlert introduced legislation in Congress in March that would try to address the problem. HR 1085, the “NASA Flexibility Act of 2003”. The bill would allow NASA to pay bonuses to recruit and retain workers; those bonuses could be worth up to 50 percent of the employee’s salary. The bill would also allow NASA to create up to 10 special job positions “addressing a critical need” at the agency. People that NASA hires to fill those positions could be paid up to $198,600 a year, the same amount the Vice President makes. “Now, NASA is not the only agency facing workforce issues, in general, or issues involving its scientific and engineering workforce in particular,” Boehlert told the Senate in March. “But NASA’s needs are especially critical. I don’t believe we have to wait for massive, wholesale reform of civil service law to take care of NASA’s immediate problems.” Where’s the problem? Taken at face value, it looks like HR 1085 is just what NASA needs to solve its human capital problems. The question, though, is this: is there really that dire a problem with the workforce? If you look closely, you might think twice about the problem and the solution. The first issue is the impending wave of retirements.

Both Boehlert and ASAP have noted that 25 percent of NASA’s workforce will be eligible for retirement in the

next five years. The key word, though, is eligible. Not all employees who are eligible to retire will do so. Indeed,

according to an article on GovExec.com, NASA is projecting retirement rates of only 2 to 2.7 percent a year from now through 2008, essentially the same rate the agency experienced in the previous five years. The article adds that for scientists and engineers, the retirement rate is even lower, averaging about 2 percent a year through 2008. That rate is about the same as the federal government as a whole. It turns out, upon review of the statistics of other federal agencies, that NASA is not alone. Many other federal agencies also found that while large percentages of its workforce would be eligible to retire, a much smaller fraction would actually do so. The GovExec.com article points out the Defense Logisitics Agency as one extreme example: half of its employees will be eligible to retire in five years, according to statistics the agency collected in 2000, but the actual

retirement rate is a manageable four percent a year. NASA’s retirement rate is only about two percent a year, the same as the federal government average and a level experts believe is manageable.


Competitiveness Alt-Cause

Lack of transportation investment will wreck competitiveness and growthWilliam R. Buechner, Economics PhD Harvard, 3-3-2010, “Transportation Projects, The Economy and Jobs,” CQ TestimonyTo think of the federal highway program only as a jobs program is a fundamental mistake. Jobs are only part of the contribution of transportation investment to the U.S. economy. Much more important is the contribution of investment in transportation infrastructure to the long run growth, productivity and competitiveness of the American economy. And on this front, we face a serious challenge. The U.S. economy is a vast network of businesses that produce goods and

services for America's 115 million households, for export to foreign countries or for use by other businesses. The tie that binds these businesses to their customers, suppliers and workers is the U.S. highway system. Each year, almost 80 percent of the value of freight shipments in

the U.S. is carried by trucks along the nation's highways. The foundation of a modern economy is a transportation system that moves freight efficiently, safely and on time. This lesson was learned during the 1960s and 1970s when construction of the Interstate Highway System allowed American

firms to access a nationwide market and take advantage of scale economies that yielded significant increases in productivity. Since then, highway capacity has failed to keep pace with demand and our nation's highways have become more and more congested. Wasted

time and fuel have increased transportation costs, making U.S. products more expensive here and abroad. The poor reliability of the system has forced U.S. companies to invest more in warehousing, hold more inventories, invest more in logistics and change production schedules. All of these make the U.S. less competitive.

Education dooms competitiveness despite immigrationIna Fried Staff Writer for CNET News.com March 3, 2005 Intel exec fears for U.S. competitiveness http://news.com.com/Intel+exec+fears+for+U.S.+competitiveness/2100-1008_3-5598936.htmlSAN FRANCISCO--Echoing concerns voiced by Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, a top Intel executive warned on Thursday that the United States risks becoming a second-tier technology player because of a declining educational system. "We have a lousy education system," Intel Senior Vice President Pat Gelsinger said, speaking on a

panel of technology leaders at the Intel Developer Forum here. "We have a weak infrastructure that is decaying." Gelsinger

noted that companies like Intel can adjust by hiring workers in other places but said the consequences for the United States could be devastating. He has noted in the past that the decline in the number of doctorates being awarded is particularly troubling. "As a global company, this is OK," he said. "As a U.S. citizen, I am fearful. I just fear for our long-term competitiveness." Microsoft Chief Technical Officer Craig Mundie echoed those concerns.

"The U.S. is increasingly in a deficit situation in its education," Mundie said.

Competitiveness decline inevitable – multiple reasonsJeffrey Sachs, dir. Earth Inst., @ Columbia, 9-29-2009, “American has passed on the baton,” Financial Times, http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/about/director/2009/FT_29September2009.pdfThe G20’s true significance is not in the passing of a baton from the G7/G8 but from the G1, the US. Even during the 33 years of the G7 economic forum, the US called the important economic

shots. Although the US constitutes only about 20 per cent of the world economy, it has until recently been the indispensable leader, the key to nearly every significant regional military alliance and to global trade, finance and cutting-edge technology. In fact, US economic leadership had already begun to wane a quarter-century ago but this was obscured by the collapse of the Soviet Union and by the US-led revolution in information and communication technology. Both events seemed to

suggest a boost of US economic dominance – but that was illusory, especially as technologies and market-led growth spread to China and other emerging markets. America’s leadership was also undercut by problems at home: low and

declining saving rates, widening income inequality, poor educational attainments, anti-tax paranoia leading to

insufficient public investments and chronic budget deficits, and rising political corruption, corporate malfeasance and excessive sway of special

interests. George W. Bush and colleagues fantasised about the US as the New Rome, but military disasters abroad, the dismantling of financial and

environmental regulations and policies such as tax cuts for the rich gravely exacerbated US weaknesses. Collective action is now the only alternative, yet it has never been easy to achieve or sustain. Twenty leaders constitute a big group. At Pittsburgh, opening statements spilled over from morning into the lunch hour. The challenge is not merely one of logistics but of the logic of co-operation itself. Can a group this large actually manage the provision of global public goods without succumbing to free-riding and paralysing divisions?


Pu-238 Not Key Colonization

New NASA research will mean Pu-238 will be replacedSpace.Com, 3-26-2010, “NASA Funds New Research,” http://www.space.com/8103-nasa-funds-research-space-engines.htmlNASA has awarded a set of contracts to commercial companies working on new propulsion technologies for future spacecraft. The space agency granted up to $50 million each to five companies for research into novel engine system designs such as electric propulsion, new propellants made from non-toxic chemicals, and other areas. The recipients of the funds include Aerojet of Sacramento, Calif.; ATK Mission Systems of Ronkonkoma, N.Y.; Northrop Grumman Aerospace Corporation of Redondo Beach, Calif.; Orbital Technologies Corporation of Madison, Wisc.; and

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Inc. of Canoga Park, Calif. NASA hopes the new space technologies will help the agency to "explore space as much as we can," said NASA spokeswoman Katherine K. Martin of NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. The agency is looking to enable missions with higher performance, reduced cost, improved reliability and improved safety, she said. NASA announced the new initiative amid several other contract award announcements, including five contracts worth up to $125 million each to companies working on Earth-based aviation technologies. These grants will be used to research low-noise propulsion, alternative fuels, hybrid engines and other technologies for aircraft. The new contracts come at a time when NASA is planning to embrace novel technologies under the new plan outlined in President Obama's 2011 budget. The proposal calls for NASA to abandon the concrete plans it had for new spacecraft ? the Ares rockets and Orion crew capsules ? to focus on forward-looking technology and encourage private industry to develop human-rated spacecraft.

Americum solvesRob Coppinger, 2-15-2010, “UK could use plutonium in space nuclear power demonstration,” Flight Global, http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-could-use-plutonium-in-space-nuclear-power-demonstration-338369/According to British National Space Centre (BNSC) documentation, the Harwell facility will not initially handle radioactive material for radioisotope power systems, but could in future when one is tested as part of a spacecraft's system. A demonstration of a European radioisotope power system could come after 2011, when ESA's member states next meet to hammer out a

budget. BNSC space science director David Parker says that Harwell will study Americium as an alternative to Pu-238. He

says Americium's longer half-life - more than 150 years - makes it a good alternative; its heat output is less than

that of Pu-238, but improved thermal conversion could offset that. He points to Oxford University research on infrared-related technology as one conversion solution.

Europe will develop alternatives to Pu-238 and ensure deep space probesStephen Clark, 7-9-2010, “Space agencies tackle waning plutonium stockpiles,” Space Flight Now, http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/09rtg/While NASA is counting on an act of Congress or a renegotiated deal with Russia to acquire plutonium for its next robotic deep

space missions, the European Space Agency is considering alternative nuclear fuels to power its own probes traveling into the sun-starved outer solar system. NASA's dwindling supply of plutonium-238 nuclear fuel will not be sufficient to power an orbiter to visit Jupiter's moon Europa, NASA's contribution to a planned $4.5 billion joint flagship mission between the U.S. space agency and Europe. That's unless the U.S. Department of Energy, which supplies nuclear fuel for NASA missions, receives funding to restart domestic production of plutonium or successfully resolves a contract dispute with the Russian government, said Jim Adams, the deputy director of NASA's planetary science division. "If we close another deal with the Russians for another delivery of plutonium-238, or get domestic production restarted, there's sufficient plutonium well out past the Outer Planets Flagship Mission," Adams said in an interview Thursday. Plutonium is the most efficient way to generate power on deep space probes because solar panels do not receive enough sunlight at

such distances. Nuclear-powered spacecraft use Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators, or RTGs, to produce electricity from the heat of radioactive decay. Recognizing NASA's predicament, David Southwood, ESA's director of science and robotic exploration, said Thursday that Europe would like to

start up its own nuclear energy program for space applications. "To see see ourselves as a serious planetary science partner

on the world stage with the United States, we're building up our nuclear capability for European-built RTGs,"

Southwood said in an interview with Spaceflight Now. "We are building for a pretty major capability being available in Europe in the 2020s." ESA's nuclear program would likely focus on americium, according to Southwood. Americium-241 has a longer half-life than plutonium-238, meaning it could survive longer in space, but the isotope produces less heat and electricity. Americium is also a greater radiation hazard to humans, according to scientists. "Plutonium-238 is an alpha emitter, and you can shield alpha particles with a piece of paper," Adams said. "It's neutrons that damage people, and americium is more a neutron emitter than plutonium-238." Adams said NASA and DOE have studied

alternative isotopes before, but safety officials say Pu-238 is the safest fuel for nuclear-powered spacecraft. "NASA is committed to plutonium, but you don't always have to go that route," Southwood said. "We're working on the security aspects with the French authorities so we


can launch in [Kourou, French Guiana]. We've got a couple of countries with serious nuclear capabilities. The big ones are France and the U.K., so we're talking with them about how to start."


US Not Key

Europe will fill in for Pu-238 productionIan O’Neill, 7-9-2010, “As NASA’s Plutonium Supply Dwindles,” Discovery News, http://news.discovery.com/space/as-nasas-plutonium-supply-dwindles-esa-eyes-nuclear-energy-program.htmlNASA is running low on plutonium, an issue that is causing growing concern for future outer solar system missions. And now, the European Space Agency (ESA) has recognized the US space agency's problems in acquiring the fuel, announcing Europe has plans to start their own production to support joint NASA-ESA programs. The isotope plutonium-238 (or Pu-238) produces a steady supply of heat that can be readily converted into electricity. Small pellets of Pu-238 (like the one shown above) are commonly found inside radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) -- the power source of spacecraft that explore space beyond the orbit of Mars. At these distances, the sun's energy is too weak to be a viable energy source for spacecraft, forcing space agencies to use the plutonium isotope. Deep space missions such as the 1970's Pioneer and Voyager probes were all launched with RTGs attached -- Voyager 2 is still transmitting scientific data after three decades in space, proving the longevity of this energy resource. The Cassini Equinox and New Horizons missions are also equipped with RTGs, and next year's NASA Mars Science Laboratory will use Pu-238 to provide a 24/7 energy resource. Alas, although Pu-238 isn't fissile (i.e. it can't be used to make a bomb, unlike its slightly larger isotope cousin, Pu-239), it is still radioactive and has very tight regulations surrounding its acquisition and production. Unfortunately, NASA's stockpile is running low. The US Department of Energy no longer has the funding to restart Pu-238 production and due to a contract dispute, NASA cannot acquire it from Russia. This means that NASA now lacks the plutonium to contribute toward a planned $4.5 billion joint U.S.-Europe flagship mission to the Jovian moon Europa. "If we close another deal with the Russians for another delivery of plutonium-238, or get domestic production restarted, there's sufficient plutonium well out past the Outer Planets Flagship Mission," said Jim Adams, deputy director of NASA's planetary science division. The

Russian government also has dwindling supplies after halting production of Pu-278, so they are pursuing a more lucrative contract with NASA -- the cause of the dispute. If Congress denies domestic production and the Russian deadlock continues, there appears to be only one answer to the plutonium deficit: ESA. "To see see ourselves as a serious planetary science partner on the world stage with the United States, we're building up our nuclear capability for European-built RTGs," David Southwood, ESA's director of science and robotic exploration, said in an interview with Spaceflight Now.

"We are building for a pretty major capability being available in Europe in the 2020s." Southwood also hinted that

Pu-238 isn't necessarily the only fuel that can be used with RTGs. Americium-241 has the advantage of a longer half-life, meaning these pellets will fuel RTGs for longer, but at a reduced energy output. Another big drawback with swapping americium for plutonium is that americium is more hazardous.

China and Russia leading space colonization efforts now. Michael Zay, Future Trends Examiner, June 7, 2010, “As US Abandons Manned flight, China, Russia, Europe Train for Space Colonization with Mars500”, http://www.examiner.com/future-trends-in-national/as-us-abandons-manned-flight-china-russia-europe-train-for-space-colonization-with-mars500By mission’s end China, Russia, and the European Space Agency will be years ahead of the US on the

space learning curve. Clearly the US is falling behind in the global space race. Recently the Obama administration

decided to direct NASA's funding away from manned space flight to the Moon and beyond. The US is even ending its shuttle program this year. Although the President did give lip service to the goal of colonizing Mars in the mid-2030s, many critics, including Mars Society president Robert Zubrin, were unmoved by this weak and ambiguous commitment to space exploration. "It basically means that they don't have to start working on it while they're in office," Zubrin said. Sadly, it appears that Obama plans to expend little energy or resources on the space program for the remainder of his term. He will provide the occasional “vote of confidence” to private companies such as SpaceX when they successfully launch rockets they have constructed. However, while SpaceX’s recent

successful launch of Falcon 9 is laudable, many have suggested that the company was merely replicating technological feats NASA achieved half a century ago. The Mars500 program must serve as a wake-up call to the administration and the American public that the rest of the world is about to venture “where no man has gone before,” and leave America in its “space dust” in the process. The next Congress must pressure the President to reconsider his decision to decelerate the US space program, and convince him to begin the process of restoring the American space program to its former glory.

Asian countries in a race to colonize space—nothing will deter them.Rebecca Sato, September 27, 2007, “3 Titans of Asia Face Off: Who Gets the Biggest Chunk of Moon?”, http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/09/titans-of-asia-.htmlAmid a renewed burst of global space agendas, Asian spacefarers are racing to the moon. It seems everyone wants to ensure their piece of

the lunar pie. Asian giants Japan, China and India are engaging in a race to map lunar resources and put dibs on the moon as a platform to eventually explore the planets beyond . Japan may have sparked the Asian lunar race on September 14 when it successfully launched its first lunar orbiter. China will now launch its own moon probe before the end of the year, followed by India in the first half of 2008. "There is a great revival of interest in exploring various planets," said Sun Laiyan, head of the China National Space Administration. China's Chang'e 1 lunar probe is being transported to the launch site and "if everything goes fine, will be launched by the end of the year," said Sun, adding that China will be considering their own manned moon mission if all goes well. India's Chandrayaan 1 lunar probe will be launched in March or April 2008, said B.N. Suresh, director of the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre in Kerala's capital Thiruvananthapuram. Preparatory work is in "full swing" at the Sriharikota space station in southern India, where the craft is being assembled, the launch vehicle readied and antennae installed to receive data from the moon, Suresh revealed. Also in 2008, India will likely choose the target year for a human spaceflight to the moon, confirmed G.

Madhavan Nair, head of the Indian Space Research Organisation. NASA aims to put a man on by 2037, Michael Griffin, the administrator of the US space agency, indicated earlier this week, saying the orbital international space station targeted for completion by 2010 would provide a "toehold in space" for travel first to the moon and then Mars.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/09/titans-of-asia-.html

http://www.examiner.com/future-trends-in-national/as-us-abandons-manned-flight-china-russia-europe-train-for-space-colonization-with-mars500

http://www.examiner.com/future-trends-in-national/as-us-abandons-manned-flight-china-russia-europe-train-for-space-colonization-with-mars500


No Israel Iran Strike

Won’t do it – afraid to risk rupture with WashingtonJeffrey Goldberg, 2-10-2012, “How Likely is an Israeli Strike on Iran This Spring?”, The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/how-likely-is-an-israeli-strike-on-iran-this-spring/252907/I think it's perfectly plausible that Netanyahu could order a strike soon, though I'm less sure of that than either Leon Panetta or Ronen Bergman. In part this is because I tend to think it is something close to impossible for any Israeli prime minister to launch an attack that could have adverse consequences on the United States without first getting the approval of the U.S. Netanyahu, who is a keen student of the U.S.-Israel relationship -- and who knows, as all Israeli prime

ministers in recent memory have known, that the U.S. is Israel's indispensable ally and patron -- simply couldn't afford a rupture with Washington, unless he was absolutely confident that his only choice was between a break with Washington or a second Holocaust (a fear I wrote about in this Atlantic story). I write about the myth that Israel is a purely independent player in this drama here, by the way.

No Israeli attack – too isolationist and threat of HamasMa’an News Agancy, 3-20-2012, “Hamas official: Israel unlikely to strike Iran”, http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=469431Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahhar said on Monday he does not expect an Israeli strike on Iran due to Israel's international isolation. The senior official in Gaza told Ma'an that Iran continues to support the Palestinian cause and the Hamas movement, but denied Israeli media reports that Iranian leaders are training Palestinian factions in the Egyptian Sinai. Zahhar met Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran on Thursday, thanking the country for supporting Palestine without expecting anything in return. Zahhar has made conflicting statements about the role Hamas would play if Israel attacked Iran. Speaking to the BBC for a report published March 7, Zahhar said Hamas would respond to Israeli attacks on Gaza but would not get involved "in any other regional conflict." He added: "We are not part of any political axis." Zahhar told the BBC that Hamas lacked the power to respond from a territory that is still under siege, occupied and recovering from previous Israeli offensives. He later disavowed the comments in an interview with the Iranian Fars news agency and said Hamas would respond to Israel and its allies in the event of an attack on Iran. "Retaliation with utmost power is the position of Hamas with regard to a Zionist war on Iran," he said.

No attack – they wouldn’t show their cards beforehandYael Lavie, 3-16-2012, “Veteran U.S. political commentator: I would be shocked if Israel were to attack Iran”, Haaretz, http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/veteran-u-s-political-commentator-i-would-be-shocked-if-israel-were-to-attack-iran-1.419032But what if Israel's hard line continues to the extent that it decided to attack Iran unilaterally. What do you think the Obama administration would do then? "I don't know what it would do, but I know what it should do if that happens: They should shut down all military assistance to Israel. I mean, look at the settlements, look at the crap that Obama got about the settlements and he did not even withhold funds like Bush, Sr. did when he was president in the 80s, a Republican president. I thought it was entirely appropriate when Israel refused to stop building settlements to withhold funds from them, but Obama did not. "All that being said, I would be shocked if there were an Israeli attack on Iran. Think about it: The Israeli military does not go around bragging of what they can do before an attack. It may not be out of character for Likud, because I think that the last 30 years of Israel foreign policy, when Likud has been in charge, has been an unmitigated disaster, but the Israeli army does not behave this way usually before a war. It's not the Israel Defense Forces' strategy, no?"


Iran Strike Doesn’t Escalate

No Impact to Strike on Iran – No retaliation of any kind from any actorWalter Russell Mead, 3-20-2012, “Top US Reporter: Israelis Think Strike On Iran Will Work”, The Americna Interest, http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/03/20/top-us-reporter-israelis-think-strike-on-iran-will-work/The most important piece of journalism out this morning is from Jeffrey Goldberg: a week of shuttling between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, meeting with current and former Israeli defense and security officials and intellectuals has convinced this experienced and well

sourced reporter that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak believe that an Israeli military strike against Iran will probably work. Goldberg, who writes for Bloomberg and the Atlantic, was stunned by the optimism he

heard from senior Israelis about the consequences of an attack. To sum up his findings, top Israelis including (apparently) the

Prime Minister and the Defense Minister, have reached the following conclusions about the consequences of an attack: If it acts soon, Israel has the capacity to set the Iranian nuclear program back by five years. There is a significant probability that a successful attack on Iran will energize Iran’s internal opposition, leading

ultimately to the downfall or at least the crippling of the Iranian government. President Obama will not retaliate against Israel. Rather than launch massive retaliation against Israel, Iran will try to downplay the assault (as Syria and Iraq did in the past), perhaps launching only a few token missiles in response. Fearing massive retaliation, Iran would not attack American ships or targets in response. Goldberg himself does not appear convinced by these optimistic scenarios; he describes some of the conversations he had as “vertigo inducing” and the Bloomberg piece radiates a sense of shock and alarm. But this is not about his calculations or the Pentagon’s; if the Israeli leaders do in fact hold the opinions he says that they do, we should brace for Israeli strikes against Iran sooner rather than later. Perhaps very soon.

Israel strike doesn’t escalate or cause war – limited and Iran covers it upJeffrey Goldberg, 3-19-2012, “Israelis Grow Confident Strike on Iran’s Nukes Can Work”, Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-19/israelis-grow-confident-strike-on-iran-s-nukes-can-work.htmlOne conclusion key officials have reached is that a strike on six or eight Iranian facilities will not lead, as is

generally assumed, to all-out war. This argument holds that the Iranians might choose to cover up an attack, in the

manner of the Syrian government when its nuclear facility was destroyed by the Israeli air force in 2007. An Israeli strike wouldn’t focus on densely populated cities, so the Iranian government might be able to control, to some degree, the flow of information about it. Some Israeli officials believe that Iran’s leaders might choose to play down the insult of a raid and launch a handful of rockets at Tel Aviv as an angry gesture, rather than declare all-out war.

History proves no retaliation or escalationCranmer, 3-4-2012, “Is Israel about to attack Iran?”, http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2012/03/is-israel-about-to-attack-iran.htmlHow viable is a unilateral Israeli attack? This is a useful question to consider, and one that is often neglected by analysts.

History demonstrates that such action does not necessarily lead to war. In 1981 Israel launched Operation

Opera, a strategic mission through which the Israeli military bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor which was purportedly intended to be used for the peaceful production of nuclear energy, evoking not only the fury of Saddam Hussein but admonition from the United Nations Security Council. In 2007, Israel turned its attention to the embryonic nuclear capabilities of Syria by targeting a nuclear reactor – mostly manned by North Koreans – in the Deir ez-Zor region of the country in a mission known as Operation Orchard. Working on the basis of US intelligence, the Israelis justified the attack as a necessary strategic step to ensure its safety. Crucially, though, in both instances Israeli pre-emption passed without retaliation.


No Iran Prolif

No Iran prolifYousaf Butt, a nuclear physicist who serves as a scientific consultant for the Federation of American Scientists, 1-19-2012, “Stop the Madness,” Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/19/stop_the_madness?page=0,1The real legal red line, specified in the IAEA's "Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements," is the diversion of nuclear materials to a weapons program. However, multiple experts and official reports have affirmed over the years

that they have no evidence that any such program exists. For example Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who spent more than a decade as the director of the IAEA, said that he had not "seen a

shred of evidence " that Iran was pursuing the bomb. The latest IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program also

backs up this assessment, stating that Iran's research program into nuclear weapons "was stopped rather abruptly pursuant to a ‘halt order' instruction issued in late 2003."

Highest levels of US intel go negYousaf Butt, a nuclear physicist who serves as a scientific consultant for the Federation of American Scientists, 1-19-2012, “Stop the Madness,” Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/19/stop_the_madness?page=0,1Even U.S. officials have conceded that they have no proof that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear bomb. Following the release of the classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in 2011, Director of National Intelligence

James Clapper confirmed in a Senate hearing that he has a "high level of confidence" that Iran "has not made a decision as of this point to restart its nuclear weapons program." And earlier this month, Defense Secretary Leon

Panetta weighed in: "Are they [Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that's what concerns us." There are many other explanations for Iran's uranium enrichment program other than that the country is embarking on a mad dash for nuclear weapons. The most objective reading of Iran's intention to stockpile more 20 percent enriched uranium than it needs for running its research reactor is that it may be preserving a "breakout" option to weaponize in the future, should it feel under threat. But the important point is that, under the NPT, there is nothing illegal about stockpiling low-enriched uranium. And whatever options and ambitions that Iranians leaders may hold in their heads, however worrying, cannot be illegal.

Nukes are years away – conclusion of American and Israeli defense officialsColin Kahl, Associate Professor in the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, March/April 2012, “Not Time to Attack Iran” http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137031/colin-h-kahl/not-time-to-attack-iran?page=showIn arguing for a six-month horizon, Kroenig also misleadingly conflates hypothetical timelines to produce weapons-grade uranium with the time actually required to construct a bomb. According to 2010 Senate testimony by James Cartwright, then vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and recent statements by the former heads of Israel's national intelligence and defense intelligence agencies, even if Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in six months, it would take it at least a year to produce a testable nuclear device and considerably longer to make a deliverable weapon. And David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (and the source of Kroenig's six-month estimate), recently told Agence France-Presse that there is a "low probability" that the Iranians would actually develop a bomb over the next year even if they had the capability to do so. Because there is no evidence that Iran has built additional covert enrichment plants since the Natanz and Qom sites were outed in 2002 and 2009, respectively, any near-term move by Tehran to produce weapons-grade uranium would have to rely on its declared facilities. The IAEA would thus detect such activity with sufficient time for the

international community to mount a forceful response. As a result, the Iranians are unlikely to commit to building nuclear weapons until they can do so much more quickly or out of sight, which could be years off.


SQ Solves Nuclear Leadreship

Increased nuclear investment, including in workforce expertise and safety is totally inevitable – Obama supportsGreen Car Congress, 3-22-2012, “DOE to provide up to $450M for design,” http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/03/smr-20120322.htmlThe newly announced funding builds on the Obama Administration’s efforts to help revitalize the US nuclear energy industry that include: In 2010, DOE signed a conditional commitment for $8 billion in loan guarantees to support the Vogtle project, in which the Southern Company and Georgia Power are building two new nuclear reactors, helping to create new jobs and export opportunities for American workers and businesses. DOE has also supported the Vogtle project and the development of the next generation of nuclear reactors by providing more than $200 million through a cost-share agreement to support the licensing reviews for Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactor design certification. The Vogtle license is the first for new nuclear power plant construction in more than three decades. Promoting a sustainable nuclear industry in the US also requires cultivating the next generation of scientists and engineers. Over the past three years, the Department has invested $170 million in research grants at more than 70 universities, supporting R&D into a full spectrum of technologies, from advanced reactor concepts to enhanced safety design.

Nuclear renaissance inevitableMichael Hiltzik, 3-22-2012, “Is a nuclear renaissance in the offing?” LA Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/22/news/la-mo-nukes-20120322America’s nuclear power industry has been pronounced dead almost as often as Rasputin, so it may be a testament to the nation’s appetite for electricity that it’s still looking ahead to a renaissance. The industry’s strongest argument today for its continued relevance is that as the nation’s fleet of more than 100 nuclear plants faces retirement for old age in the coming decades, the only practical way to replace the 20% of electricity they currently generate is by building more nukes.

“We’re going to have a renaissance, no matter what ,” James E. Rogers, the chairman and CEO of Duke Energy, told a conference of “green” investors in Santa Barbara on Thursday. Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke produces about a third of its energy for domestic markets from nuclear plants, Rogers told me, but will have to start decommissioning the aging facilities in 2031. It expects to receive federal regulatory approval for a replacement plant next year. Speaking at the Wall Street Journal’s ECO:nomics conference on ecology-wise investing, Rogers observed that nuclear’s 20% share of nationwide generation equates to more than 70% of the country’s non-fossil-fuel generation. That means that as old coal plants edge into retirement too, pressure to raise nuclear’s profile to fill the gap will intensify, he says.

US nuclear renaissance underway now – ensures expertiseDavid Worthington, 2-9-2012, “The U.S. nuclear renaissance has begun,” Smart Planet, http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/the-us-nuclear-renaissance-has-begun/13058There are cooling towers on the horizon in the United States. The nuclear renaissance is slated to begin in rural Georgia with new reactors being built over the next five years, and work is already underway to leap another generation ahead. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) today announced that it has granted licenses to a consortium of

utilities to erect two Westinghouse AP 1000 reactors at Southern Company’s existing Vogtle site, clearing a path to end a decades long hiatus in new construction. Westinghouse’s design incorporates passive cooling, which extends the duration under which a reactor can operate safely without outside intervention in the event of a disaster. The AP 1000 is classified as Generation III+ reactor. Generation III+ reactors have more redundant systems than older reactor designs. Those include emergency cooling systems, a double containment system, and an ashtray like cooling area to capture molten fuel in the event of a meltdown. Existing U.S. nuclear reactors require active cooling such as electric water pumps. Japan’s Fukushima used active cooling, and its reactors melted down last spring when external power was unavailable. There are a total of 104 nuclear plants in the U.S today that are dependent upon active cooling. The meltdown risk associated with those legacy reactors and the high capital requirements of nuclear power are some of the reasons why no new reactor has been built in the U.S since the late 1970’s, when the 1979 Three Mile Island incident soured public sentiment. For now, anti-nuclear sentiment has been marginalized. The U.S. is energy hungry and nuclear power is receiving generous government subsidies. The Vogtle reactors would power up to 1 million homes at a cost of US$14 billion, CNN reported.


Non-Nuclear CP Solves JEO

Electric systems can power the JEOMassimiliano Vasile, et al, 2003, “Electric Propulsion Options for a Probe to Europa,” http://www.aero.polimi.it/~bernelli/publications/abstract093.htmIn this paper an option for a mission to Europa has been investigated taking into account electric propulsion as main source of thrust. A direct optimisation technique has been employed to design an optimal trajectory maximising the payload mass to Europa. Previous to that a global search for potential optimal solutions has been performed. In particular, since the trajectory involve a large number of swing-byes, of both inner planets and jovian moons, a special procedure has been developed to study this kind of trajectories. After proving the effectiveness of the global search an optimal trajectory is presented demonstrating how a fully electric propulsion option even to distant planets could be attractive.

We can get to Jupiter without Pu-238 – NASA is lying, they just did it with JunoKarl Grossman, 4-12-2012, “The Deadly Folly of Nuclear Power Overhead,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-grossman/the-deadly-folly-of-nucle_b_1417149.htmlAs to nuclear-propelled rockets, the U.S. has a long history of seeking to build them. Meanwhile, nuclear power above our heads has been shown as unnecessary. NASA has persisted in using Plutonium-238-powered RTGs on space probes claiming there was no choice. But last year it launched the Juno space probe which is now on its way to Jupiter-- getting all its on-board electricity from solar photovoltaic panels. Likewise, the European Space Agency in 2004 launched a space probe it calls Rosetta, also using solar energy rather than nuclear power for on-board electricity. It is to rendezvous with a comet named 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. As to propulsion in space, a highly promising energy source are the ionized particles in space that can be utilized in the frictionless environment with what are being called solar sails. In May 2010, the Japan Exploration Agency launched a spacecraft, Ikaros, that seven months later reached Venus -- propelled only by its solar sail. The Planetary Society is readying a similar mission using a spacecraft named LightSail-1 and is planning for two more ambitious solar sail flights of LightSail-2 and LightSail-3.

Electric propulsion can make it to JupiterMassimiliano Vasile, ESA/ESTEC, et al, 2002, “Electric Propulsion Options For A Probe To Europa,” http://www.missionanalysis.org/campagnola/publications/Vasile2002Europa.pdfEuropa, one of the moons of Jupiter, is of course one of the most interesting target in the solar system for exobiology studies. In fact the presence of water, probably liquid under the superficial layer of ice, suggests the possibility of prebiotic life. A mission aimed to the exploration of this peculiar moon would be extremely interesting but, at the same time, quite challenging due to the distance from Earth and from the Sun. In fact such a mission would be extremely demanding in terms of communications, power and ∆v requirements. All the missions to Jupiter or to the outer part of the solar system, such as Galileo or Cassini, have employed chemical propulsion as main propulsion system and RTG technology to generate the required power on-board. However an alternative, not yet explored, would be to use electric propulsion or a combination of electric and chemical propulsion trying to exploit at best the two.

http://www.missionanalysis.org/campagnola/publications/Vasile2002Europa.pdf


Domestic Production CP Solves

Only impediment to restarting domestic production is moneyNAP 2009 [Radioisotope Power Systems Committee, National Research Council; “Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration” http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12653&page=7 Reestablishing domestic production of 238Pu will be expensive; the cost will likely exceed $150 million. Previous proposals to make this investment have not been enacted, and cost seems to be the

major impediment. However, regardless of why these proposals have been rejected, the day of reckoning has arrived. NASA is already making mission-limiting decisions based on the short supply of 238Pu. NASA is stretching out the pace of RPS-powered missions by eliminating RPSs as an option for some missions and delaying other missions that require RPSs until more 238Pu becomes available. Procuring 238Pu from Russia or other foreign nations is not a viable option because of schedule and national security considerations. Fortunately, there are two viable approaches for reestablishing production of 238Pu in the United States. Both of these approaches would use existing reactors at DOE facilities at Idaho National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory with minimal modification, but a large capital investment in processing facilities would still be needed. Nonetheless, these are the best options in terms of cost, schedule, and risk for producing 238Pu in time to minimize the disruption in NASA’s space science and exploration missions powered by RPSs.

Money is the only obstacle – CP allows domestic Pu-238 productionDepleted Cranium, 1-6-2012, “The US Space Program’s Plutonium-238 Crisis,” http://depletedcranium.com/americas-plutonium-238-crisis/That said, the US should have enough capacity for processing such materials to make at least a modest Pu-238 production program possible, if only funding is provided and the effort to do so is undertaken. Ideally, enough would be made to allow for its use on spacecraft without extreme conservation measures taken, but that seems to be politically unlikely due to “proliferation concerns.”

US can restart domestic productionNAP 2009 [Radioisotope Power Systems Committee, National Research Council; “Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration” http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12653&page=7 //STRONG]Reestablishing domestic production of 238Pu will be expensive; the cost will likely exceed $150 million. Previous proposals to make this investment have not been enacted, and cost seems to be the major impediment. However, regardless of why these proposals have been rejected, the day of reckoning has arrived. NASA is already making mission-limiting decisions based on the short supply of 238Pu. NASA is stretching out the pace of RPS-powered missions by eliminating RPSs as an option for some missions and delaying other missions that require RPSs until more 238Pu becomes available. Procuring 238Pu from Russia or other foreign nations is not a viable option because of schedule and national security considerations. Fortunately, there are two viable approaches for reestablishing production of 238Pu in the United States. Both of these approaches would use existing reactors at DOE facilities at Idaho National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory with minimal modification, but a large capital investment in processing facilities would still be needed. Nonetheless, these are the best options in terms of cost, schedule, and risk for producing 238Pu in time to minimize the disruption in NASA’s space science and exploration missions powered by RPSs.


Nuclear Launch DA

Using Pu-238 on space probes is insane – causes extinctionKarl Grossman, 4-12-2012, “The Deadly Folly of Nuclear Power Overhead,” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-grossman/the-deadly-folly-of-nucle_b_1417149.htmlAlthough the nuclear-powered drone scheme is ostensibly not going anywhere now, other schemes to use nuclear power overhead -- which also threaten nuclear disaster -- are on the planning table and some are moving ahead. These include: A new U.S. Air Force plan which supports "nuclear powered flight." Titled Energy Horizons, issued in January, it states that "nuclear energy has been demonstrated on several satellite systems" and "this source provides consistent power... at a much higher energy and power density than current technologies." It does admit that "the implementation of such a technology should be weighed heavily against potential catastrophic outcomes." Indeed, the worst accident involving a U.S. space nuclear system occurred with the fall to Earth in 1964 of a satellite powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator or RTG, the SNAP-9A. It failed to achieve orbit and fell to Earth, disintegrating upon hitting the atmosphere causing its Plutonium-238 fuel to be dispersed as dust. Dr. John Gofman, professor of medical physics at the University of California, Berkeley, long linked the SNAP-9A accident to a global rise in lung cancer. "A ground-breaking Russian nuclear space travel propulsion system will be ready by 2017 and will power a ship capable of long-haul interplanetary missions by 2025," the Russian state news agency, Ria Novosti, reported last week. The worst accident involving a Soviet or Russian nuclear space system was the fall from orbit in 1978 of the Cosmos 954 satellite powered by a nuclear reactor. It also broke up in the atmosphere

spreading radioactive debris which scattered over 77,000 square miles of the Northwest Territories of Canada. The U.S. is moving again to produce Plutonium-238 for space use. RTGs powered by Plutonium-238 had been used by the U.S. as a source of electricity on satellites -- as the Energy Horizons noted. But that was until the SNAP-9A accident which caused a shift to generating electricity with solar photovoltaic panels. However, RTGs using Plutonium-238 have remained a source of on board electricity for space probes. The Department of Energy plans to produce Plutonium-238 at both Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Idaho National Laboratories. The U.S. is also developing nuclear-powered rockets. Ad Astra, headed by former astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz, is working on what it calls a Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket or VASMIR to be powered by a nuclear reactor. It would provide a "faster trip" to Mars, says Chang-Diaz, according to a Voice of America article last year, could be used "for missions to the International Space Station or to retrieve or position satellites in Earth orbit." Challenging what is going on is the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. Bruce Gagnon, its coordinator, comments: "Who can deny that the nuclear power industry isn't working overtime to spread its deadly product onto every possible military application? The recent disclosure that the Pentagon has been

strongly considering sticking nuclear engines on-board drones is dangerously 'more of the same.'" "Nuclear-powered devices flying around on drones

or on-board rockets that frequently blow up on launch is pure insanity ," says Gagnon. "The people need to push back hard." What is

happening has deep roots. A key rationale by Sandia and Northrop Grumman for nuclear-powered drones was, as the British newspaper, The Guardian, reported last week, long -- very long -- flight times. The same rationale, noted Gagnon, was behind the U.S. development in the 1940s and '50s of nuclear-propelled bombers. The strategy was for these nuclear-powered bombers to stay up in the air for extensive periods of time. A subsequent program linking nuclear power and weapons was "Star Wars" under President Reagan. It was "predicated," as Gagnon notes, "on nuclear power in space." Reactors were to provide the energy on orbiting battle platforms for lasers, hypervelocity guns and particle beam weapons. In my book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program's Nuclear Threat to Our Planet, and TV documentary, Nukes in Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens, I noted the 1988 declaration of Lt. General James Abramson, first head of the Strategic Defense Initiative, that "without reactors in orbit [there is] going to be a long, long light cord that goes down to the surface of Earth" bringing up power. He stated: "Failure to develop nuclear power in space could cripple efforts to deploy anti-missile sensors and weapons in orbit." As to nuclear-propelled rockets, the U.S. has a long history of

seeking to build them. Meanwhile, nuclear power above our heads has been shown as unnecessary. NASA has persisted in using Plutonium-238-powered RTGs on space probes claiming there was no choice. But last year it launched the Juno space probe which is now on its way to Jupiter-- getting all its on-board electricity from solar photovoltaic panels. Likewise, the European Space Agency in 2004 launched a space probe it calls Rosetta, also using solar energy rather than nuclear power for on-board electricity. It is to rendezvous with a comet named 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. As to propulsion in space, a highly promising energy source are the ionized particles in space that can be utilized in the frictionless environment with what are being called solar sails. In May 2010, the Japan Exploration Agency launched a spacecraft, Ikaros, that seven months later reached Venus -- propelled only by its solar sail. The Planetary Society is readying a similar mission using a spacecraft named LightSail-1 and is planning for two more ambitious solar sail flights of LightSail-2 and LightSail-

3. These missions don't present threats to life on Earth -- unlike the use of nuclear power overhead. Also, the production of nuclear fuel on Earth for use in space -- or in the atmosphere for drones -- constitutes danger, too. Facilities used earlier by the U.S. to produce Plutonium-238 ended up as hotspots for worker contamination and radioactive pollution. James Powell, executive director of Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free, which has been opposing Plutonium-238 production at nearby Idaho

National Laboratory, comments: Aside from the looming danger of nuclear-powered crafts above Earth, we should also realize that the nuclear material is to be produced in our backyards with 1960s era nuclear reactors and then transported back and forth from [Oak Ridge National Laboratory in] Tennessee to Idaho. Every single part of this process deeply concerns us.

One failed launch spreads radiation globallyHoltcamp 4-6-2012Wendee, “Nuclear Renaissance in Space,” Miller-McCune, http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/nuclear-renaissance-in-space-40882/Danger associated with plutonium-238 comes almost exclusively from inhaling it; particles can lodge in the lungs, where they emit damaging alpha particles into the body. Once in the lungs, it can spread throughout the blood and get lodged in bone and the liver, leading to cancer. On the other hand, if particles land on skin, the layer of dead skin cells block radioactive alpha particles from moving deeper and the radioisotope can be readily washed off. Even swallowing the isotope is not a significant health risk; the digestive tract does not readily absorb it. Accidents associated with producing or

maintaining the radioisotope have occurred. In 2000, a faulty glovebox at Los Alamos National Lab leaked, exposing several workers to radiation from the lab’s plutonium-238 stockpiles. And despite precautions,

scenarios exist in which plutonium-238 from spacecraft could contaminate Earth. If a nuclear-laden spacecraft performed a high-speed slingshot fly-by and a calculation mistake occurred, the craft could enter the Earth’s atmosphere, disintegrate, and spew plutonium throughout the planet .


Politics Link – Pu-238 Production Unpopular

Congress hates Pu-238 production – literally no support for the planDepleted Cranium, 1-6-2012, “The US Space Program’s Plutonium-238 Crisis,” http://depletedcranium.com/americas-plutonium-238-crisis/The Advanced Test Reactor has been the focus of recent efforts to restart US Pu-238 production. Several bills and proposals to begin production at the site have been floated, but funding has not been provided. Most recently, a funding request for the relatively small amount of fifteen million dollars by the DOE was shot down by Congress. No explanation was given, but it seems no US legislators are interested in restarting plutonoum-238 production, quite possibly because nobody’s spent any money lobbying for it and some have spent money lobbying against it.

Major opposition to cost-sharing for Pu-238Nell Greenfieldboyce, 11-8-2011, “The Plutonium Problem,” NPR, http://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/141931325/the-plutonium-problem-who-pays-for-space-fuelBut the agencies have run into trouble convincing Congress to accept their plan for how to deal with the costs. The price to restart production is expected to be $75 million to $90 million over five years. And NASA and the Department of Energy want to split the bill between them. That's how they've done this sort of thing in the past, because even though NASA will use the plutonium, only the Department of Energy can make and handle this nuclear material. But some key decision-makers don't like that cost-sharing idea. Lawmakers in Congress have refused to give the Department of Energy the requested funds for this project for three years in a row. Earlier this year, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., pleaded with his colleagues to reconsider during an appropriations committee meeting. "Does anyone in this room think that we don't need the plutonium-238? Does anyone not want to continue to do deep space missions?" Schiff asked. "Well, the Russians won't give it to us, and we don't have enough of it." But others said if NASA wants the stuff, NASA should pick up the whole tab. They said putting half of it under Energy's budget would mean taking money away from other kinds of nuclear research. Schiff argued that $733 million was being allocated to nuclear energy research and that dedicating $10 million for the plutonium project shouldn't be a big deal. "This has got to get done," Schiff urged. "All we're quibbling about here is whether it's paid for by NASA completely or it's paid for by DOE completely, and both agencies have said what makes sense is to split it down the middle." But the majority of his colleagues were unconvinced. Given the opposition in Congress, officials say they need to rethink things and figure out how much NASA can legally pay for under the Atomic Energy Act.

Congress hates the plan – they’ve rejected Pu-238 three years runningRichard M. Jones, 6-27-2011, “No Go: House Appropriators,” American INst. Of Physics, http://www.aip.org/fyi/2011/076.htmlFor the third year in a row, appropriators have rejected an Administration request for Department of Energy funding to restart the production of Pu-238. With this action, the future of NASA’s deep space probes program remains highly uncertain. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have sent budget requests to Congress proposing that the Department of Energy and NASA split the cost of Pu-238 production. Pu-238 is used to fuel deep space probes, and its availability is almost exhausted as the U.S. stockpile dwindles and with the Russian announcement that it will no longer sell this isotope.


Parasitic Satellites Neg


AT: Space Weaponization Inevitable

Space war isn’t inevitable – their ev is doomsayingAl Globus, October 2007, “Space War is Not Inevitable,” http://alglobus.net/politics/SpaceRealists.htmlIn "War and Peace in Space - The Next 50 Years" Taylor Dinerman tells us hat the 'realists' of 50 years ago considered nuclear war all but inevitable. They were wrong. The 'realists' of today tell us space war is inevitable. They are also wrong. We will have war in space if the warriors of the world so decide and we fund their efforts. The

'realists' tell us that we must defend our space assets. They avoid the undeniable fact that our current satellites are completely indefensible. They are fragile and their future location can be exactly predicted months in advance. Any organization with a

launcher capable of reaching the necessary altitude and a sufficiently accurate control system can destroy any current satellite using a bag of marbles for the kill. As long as a launch costs tens of thousands of dollars a kilogram, satellites cannot be hardened against simple kinetic kill systems. By adding propellent future satellites can maneuver -- if the timing of the attack is known. Even then, a slightly more sophisticated attack would probably succeed.

Cold war doesn’t prove space weaponization is inevitableScott Lowery, 1-13-2011, “Why the Weaponization of Space Should Not Be Pursued,” http://ebookbrowse.com/lowery-why-the-weaponization-of-space-should-not-be-pursued-pdf-d49100654It is clear that the weaponization of space is not inevitable. However, does the concern of foreign weaponization justify the pursuit of space weapons anyway? The answer is an emphatic no. Although doing so would seem to increase the asymmetric space advantage the US has, it would actually have a destabilizing effect and result in a decreased advantage. The idea of space weapons brings to mind visions of military omnipotence, with the US able to easily strike down any adversary without fear of retaliation. Such an ability would deter many conflicts. A similar rationale developed in the 1940s with the creation of the atom bomb. It too seemed to provide infinite power that would cause the rest of the world to kneel before the US or suffer unimaginable retaliation. This

idea worked once, ending World War II. Once the atom bomb became public, it sparked a massive arms race as other nations developed nuclear power. The stockpiling of nuclear arms led to the Cold War, an era defined by a world on the brink of destruction and rapidly shifting political climates. It is not a large leap in logic to conclude that since space weapons offer advantages of similar magnitude to nuclear weapons, their development will cause a similar situation. Other nations will not stand idle as the US weaponizes space—they will follow suit. In the end, space will become a volatile political liability and the medium for a new Cold War–style weapons spiral.

Weaponizaiton isn’t inevitable – their ev is based on flawed historical analogiesAndrew Park, Ecology @ UGA, Spring 2006, “Incremental steps for achieving space security,” H.J.I. L., http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3094/is_3_28/ai_n29271382/pg_6/?tag=mantle_skin;contentThe fallacy of the inevitability argument is that, in the short run at least, the United States is the only country that possesses the resources and capabilities necessary to deploy space weapons. (92) This has never been the case in American history. As one historian notes, from the "development of ironclad warships in the 1860s, Dreadnought battleships after 1900, or atomic weapons in the 1940s," different nations were simultaneously developing the same technology. (93) This left a choice to the different governments to either take the lead in the arms race or get passed by. (94) In the space weapons debate, in contrast, "the United States can unilaterally [for the time being] choose whether space will be weaponized." (95) Consequently, the United States controls the inevitability of space weaponization. This conviction is dangerously close to evolving into a self-fulfilling prophecy that simply cannot be refuted. (96) While the realms of air, land, and sea have already been weaponized, presumably irrevocably so, they have become so as a result of three very different paths. (97) Moreover, the evolutionary patterns of military and commercial uses of new environments have [also] varied widely across the

range of human experience. To conclude that this evidence proves that the fourth will also be weaponized would require a degree of deterministic fatalism that would make the most doctrinaire Marxist or environmental doomsayer blush. (98) The question of whether weaponization will occur is still yet to be determined, but it will undoubtedly be affected by the decisions of U.S. military space policymakers in the coming years. (99) Because the

choices ahead are so important, it would be irresponsible of the United States to rely solely on an argument lacking in critical analysis and "based upon little more than superficial historical analogies and glib strategic aphorisms." (100) The bottom line is that the use of the word "inevitable," in the context of the weaponization of space, is dangerous simply because there are too many variables to be able to discern the future with any degree of certainty at this point. (101)


No US-China Space War

No risk of Chinese space attacksHui Zhang, research associate at Harvard Kennedy school, December 2005, “Action/Reaction,” Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_12/DEC-CVRThe United States clearly has legitimate concerns about its space assets, given that U.S. military operations and the U.S. economy are increasingly dependent on them. Satellites are inherently vulnerable to attacks from many different sources, including ground-based missiles, lasers, and radiation from a high-altitude nuclear explosion. However, it does not mean that the United States currently faces credible threats from states that might exploit those vulnerabilities.[8] Most analysts believe no country seriously threatens U.S. space assets.[9] Only the United States and, in the Cold War era, the Soviet Union have explored, tested, and developed space weapons; Russia placed a moratorium on its program in the 1980s. To be sure, a number of countries, including China, are capable of attacking U.S. satellites with nuclear weapons, but such an attack would be foolhardy, as it would almost certainly be met by a deadly U.S. response. Moreover, as many experts point

out, space-based weapons cannot protect satellites because these weapons are nearly as vulnerable to attack as the satellites themselves.[10] No wonder that many countries, including China and Russia, have sought multilateral negotiations on the prevention of space weaponization.

China isn’t even developing ASAT’s – their evidence is based on faulty old intelligenceDwayne Day, 6-23-2008, “Paper Dragon,” Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1155/1But if you look in the current version of CMP, laser ASATs are mentioned only briefly, without any supporting evidence. Thus, over the past

several years, Military Power of the People’s Republic of China has gone from extensive discussion about Chinese interest in laser ASATs, to the conclusion that they were actually in development, to dramatically downplaying the entire subject. Now there could be a number of reasons for this. Intelligence reports only represent points in time and they are inherently incomplete and inaccurate. Perhaps the U.S. intelligence community gathered better information indicating that the possibility of Chinese laser ASAT weapons is now less likely than they thought five years ago. Or perhaps the Chinese abandoned laser research that proved too costly or unproductive. Or perhaps the authors of CMP took a closer look at their earlier data and determined that it was unreliable. We do not know. Like the parasitic microsatellite case, the DoD has not bothered to explain why it changed its conclusions. However, this is important in part because it does not appear as if the American press actually noticed the change. When the 2008 version of CMP was released, several press accounts noted that the report indicated that the Pentagon believes that China is now developing laser ASATs—ignoring the fact that a) such a claim has appeared in numerous previous versions of CMP, and

b) the Pentagon statements about Chinese laser ASATs have actually decreased over time.

The military could just use civilian satellites – Chinese ASAT attack would be ineffectiveGeoffrey Forden, PhD at MIT, former UN weapons inspector, 1-10-2008, “How China Loses,” Wired, http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-chin.html#moreWhile it is possible for China to eliminate the eight US military communications satellites in geostationary orbits that can broadcast to the Taiwan Straits, Beijing does not have enough the lauch capacity for as many ASATs as it would take to eliminate all 22 civilian communications satellites that could also be used. However, not all of these satellites have equal capacities for transmitting information; it might be possible for China to destroy enough of that capacity to limit the US military. During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, US armed forces sent and received a tremendous amount of information via satellite. This included video conferencing between the Pentagon and the commanders in the field, satellite photographs downloaded to operations planners, orders directing jets where to drop their bombs, and soldiers emailing their families back home. At its peak, all of this added up to about three billion “bits” per second, a tremendous amount of information. Bandwidth was – and continues to be – a premium on the battlfield, particularly at the tactical level. And the appetite for information is only increasing. But the total amount of information transmitted over satellites is certain to increase by the next time we go to war; perhaps it could triple or even quadruple to twelve billion bits per second in the next ten years. Assuming that the eight military communications satellites are destroyed first, that leaves at most eight ASATs to destroy the eight most capable civilian communications satellites. If these

eight are removed, then there is still a total capacity of over 14 billion bits per second in US owned and operated civilian communications satellites. Thus, there should be enough transmission capacity for our military -- even if the demand for satellite communications increases by a factor of four. And the US military is used to using civilian satellites , as the 2003 invasion of Iraq showed. The vast majority (84%) of all military communications into and out of the theater of operations went through civilian satellites.


Chinese Space Attack Fails – AT: Space Pearl Harbor

China can’t pull off an ASAT attack – the US would still have plenty of space assetsGeoffrey Forden, PhD at MIT, former UN weapons inspector, 1-10-2008, “How China Loses,” Wired, http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-chin.html#moreThe answers to these questions should influence how the US responds to the threats China’s ASAT represents. There is at least one way to answer these questions: “war-gaming” a massive Chinese attack on US satellites, where China is only limited by the laws of physics and the known properties of their ASAT, and see how much damage could be done. Such an exercise also reveals what the US could do, and what it could not do, to minimize the consequences. The results of my calculations are reported here. They assume that China launches a massive attack and that everything works exactly as planned: every ASAT launches, the US does not respond until after

the attacks are launched even though it will have overwhelming evidence ahead of time, and every ASAT hits its target. Thus, this is a worst case scenario for the United States. In the end, we'll show, the US would still has sufficient space assets to fight a major conventional war with China, even after such an attack. America's military capabilities would be reduced, for a few hours at a time. But they would not be crippled. Back in 2001, a commission lead by Donald Rumsfeld warned of a

"space Pearl Harbor," a single strike that could cripple America's satellite network. It turns out, there is no such thing.

There’s nothing China can do to hurt US space assets – even in the worst case scenario, there’s no such thing as a space Pearl HarborGeoffrey Forden, PhD at MIT, former UN weapons inspector, 1-10-2008, “How China Loses,” Wired, http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-chin.html#moreThe short-term military consequences of an all attack by China on US space assets are limited, at most. Even under the worst-case scenario, China could only reduce the use of precision-guided munitions or satellite communications into and out of the theater of operations. They would not be stopped. China could destroy a large fraction of strategic intelligence gathering capabilities; but not all of it. With a greater than normal expenditure of fuel, the remaining US spy satellites could continue to survive their crosses

over China and photograph Chinese troop movements, harbors, and strategic forces but, of course, at a reduced rate. The war would, however, quickly move into a tactical phase where the US gathers most of its operational photographs using airplanes , instead of satellites. US ships and unmanned vehicles might, theoretically, have difficulty coordinating, during certain hours of the day. Most of the time, they would be free to function normally. China’s space strike would fail to achieve its war aims even if the United

States failed to respond in any way other than moving its low Earth orbit satellites. When it warned of a space Pearl Harbor, the Rumsfeld space commission was afraid that a lesser power could launch a surprise attack that would wipe out key US strategic assets and render the US impotent. This is what Japan tried, but

failed, to do at the start of World War II. And much like Japan’s failure to destroy the US carrier fleet, a Chinese attack on US satellites would fail to cripple our military, China’s strategic goal in launching a space war.

No risk of a space Pearl Harbor – military has alternate communicationsDavid Perera, 2-22-2008, “’Space Pearl Harbor’ overstated,” GCN News, http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/45866-1.html?topic=geospatial#The Navy’s use of an anti-ballistic missile to shoot down a falling U.S. satellite Feb. 20 did not inaugurate a new era of vulnerability for high-bandwidth military communications, said David

Mosher, a Rand Corp. senior policy analyst specializing in issues related to the militarization of space and ballistic missile defense. Any concern “about a space Pearl Harbor is way overstated,” Mosher told Defense Systems in an interview Feb. 21. As the military edges closer to achieving its network-centric vision of warfare, it is becoming more dependent on high-bandwidth communications routed through satellites. That makes satellites an increasingly attractive target despite a near-universal condemnation of the militarization of space. Defense Department officials said this week’s satellite operation was not a show of force or a response to China’s destruction of one of its own weather satellites in January 2007.

However, even if the United States should find itself fighting an enemy with the will and capacity to destroy U.S. satellites, high-bandwidth communications would continue to operate, Mosher said. “The key here is not to protect satellites. The key is to protect the function,” he added. That could be accomplished many ways, including ensuring that satellite systems are robust enough to survive the loss of some of their units. A prime example is the Global Positioning System, which consists of at least 24 satellites in medium Earth orbit. “It would take a whole lot to significantly degrade GPS,” Mosher said.

“You’d have to shoot a lot of satellites.” Increased use of transoceanic fiber-optic cables could also make the military less dependent on satellites. Such cabling has already proven to be reliable and has done a great deal to reduce satellite use in the private sector, Mosher said. In any event, if a satellite-shooting war occurs, air vehicles

with sensors and routers located lower in the atmosphere than satellites would already be active. “That just makes sense in regional warfare anyway,” he said. A shot-down satellite would be a loss because alternatives would not perfectly compensate for the missing capacity, “but it’s not the end of the world,” Mosher said.


Yes ASATs – Scenario Non-Unique

ASAT arms race is non-unique – China already has capabilitiesIan Easton, Research affiliate @ Project 2049, 6-24-2009, “The Great Game in Space,” Project 2049, http://project2049.net/documents/china_asat_weapons_the_great_game_in_space.pdfIf there is a great power war in this century, it will not begin with the sound of explosions on the ground and in the sky, but rather with the bursting of kinetic energy and the flashing of laser light in the silence of outer space. China is engaged in an anti-satellite (ASAT)

weapons drive that has profound implications for future U.S. military strategy in the Pacific. This Chinese ASAT build-up, notable for its assertive testing regime and unexpectedly rapid development as well as its broad scale, has already triggered a cascade of events in terms of U.S. strategic recalibration and weapons acquisition plans. The notion that the U.S. could be caught off-guard in a “space Pearl Harbor” and quickly reduced from an information-age military juggernaut into a

disadvantaged industrial-age power in any conflict with China is being taken very seriously by U.S. war planners. As a

result, while China’s already impressive ASAT program continues to mature and expand, the U.S. is evolving its own counter-ASAT deterrent as well as its next generation space technology to meet the challenge, and this is leading to a “great game” style competition in outer space.

China can already do itIan Easton, Research affiliate @ Project 2049, 6-24-2009, “The Great Game in Space,” Project 2049, http://project2049.net/documents/china_asat_weapons_the_great_game_in_space.pdfChina is currently engaged in a large-scale ASAT weapons program that has profound implications for future U.S. military strategy in the Pacific. China successfully tested and has reportedly deployed enough direct-ascent ASAT missiles to threaten the destruction of vital U.S. satellites in LEO. China has also apparently tested and deployed at least one large, ground-based ASAT laser weapon for use on a number of targets in LEO, and is developing a submarine-based ASAT missile with which it could eventually target U.S. national security satellites in GEO. Developments in China’s co-orbital ASAT systems also pose a future risk to U.S. satellites, as do China’s development of cyber warfare units, radiofrequency jamming devices and ground-based microwave weapons.

China already has everything they need to attack US satellitesIan Easton, Research affiliate @ Project 2049, 6-24-2009, “The Great Game in Space,” Project 2049, http://project2049.net/documents/china_asat_weapons_the_great_game_in_space.pdfChina has been devoting significant resources to directed-energy weapons systems, particularly ground-based lasers, and have used them to target U.S. reconnaissance satellites. In August and September of 2006, China used high-powered, ground-based lasers to blind or “paint” U.S. reconnaissance satellites on several occasions as they passed over China. Reports stated that these were either ASAT tests or relatively “low-power” laser ranging devices intended to precisely determine satellite orbits for ASAT targeting purposes.22 According to one account, the “Chinese routinely turn powerful lasers skywards, demonstrating their potential to dazzle or permanently blind spy satellites.” This report went on to quote Gary Payton, a senior Pentagon official who said “They let us see their lasers. It is as if they are trying to intimidate us.”23 According to a Hong Kong news website, China has at least one very large “ASAT laser artillery” weapon deployed somewhere in its North Western territory, possibly somewhere high in Xinjiang’s Tianshan Mountains where there would be far less atmospheric interference to deal with.24 China has also been developing (and in some cases fielding) cyber warfare units to hack into space control systems; co-orbital ASAT systems to covertly disable enemy satellites; radiofrequency weapons to jam satellite signals; and high-powered microwave weapons to destroy satellites from Earth. Some of these systems have been in development for over a decade, and the cyber warfare and laser programs are particularly mature.25 In terms of co-orbital ASAT development, China’s recent BX-1 micro-satellite test, which was carried out as a part of the manned Shenzhou-7 mission, demonstrated technology that can be used as a base for future covert satellite inspection missions, as well as co-orbital ASAT attacks. The BX-1 test was particularly notable for the fact that it pasted within 25 km of the International Space Station (ISS) in what may have been a simulated attack run.26 In the near future, it is possible that China could use this technology to launch co-orbital, micro-satellite ASAT weapons from its Xichang Satellite Launch Center (or Base 27) to attack U.S. national security satellites in GEO. Looking longer term, such weapons could potentially be launched using road-mobile launchers as well.

The summation of this broad and assertive Chinese ASAT weapons program is a clear challenge to U.S. space operations, and by way thereof, nearly all modern U.S. war fighting capabilities. This fact has not gone unnoticed, especially in the Pacific theater of operations, where the U.S. is especially reliant upon its space assets.


No US-China Escalation

A. U.S. capabilities are improving Benjamin Schwarz, literary editor and the national editor of The Atlantic, Jan/Feb 2006, “The Perils of Primacy,” The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/primacyLieber and Press emphasize that their analysis doesn't prove that a U.S. first strike would succeed, but it highlights a development that is grave if only because it's one that prudent planners in Russia and China, who conduct similar analyses, are no doubt already surmising: that their countries can no longer be confident of having a viable deterrent. Surely adding to their alarm is the realization that the nuclear imbalance, troubling enough already, will only grow in the coming years. Washington's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and its concomitant pursuit of a national missile-defense system will greatly enhance its offensive nuclear capabilities, because although critics of missile defense correctly argue that it could never shield America from a massive full-scale nuclear attack, it could quite plausibly deal with the very few missiles an adversary might have left to deploy after a U.S. first strike. What's more, the United States is actively pursuing a series of initiatives—including further advances in anti-submarine and anti-satellite warfare; in missile accuracy and potency; and in wide-area remote sensing, aimed at finding "relocatable" targets such as mobile ICBMs—that will render Russia's and China's nuclear forces all the more vulnerable.

U.S. damage limitation capabilities prevent nuclear strikesHugh White, Lowy Institute for International Policy and Professor of Strategic Studies at Australian National University, 11-1-2007, “Stopping a Nuclear Arms Race between American and China (II),” http://www.chinausfriendship.com/article1.asp?mn=101China started to modernize its rather crude intercontinental nuclear forces over 20 years ago. It has developed a new generation of solid-fuelled intercontinental-range missiles, the DF 31 and DF 31A, but has been slow to field them. The first of these new missiles may only have become operational over the last year or so. [15] They are more accurate, more mobile, can be launched much more quickly, and hence are more 'survivable'. China is also developing a new and better submarine-launched missile, raising the possibility that it will eventually be able to deploy operationally effective submarine-based forces which would be much harder to find and attack than any land-based missile. Finally China has probably developed but not deployed the capacity to put several warheads on each missile, thus increasing the range of targets it can hit and complicating missile defense efforts. Nonetheless these developments do not give China much ground for confidence about the future of its minimum deterrence posture in the light of the evolution of US nuclear forces. Many scholars - including Chinese observers - have noted that even with their new missiles, the combination of America's highly accurate offensive forces and expanding national missile defenses will see it lose the minimum deterrent capability that it believes it has enjoyed hitherto.

C. China takes too long to alert its arsenalBruce Blair, President of the World Security Institute, Autumn 2005, “Chinese Nuclear Preemption,” China Security Issue No 1Regardless of China’ s futur e modernization, Zhu’s envisioning of a Chinese preemptive nuclear attack implicitly assumes that China would resort to the maximum force if necessary to avoid losing Taiwan. Zhu implicitly takes the position that keeping Taiwan in the one-China fold is an inviolable principle that overrides everything including China’s No- First-Use Declaration. That China would resort to all military means necessary, including nuclear weapons, in order to preserve China’s territorial integrity (of which Taiwan is a part) seems non-controversial from a Chinese perspective, at least less controversial than saying that China would be prepared to give up Taiwan if China lost a conventional fight with the United States. Zhu’s view is consistent with China’s policy in saying that China would risk everything under the circumstances. Zhu’s pointing out that this could logically require China to override its No-First- Use pledge reveals a contradiction in China’s current policy, a logical trap that renders China’s policy rather untenable, and extremely dangerous. Facing conventional defeat, the temptation to turn to nuclear

weapons would expose China to another severe risk. As soon as the initial preparations to prepare Chinese nuclear forces for launch were undertaken, the United States would likely act to beat China to the punch. Given constant U.S. surveillance of Chinese nuclear launch sites, any major Chinese preparations to fire preemptorily would be detected and countered by a rapid U.S. preemptive strike against the sites by U.S. conventional or nuclear forces which maintain much higher launch readiness even in peacetime than do Chinese forces. The United States could easily detect and react inside of the lengthy launch cycle time of Chinese forces, especially the mainstay of the Chinese arsenal — missiles that normally sit in silos without warheads attached to them. The dangerous folly that Chinese nuclear preemption represents is far worse than Zhu’s scenario suggested.


PACS = Infeasible

Tactical microsats are impossible – orbital mechanicsLt. Col. Edward B. Tomme, USAF, Summer 2006, “The Myth of the Tactical Satellite,” Air & Space Power Journal, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/sum06/tomme.htmlThe requirement for satellites in magic orbits to regularly traverse the inner Van Allen belt will call for some mitigating engineering design to ensure that the one-year goal lifetime can be met. This mitigation can come in one of two ways: by using radiation-hardened, space-qualified components or by adding additional shielding to protect the cheaper commercial off-the-shelf electronics. The first method will almost certainly cause the budgetary goals of the program to be exceeded. The second method will add significant weight to the system. Neither solution seems palatable. It is a physical fact that the constraints imposed by orbital mechanics and those imposed by sensor limitations work contrary to each other. Choosing a higher orbit that slows down the satellite pass to improve persistence ends up requiring huge increases in payload physical size, mass, and cost in order to maintain the standard of performance. It is an interesting “Catch-22”: put the satellite low enough that it’s affordable, and it’s only marginally useful due to limited pass times, but put it high enough to be useful, and it’s no longer affordable except at the strategic level.

PACS is just a dream by one Air Force captainDefenseTech, 6-2-2006, “’Parasitic’ Weapon Eyed for Space,” http://defensetech.org/2006/06/02/parasitic-weapon-eyed-for-space/The Air Force’s cadre of space war planners has always liked to dream big. Take the current issue of Air & Space Power Journal, for instance. In it, fifteen USAF officers muse about how best to apply (and extend) the American military’s superiority above the skies. Maj. Mark Steves foresees a fleet of airships, operating at the atmosphere’s edge, keeping watch and relaying communications around the globe. Les Doggerel, a civilian at Air Force Space Command, looks forward to an array of cheap, “plug and play” satellites that can be launched at a moment’s notice. But perhaps the most ambitious plan comes from ICBM combat crew commander Capt. Joseph T. Page II, who calls for launching cyberattacks on enemy satellites — and then capturing the orbiters, or tossing them into the atmosphere, if the need arises. Military planners have long considered space to be the “ultimate high ground.” And to defend that high ground, Air Force doctrine calls for two main strategies defensive counterspace (protecting our satellites) and offensive counterspace (knocking out the other guys’). Capt. Page isn’t too impressed with playing defense. “It will not increase the balance in our favor but only ‘hold the line’ against enemy attacks,’” he writes. But offensive counterspace has proved tricky, with the specter of shards of broken satellites strewn in space, or crashing down to Earth. Page’s suggestion: hijack an enemy orbiter’s attitude control system — which runs everything from propulsion to communications and replace it with a “parasitic attitude control system,” or PACS. The idea of covertly supplanting a satellites ACS is technologically feasible and may become a desired, mature capability when conflict arises in space. [It] involves controlling an enemy satellite by supplanting its original ACS and negating the satellites mission with the PACS. [It] can control a satellite in numerous ways Depleting the satellites primary fuel until the satellite is drifting (denial/disruption). Once a satellite runs out of maneuvering fuel to counter drifting, it is considered dead. Stressing and straining the satellite bus until body-part separation occurs from changes in angular-momentum spin rates (destruction). Assuming the satellite is three-axis stabilized, enough rotational velocity would put tremendous stress on the solar panels/deployed antennae. Application of enough stress and strain will separate the appendages, depending upon the rate of spin applied to the satellite bus. Realigning… antennae for friendly-force intelligence collection by moving the directional antennas footprint away from hostile ground-station coverage areas and towards space-based signals-intelligence satellites or simply aiming the antennae into deep space, away from Earth (deception/denial)… Pushing the satellite into transfer orbit for atmospheric reentry or physical capture (destruction/denial/degradation/disruption). Deliberate movement of the satellite out of its expected orbital plane would allow the PACS controller full, positive control over the satellites designated path. Physical capture by friendly spacecraft and crews becomes possible by bringing the satellite down to an acceptable orbital altitude. If the plan calls for its physical destruction, lowering the satellites altitude and speed can allow atmospheric friction to heat up and structurally weaken or burn up the satellite bus and payload. (emphasis mine) Now, to be clear, this is just one Captain’s concept not some official Air Force program. And other writers in the current

Journal take much more sober views of the limits of U.S. space power. Retired Lt. Col. Mel Tomme calls B.S. on the idea of launching little, “tactical” satellites into low-earth orbit. Space and Missile Systems Center commander Lt. Gen. Michael Hamel says that the military’s space capabilities have badly eroded, and that it’s time to get “back to basics.“


PACS = Hoax

PACS are just a hoax – not actually feasibleJeffrey Lewis, PhD, CSIS, 5-24-2005, “Engage Chine, Engage the World,” Space.Com,http://www.space.com/1117-engage-china-engage-world.htmlIn congressional reports and testimony, the Pentagon suggested in 2003 that China may be developing a "parasite microsatellite"-a small satellite, weighing less than 100 kilograms, that would secretly attach to an American satellite and destroy it on command. The claim was picked up by the press including the online news outlets Space Daily and Space.com, the latter noting that "China appears to be sharpening its war fighting space skills" and then devoting a third of the story to the "parasite microsatellite." In the end, it turned out to be all a hoax . Although a representative from the Pentagon noted that their claim was based on a single story that had appeared in a Hong Kong tabloid but was "being evaluated," the Pentagon never actually looked into the assertion. A pair of scholars recently discovered the story and more than 70 others like it in Chinese sources appear to have originated on a single Internet bulletin board maintained by a self-described "space enthusiast" from a small town in Anhui province. How could the Pentagon be so gullible? The story contained the smallest kernels of truth: China's Tsinghua University-along with groups in Algeria, China, Nigeria, Thailand and Turkey- is working with the University of Surrey in the United Kingdom to launch a constellation of microsatellites for disaster monitoring. These satellites, however, are incapable of performing the function of "parasite microsatellites".

PACS are a hoaxMilitary of China, force comment, 9-1-2011, “U.S. military reports often deliberately exaggerate,” http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/27214involved in the preparation of the “China military power report,” the so-called experts who are mostly politicians and amateur intelligence officers, the intelligence means very limited access, so they often mixed network information, as China’s military development “evidence.” This error is often prone to gossip. example, in 2003 and 2004 report that China is developing so-called “parasitic satellites” – a small, advanced devices, the satellite can be adsorbed on the enemy, and cut off according to instructions or destroy enemy satellites. the news has caused a huge stir in the United States, but shortly thereafter the U.S. scientists found that the whimsy of the weapons actually come from a Chinese military fans in the hypothetical personal blog. This blog published in October 2000, two Hong Kong newspapers have been copied, and then became a “sense of the word” intelligence was the “China military power report,” China’s development of space weapons as the “evidence.” This has become known to the international intelligence community, a joke.

Tactical satellites are impossibleLt. Col. Edward B. Tomme, USAF, Summer 2006, “The Myth of the Tactical Satellite,” Air & Space Power Journal, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/sum06/tomme.htmlEven with the favorable assumptions I have used in this analysis, it is clear that the ability of tactical satellites to deliver tactical effects is severely limited. Less optimistic (and more realistic) assumptions would further tip the balance against the utility and suitability of tactical satellites for tactical applications. As I have shown,

there are severe physical constraints on satellites in circular LEO and elliptical magic orbits that conflict with tactical mission requirements. It seems highly impractical, if not impossible, to perform tactically useful imagery, communications, SIGINT, and BFT missions within these constraints, especially if cost remains a consideration.


AT: Plan = Covert

Stealth satellites are not possible—physics and the tech costs too much.Associated Press, 6/21/2007, “Spy chief scraps stealth satellite program”, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19357571/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/spy-chief-scraps-stealth-satellite-program/WASHINGTON — Spy chief Mike McConnell has junked a multibillion-dollar spy satellite program that engineers hoped would someday pass undetected through the space above other nations . The move from the director of national intelligence comes after several years of congressional efforts to kill the program, known publicly as the next generation of “Misty” satellites. The new satellite was to be a stealthy intelligence spacecraft designed to take pictures of adversaries and avoid detection. Little is known about the nation’s classified network of satellites, which represent some of the most expensive government programs and receive almost no public oversight. Because of their multibillion-dollar price tags, sensitive missions and lengthy development schedules, spy agencies go to great pains to keep details from becoming public. No reason for decision McConnell gave no reason for his recent decision. Despite the program’s secrecy, he almost dared further inquiry into it. Speaking Tuesday to an intelligence conference on workplace diversity, McConnell changed the subject and ended his speech by saying: “I have been advised when I was getting ready for this job, you have to do two things: kill a multibillion-dollar program. Just did that. Word is not out yet. You’ll see soon. “And fire somebody important. So I’m searching,” he added in jest, getting a laugh from the crowd. Asked during a Q&A session to elaborate on which program he cut, McConnell declined to comment. His spokesman Steve Shaw also declined to comment on Thursday, but he noted that the director had the power to make this type of budget decision.

Advertise | AdChoices Loren Thompson, a defense expert with the Lexington Institute, said he was told by an industry source this month that the program to build the Misty satellites was ending. He said the satellite’s true name is not publicly known, but it has been assigned a designation of a letter followed by numbers. The

Associated Press separately confirmed the program was cut. Tech can't meet expectations “ People are thinking it is just not worth the huge amount of money it is sucking in,” Thompson said. Speaking generally, Thompson said promises of faster, smaller, cheaper satellites — hopes that became common during the Clinton administration — have been confounded by the laws of physics. The technology simply wasn’t able to meet expectations.

Stealth Satellites will inevitably be revealed by amateur and Russian networksTed Molczan, 1-21-2011, “Unknown GEO Object 2000-653A / 90007 Identified as Prowler”, http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/STS_38/Unknown_GEO_Object_2000-653A_-_90007_Identified_as_Prowler.pdfBy early 2009, the efforts of hobbyists, and especially of ISON, had resulted in the discovery of more than 150 bright objects which were not in any of the orbits published by the U.S. government, and roughly matched the

number of U.S. military satellites and rocket bodies acknowledged to have been launched into secret orbits. Through the efforts of hobbyists and ISON, about half had been correlated with their launch, and matched to a specific piece. During 2009 both groups continued to work to identify as many as possible of the remainder. Reports published in early 2010 by hobbyists12 and ESA/ISON13 finally

accounted for every single satellite and rocket body acknowledged to have been launched to GEO, including all of those for which the U.S Government withheld orbital elements. Their findings were very similar overall, and in complete agreement on nine relatively bright objects that remained to be matched to a launch, which included 2000-653A / 90007 (UI.139 in ISON’s catalogue). The hobbyist report tentatively correlated it with the STS 38 launch, but recommended further study, which led to the present report. The following two sections present the optical and orbital evidence that circumstantially identifies 2000-653A / 90007 / UI.139 as Prowler.

Impossible to make satellites stealthyPatrick Radden Keefe, JD Yale, February 2006, “I Spy”, Wired, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.02/spy.html?pg=3If denying the existence of a major intelligence bureaucracy with thousands of employees commuting each day to an office park near Dulles International Airport seems like a losing

proposition, a similar set of challenges besets the NRO's efforts to keep the satellites themselves obscure. For starters, there's the matter of putting them into orbit: The launch of an Atlas rocket or space shuttle

from the customary sites at Vandenberg Air Force Base or Kennedy Space Center is a spectacular event, visible for miles around. Details of many of these launches are published well in advance by Aviation Week - or Av Leak, as

it's known to the hobbyists. Furthermore, the average spy satellite is the size of a school bus and blanketed in Mylar or some other shiny thermal material that regulates its temperature. Once in space, it tends to reflect sunlight. "The problem is, space is transparent," says Jeffrey Lewis, a research fellow at the University of Maryland's Center for International and

Security Studies. "There's no way around that." Depending on its size, construction, and orbit, a satellite can reflect enough light to make it visible

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.02/spy.html?pg=3

http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/STS_38/Unknown_GEO_Object_2000-653A_-_90007_Identified_as_Prowler.pdf


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19357571/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/spy-chief-scraps-stealth-satellite-program/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19357571/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/spy-chief-scraps-stealth-satellite-program/


to the unassisted eye. Thus, even as the NRO launched black satellites hoping that Russian radar observation stations would not detect them, those same satellites were occasionally spotted by kids like Ted Molczan, or anyone else who happened to look up at the night sky.


DOD Tradeoff Links

PACS trades off with other DOD programsLt. Col. Edward B. Tomme, USAF, Summer 2006, “The Myth of the Tactical Satellite,” Air & Space Power Journal, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/sum06/tomme.htmlThe concept of operationally responsive launch to get tactically useful payloads into orbit quickly and cheaply has been around for many years.1 Operationally responsive launch has yet to be realized but is much closer to reality. There is a definite need for a capability to place inexpensive payloads into space on a very short time schedule. Developing tactically useful payloads that can take advantage of responsive launch, however, is a different matter. A combination of physical constraints placed on satellites by orbital

mechanics and operational requirements placed on their payloads by the missions that can be performed from space

prevents all but the most rudimentary tactical missions from being attainable for the foreseeable future. Even if these missions can be performed from space, they will end up costing hundreds of thousands to

several million dollars per hour overhead, a cost that would seem to place them beyond the reach of tactical or even theater

commanders. Continued funding of the tactical satellite program under the misguided notion that such satellites can

provide tactical effects on the ground only serves to drain scarce budgetary resources from other programs that can provide the desired effects.

Space Militarization funding trades off with other military budgetsDolman, Military Prof @ USAF, 9-14-2005, “US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space,” http://Www.E-Parl.Net/Pages/Space_Hearing_Images/Confpaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20&%20Space.PdfThere is another, perhaps far more compelling reason that space weaponization will in time be less threatening to the international system than without it. One of the more cacophonous refrains against weapons

procurement of any kind is that the money needed to purchase them is better spent elsewhere. It is a simple cliché

but a powerful one. Space weapons in particular will be very, very expensive. Are there not a thousand uses that are more beneficial for the money? But funding for weapons does not come directly from education, or housing,

or transportation budgets. It comes from military budgets. And so the question should not be directed at particular weapons, but

at all weapons. Immediately we see that the impact on the budget of significant increases in space weapons will be decreases in funding for combat aircraft, the surface battle fleet, and ground forces. This creates a dilemma for both pro and anti-space weaponization camps. Space advocates must sell their ideas to fellow pro-weapons groups by making the case that the advantages they provide outweigh the capabilities foregone. This is a mighty task. The tens (likely hundreds) of billions of dollars needed to develop, test, and deploy a minimal space weapons system with the capacity to engage a few targets around the world could displace a half a dozen or more aircraft carrier battle groups, entire aircraft procurement programs (such as the f-22), and several heavy armored divisions.

This is a tough sell for supporters of a strong military. It is an even more difficult dilemma for those who oppose weapons in general, and space weapons in particular. Ramifications for the most critical current function of the army, navy, and marines are profound—pacification, occupation, and control of foreign territory. With the downsizing of traditional weapons to accommodate heightened space expenditures, the ability of the us to do all three will wane significantly. At a time when many are calling for increased capability to pacify and police foreign lands, in light of the no-end-in-sight occupation of iraq and afghanistan, space weapons proponents must advocate reduction of these capabilities in favor of a system that will have no direct potential to do so.

Space weaponization trades offDolman, Military Prof @ USAF, 3-10-2006, “Toward a U.S. Grand Strategy in Space,” http://Www.Marshall.Org/Pdf/Materials/408.PdfWhat we have to think about then is what would a space-weapons-heavy american military force structure look like? And here we get a number of issues. It would be very, very expensive . L would like to leave

you with one thought here: what are the opportunity costs forgone? The money that will have to go into space is not going to come from school budgets or from transportation budgets; it is going to come from the dod. It is going to be at the cost of other military things. It has been pointed out that space weaponization and military space operations are not going to

do anything new. These things could be done by other cheaper and possibly less incendiary means.

http://Www.Marshall.Org/Pdf/Materials/408.Pdf

http://Www.E-Parl.Net/Pages/Space_Hearing_Images/Confpaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20&%20Space.Pdf

http://Www.E-Parl.Net/Pages/Space_Hearing_Images/Confpaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20&%20Space.Pdf


Politics Links – Space Weapons Unpopular

Improving defensive space capabilities costs political capital to secure fundingJohn Sheldon, program dir. @ Centre for Defence and Int’l Sec. Studies, 11-13-2008, “Deterrence in Space”, http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/622.pdfMy final point would be, and this bears repetition, that deterrence is inherently uncertain and will probably fail at some point. This said, it poses less of a political and intelligence burden than its alternatives, preemption and prevention. These latter ap-proaches can never be disavowed, as there will be occasions when they are of critical necessity, but these occasions should be rare. Ultimately, however, what Clausewitz described as friction – that is, if something can go wrong, it will go wrong – alone will impede attempts at deterrence just as much as it will impede the plans and intentions of the adversary. No amount of capability, organizational restructuring, or diplomatic skills can overcome friction entirely, but they can go a long way to mitigating its worst effects. Doing nothing while hoping for the best, however, will only court catastrophe and failure. If we are serious about doing deterrence, then we must back it up with ca-pability. There is no free ride if U.S. policy makers are serious about deterring space attacks. Resources are required and a modicum of political capital will probably have to be expended. The current financial crisis will have severe budget implications for many years to come and the protection of U.S. satellite systems may fall victim to such cuts, but only to the detriment of U.S. national security. If U.S. national security space is truly as important as many of us are saying,

then the political will should be there to secure the necessary funding for what must be done. Money may be scarce, but if it is important enough, it can be found. After all, we did find $700 billion out of nowhere. Anything less than this is just hot air. Thank you.

Congress strongly opposes space weaponization – Bush’s experience provesMichael Krepon, Founder Stimson Center, May 2009, “Space Security or Anti-Satellite Weapons?” Space Security Project, Stimson Center, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=103310Despite the 2008 ASAT test, the Bush administration was unable or unwilling to implement the Air Force’s ambitious plans for fielding “offensive counterspace” capabilities. These programs have not ranked high on the Pentagon’s budget priorities, and they have been strongly opposed on Capitol Hill. During the Bush administration, the Pentagon focused instead on demonstrations in space of multi-purpose technologies that could eventually be used to harm satellites, but that also could be used for peaceful purposes. One such program is the Experimental Satellite Series (XSS), which makes close approaches to satellites and other space objects. Such “proximity operations” in the future could be used to inspect and repair friendly satellites or to interfere with hostile ones. The Air Force also operates the Starfire Optical Range in New Mexico, which is home to a number of directed-energy research programs. In addition, the Missile Defense Agency is developing an airborne laser in a 747 aircraft. Lasers can be used for satellite inspections and station keeping, as well as for war-fighting purposes.

Stealth Satellite programs are controversial – their secrecy causes suspicionTed Molczan, 1-21-2011, “Unknown GEO Object 2000-653A / 90007 Identified as Prowler”, http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/STS_38/Unknown_GEO_Object_2000-653A_-_90007_Identified_as_Prowler.pdf4. The Story of Prowler Emerges A 2004 news report on a controversial U.S. stealth satellite program revealed that an unacknowledged second satellite had been launched on STS 38: “an experimental and highly classified satellite called ‘Prowler’,” that had “stealthily maneuvered close to Russian and presumably other nations’ communications satellites” in geosynchronous orbit.10 A 2008 article on the hidden meaning in military patches reported a second crew patch of STS 38, that appeared to hint at the unusual secrecy of their mission.11 Public knowledge of the orbits of objects in GEO was insufficient for anyone to suspect that 2000-653A / 90007 was Prowler, but that was about to change, due to the development of independent observation networks. 5. All of the Pieces of the Puzzle 5.1 U.S. was Sole Source of Public Orbital Data in 1990 To facilitate Prowler’s mission to stealthily rendezvous with, and inspect Russia’s geosynchronous satellites, the U.S. took the unusual step of not publicly acknowledging its launch. Since satellite launches are almost impossible to conceal, Prowler was provided cover by launching it together with another secret military satellite, on the classified DoD shuttle mission STS 38, and then publicly acknowledging the deployment of only one of them. At the time, the U.S. government was, for all practical purposes, the sole worldwide source of public information on the precise orbits of high-altitude Earth satellites, which it withheld for nearly all of its military satellites. Whether Prowler’s optical stealth technology proved sufficient to hide it from Russia’s military space surveillance system is not known, but the absence of independent public sources of orbital data made it easy to hide it from the public, by simply not acknowledging its existence.




Spending Links

Nanosattelites cost a lot – bulk production requires millionsBrittany Sauser, 5-16-2011, “Nanosatellite Will Look for Alien Worlds” http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/37577/?a=fThe nanosatellite has a volume of three liters; it's 10 centimeters tall, 10 centimeters wide, and 30 centimeters long. "It was an engineering feat getting all the hardware, including the necessary processing power and data storage, into such a small package," says Tuohy. Each nanosatellite will cost as little as $600,000 once in production—ExoPlanetSat cost approximately

$5 million —and their estimated orbital lifetime is one to two years. (NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Goddard

Spaceflight Center provided a small amount of money for ExoPlanetSat's development, and Goddard will conduct performance testing on the

spacecraft on a volunteer basis.) Eventually, Seager says, the researchers hope to launch a whole fleet of

nanosatellites surveying the nearest and brightest stars.

Bulk deployment means the cost is in the millionsPentagon Brief 1/27/11 http://pentagonbrief.blogspot.com/2011/01/arny-tests-nanosatellite-earth.html

While the one nanosatellite covers 1,200 miles, to get the type of continual coverage of a traditional satellite, the Army would need a constellation of 30 to 40 nanosatellites. But, at a cost of $300,000 to $400,000 each, the nanosatellite is much more affordable than one traditional military or communication satellite that costs in excess of a billion dollars, London said.

http://pentagonbrief.blogspot.com/2011/01/arny-tests-nanosatellite-earth.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/37577/?a=f


Military Satellites Neg


AT: Seabasing – Fails – Don’t Exist

Designs for seabasing capabilities don’t even exist-and can’t support full combat operations Amol M Sabnis, Lt Cdr, Indian Navy, 2004, “Concept of Sea Basing and its Effect on Indo -US Relations: The Way Ahead,” online: http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada520272.pdfSea Basing as a concept is bound to develop further and take a more concrete form. At the very least, it will involve the presence of a large number of US ships in various parts of the world. These forward-deployed ships will give the capability for the US to immediately deploy its forces in any region of the world. Sea basing will give the capability to deploy personnel up to brigade strength according to the magnitude of the crisis. It will also speed up the tempo of operations ashore, give the US the capability to sustain operations for a longer duration than present and permit re-constitution and re-deployment of forces. The shortcoming of sea basing is that it will not be able to support a full combat operation of the magnitude of Operation Iraqi Freedom without host nation support. Yet, the current capabilities of ships and aircraft are inadequate to meet the demands of sea basing. Future designs will have to cater for these requirements. Mobile Offshore Bases or semi-submersible platforms may be an

integral part of the sea base. However, these concepts will have to further develop before they can turn into reality. Sea Basing is an incremental concept and it does not appear to have any fixed deadlines as of now. Considering the current capabilities vis-à-vis the future capabilities, the concept will take at least fifteen more years to mature into a full-fledged system.

Seabasing failsRobert E. Harkavy, Professor of Political Science at Pennsylvania State University, 2006, “Thinking about Basing,” http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/zselden/Course%20Readings/Harkavy.pdfThe CBO report briefly discusses four arguments against sea basing, whether on a modest or major scale. (36) Those arguments are the possible inability of even maximal sea-basing schemes to deal with large-scale military operations, such as in Iraq in 1990-91 and 2003; the vulnerability of sea bases to attack from ballistic and cruise missiles, maybe even greater than that of less concentrated land bases; the seeming unlikelihood that the United States would attempt large scale amphibious operations when it has not done so since the Korean War; and the expense of all the new ships and connectors needed. Though the third argument may be specious--this is what sea basing is all about, the projected lesser availability of

land bases in an ambiguously evolving global political climate--but the other three are serious. For instance, the sea-basing force envisioned by the CBO for 2035 could cost seventy to ninety billion dollars over that period. Such numbers would dwarf the current non-Egypt/Israel security assistance budgets, raising the prospect of trade-offs between them and sea basing.

The pentagon doesn’t want seabasingSam Tangredi, regional director of Strategic Insight Ltd. And author of numerous articles on strategy and defense policy, Autumn 2011, “Sea Basing: Concepts, Issues, and Recommendations,” Naval War College Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/d49d4281-7790-435d-9b3f-c7df59fb1544/Sea-Basing--Concept,-Issues,-and-RecommendationsSea basing is a strategic concept that has been defined in a variety of often contradictory ways. It is officially a joint concept, but it is widely perceived as a parochial tool to justify budget increases for the Department of the Navy. As an activity, sea basing has been described as both traditional and transformational. 1 Many proponents consider it a specific set of hardware—future platforms, such as the mobile offshore base or additional ships for the Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF), like the proposed Mobile Landing Platform, which would allow

for selective off-load of prepositioned material while still at sea. 2 A misperceived exclusive association with amphibious warfare, not currently a priority in the Pentagon, has largely driven sea basing out of policy discussions at the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) level. Ironically, sea basing came to prominence in the past decade under a Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) determined to cut capabilities from the amphibious fleet so as to fund future surface combatants. From 2002 to 2008, it appeared with great frequency and was discussed with great passion in many professional defense journals and reports. But it is not once mentioned in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 2010 report.


AT: Seabasing – No Transition

No support for seabasingSam Tangredi, regional director of Strategic Insight Ltd. And author of numerous articles on strategy and defense policy, Autumn 2011, “Sea Basing: Concepts, Issues, and Recommendations,” Naval War College Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/d49d4281-7790-435d-9b3f-c7df59fb1544/Sea-Basing--Concept,-Issues,-and-RecommendationsThe current Pentagon must deal with a quandary regarding sea basing. Experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan will sour future administrations on extensive commitments of ground forces in crisis-torn states. On the surface, this would seem to refocus DoD on improving naval capabilities, but because sea basing remains associated with putting ashore forces that are larger than SOF units (e.g., Marine expeditionary units), it is unlikely to attract more than incremental investment.

Causes fightsSam Tangredi, regional director of Strategic Insight Ltd. And author of numerous articles on strategy and defense policy, Autumn 2011, “Sea Basing: Concepts, Issues, and Recommendations,” Naval War College Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/d49d4281-7790-435d-9b3f-c7df59fb1544/Sea-Basing--Concept,-Issues,-and-RecommendationsHowever, tighter resource constraints usually bring out the worst in organizational rivalries and bureaucratic politics;

a clash among sea basing, global strike, planning for future wars like the wars we are in, recapitalizing or

“resetting” land forces, and expanding special-operations capabilities seems inevitable. Under the current Pentagon leadership and the economic constraints facing the U.S. government, such a clash would likely find sea basing on the short end.

Cuts mean no seabasingSam Tangredi, regional director of Strategic Insight Ltd. And author of numerous articles on strategy and defense policy, Autumn 2011, “Sea Basing: Concepts, Issues, and Recommendations,” Naval War College Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/d49d4281-7790-435d-9b3f-c7df59fb1544/Sea-Basing--Concept,-Issues,-and-RecommendationsBut although the Marines have experimented with incremental improvements and have received partial QDR endorsement, the Defense Department’s “program objective memorandum” for fiscal year 2012 has mandated a drastic cut in the Navy’s prepositioning budget. This could put two-thirds of the current MPF into reserve status or eliminate one of the three maritime prepositioning squadrons —specifically MPS Squadron 1, located in the Mediterranean. 20 The decision reflects OSD’s perception that the U.S. European Command and NATO will most likely not need the equipment in the immediate future. Nonetheless, a two-thirds cut, as opposed to an incremental reduction, does not bode well for the overall concept of sea basing.


AT: Hormuz Impact

No closure – economic importance and self-preservation prevents escalation.Andysheh Dadsetan, research intern for the Defense-Industrial Initiative Group, 1-24-2012, “Iran’s Defense Posture: Not So Dire Straits,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, http://csis.org/blog/irans-defense-posture-not-so-dire-straits)Iran’s history of threats and coercion dovetails with their military production and deterrence policies. It is very doubtful that Iran will actually close the Strait themselves, though the Islamic Republic has many contingencies in place should the West make the first

move. In fact, for Iran to block the Strait would ultimately create greater economic strife within the already-embattled Republic; an estimated $73 billion in annual revenue comes from oil sales, making up 50 percent of the national budget and 80 percent of Iran’s exports. With a large portion passing through the Strait of Hormuz, the

closure of the strait would cause just as significant, if not more, damage to the Islamic Republic than to the global oil markets and is likely to foment greater domestic unrest and shake the already weak Iranian economy. This should be placed

within the context of Iran’s overall military structure and doctrine, which reveals a country that has learned to concentrate more on self-preservation than power projection. If Iran cut itself off from oil revenue, essentially its lifeblood, it would cause greater harm to the Iranian establishment than the current sanctions alone. As more countries sign up to

sanction Iran, however, the Islamic Republic will find itself in an economic crisis and will likely return to negotiating before committing regime suicide. Despite some critics who see the sanctions as a clear sign of a policy of regime change, the western states have openly declared their intentions of returning to negotiations and inviting Iran to make the first overture toward restoring diplomacy. The threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is just one in a long line of wild claims and misrepresentation by Iranian officials. The military buildup and use of asymmetric naval forces ties into a larger diplomatic strategy, with greater utility in future negotiations rather than in a face-off with western nations. With prudent planning and cooperation with the international community, the United States’ heightened sanctions may avoid a military conflict – in spite of Iranian coercion – and prove to be among the most effective policy tool for putting the squeeze on this bellicose regime.

Can’t and wont close the straightMichael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School's Center for Civil-Military Relations, 12-30-2011, “Tehran's hollow Hormuz strait threat,” Pundicity, http://www.michaelrubin.org/10957/iran-hormuz-straitWhile the threat from a resurgent Iran is real, its bluster about closing the Strait is more diversion than danger. The

waterway may be an economic chokehold, but it is also a vital passage for Iran's survival. The Islamic Republic is not only the world's third-largest exporter of oil. Because of decades of mismanagement, it is also a voracious consumer of imported gasoline: Iran must import 40% of the refined petroleum it needs not only to run its automobiles, but also to power its factories and extract oil. To close the Strait of Hormuz even for a day would do far more damage to the Iranian economy than it would to the West. The Islamic Republic's goal may still be more financial than military. Iran's economy is teetering. In

the past nine months, Iran's currency has lost a third of its value against the dollar. Unemployment and inflation are both in

the double digits. To keep afloat, Iran needs high oil prices. Should the price of oil fall below $80 per barrel,

even the brutal Revolutionary Guards may not be able to maintain domestic stability for long. They know that by simply threatening tanker traffic, they can drive up the price of oil, adding hundreds of millions of dollars to their coffers. Should Tehran really want to strike a blow at the West, their target would not be the Strait. While Iranian small boats, mines and anti-ship missiles can harass international shipping, American firepower is overwhelming. The United States always maintains one or two

aircraft carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf or just outside in the Sea of Oman. Whether by chance or design, the U.S. Navy will soon have three aircraft carriers in the vicinity of Iran. Two — the USS Carl Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln — turned

around after full deployments last year in near record time. There are no Iranian boats or planes which the U.S. military does not monitor 24/7. Any Iranian challenge to the Strait would be suicide. When the Iranian government mined the Persian Gulf in 1988, damaging a U.S. guided missile frigate, President Ronald Reagan launched Operation Preying Mantis, simultaneously attacking two Iranian oil platforms. In the surrounding firefight, Iran lost a frigate, a gunboat, three speedboats and, temporarily, two oil platforms. The U.S. lost one helicopter, the casualty of a crash rather than battle damage. Had Iranian pilots not turned tail and ran, they would have been added to the casualty list on what became the largest U.S. surface engagement since World War II.


Defense Cuts Don’t Hurt Heg

Defense cuts don’t hurt heg – we’ll still be way ahead of everyone elseLawrence J. Korb, senior fellow @ Center for American Progress, 4-3-2012, “6 Reasons to Keep the Defense Budget Sequestration Cuts,” USNWR, http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-congress-repeal-the-scheduled-cuts-to-defense-spending/7-reasons-to-keep-the-defense-budget-sequestration-cutsFirst, a budget of $472 billion is more than sufficient to protect our national security. In inflation adjusted or real dollars, this is what we spent in FY 2007, the penultimate year of the Bush administration, when not even defense hawks were complaining about the budget being too low. Additionally, this budget would keep real defense spending above the Cold War average, despite the fact that we then faced an existential threat from Soviet Russia, a real "geopolitical foe." Second, in real terms, the core defense budget has gone up for an unprecedented 13 straight years. As Dick Armey, the former House leader, has noted, despite their rhetoric, the Pentagon has not yet made any real reductions. Third, if Congress allows sequestration to remain in effect over the next decade, the total reductions in projected levels of defense spending will be $500 billion or 14 percent, much smaller than previous reductions. Dwight Eisenhower reduced defense spending by 27 percent in real terms over eight years, Richard Nixon by 29 percent in six years, and Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton by 35 percent in 11 years. Fourth, reducing defense spending by $500 billion over the next decade will help reduce the federal deficit, which military leaders, like former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, correctly label the greatest threat to our national security. Fifth, sequestration will force the Pentagon's leaders to make the tough decisions which even they admit they have not had to make over the past decade. These include: reforming the military retirement, healthcare, and compensation systems, as recommended by their own task forces; cancelling or reducing the numbers of unnecessary or underperforming systems like the V-22 and the F-35; and cutting our nuclear arsenal to a realistic level, as recommended by the Air War College's School of Advanced Air and Space Studies. Sixth, and most important, the alarmist claims of those opposed to cuts are bogus. Even with a FY 2007 level budget, the United States will still spend more on defense than the next 17 nations combined, most of whom are our allies, and three times more than the Chinese. We would still have more ships than the next 11 navies in the world combined, more manned and unmanned aircraft than any other nation, and a total ground force (active duty and reserve) of 1.5 million highly-trained people. As Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was forced to admit, even with these cuts the United States will still be a global power.

Pentagon won’t choose personnel cuts – Obama will vetoKatelyn Noland, 4-2-2012, “Defense Officials,” Executive Gov, http://www.executivegov.com/2012/04/defense-officials-sequestration-impacts-contractors-more-than-feds/The resulting cuts would most likely fall on industry as a result of the President’s authority to exempt military personnel from the additional cuts, Kendall said. President Barack Obama would exercise this authority to avoid service member layoff, but Kendall suggests the impact would be devastating and increase the burden on the research and development, and investment accounts of the Pentagon. Heidi Shyu, acting assistant Army secretary for acquisition, logistics and technology, said the action would save military jobs but would shift the savings into another area of Pentagon spending.


No Defense Cuts/Sequestration

No shot of a defense budget sequesterTed Reed, 11-21-2011, “Drastic Cuts in Defense Budget Likely Won’t Happen,” The Street, http://www.thestreet.com/story/11317223/1/drastic-cuts-in-defense-budget-likely-wont-happen.html?cm_ven=RSSFeed&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tsc%2Ffeeds%2Frss%2Ftop-read-stories+%28TheStreet.com+Top+Read+Stories%29First of all, nobody seriously believes that "sequestration" is going to happen to the U.S. defense industry . Even though the failure of the super committee to cut spending is allegedly intended to trigger automatic $1.2 trillion in budget cuts over 10 years, about half of that from defense cuts starting

in fiscal 2013, this process -- which has been termed "sequestration," -- has "an easy kill switch," said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace and defense industry

analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va. "There are certainly valid reasons to be afraid, but the idea of this serious cut actually being implemented in this political climate is very limited," Aboulafia said. Not only do most Republicans oppose defense cuts, but also the defense industry is too big and too important and too politically connected , on both sides of the aisle, for its funding to be drastically cut. Moreover, Congress appears far too dysfunctional to do what it said it would do, particularly something that it clearly, from day

one, had no intention of doing. "Even if there were to be full sequestration trigger, the probability that these cuts would be sustained over a 10-year period is almost nil , " said BB&T Capital Markets analyst Carter Leake. "That does not mean investors are not

in for a very rocky ride over the next several months as this political brinkmanship plays out," Leake said. But most likely either "a zero-hour deal is reached comprised mostly of accounting gimmickry (or) defense hawks pass legislation that either full rescinds or,

materially weakens the trigger cut mechanism until the November elections." As an example of the defense industry's broad influence, Boeing (BA) may not be the biggest defense contractor -- that position is held by Lockheed Martin(LMT) -- but Boeing is so important that its latest commercial aircraft order was announced by President Obama. Obama said the Boeing order is "an example of how we are going to achieve the long-term goals I set of doubling our exports over the next several years." By contrast, for many companies, getting Regis Philbin to notice them is a big deal. Just in case even a flicker of expectation might remain that sequestration could occur, the Aerospace Industry Association, has launched a lobbying campaign that claims that a million U.S. jobs could be lost sequestration were to occur. The AIA uses a study that measures not just the effect on defense-related jobs, but also the multiplier effect of those jobs on other sectors. That totals a million jobs, with a total annual payroll of $59 billion, including 352,000 workers employed in aerospace/defense and supply chain jobs as well as all the workers whom they help to employ. In other words, it includes "the people who serve the lattes to the people who paint the houses of the people who work at the defense plants," Aboulafia said.

Sequestration won’t happen – too politically painfulTed Reed, 11-21-2011, “Drastic Cuts in Defense Budget Likely Won’t Happen,” The Street, http://www.thestreet.com/story/11317223/1/drastic-cuts-in-defense-budget-likely-wont-happen.html?cm_ven=RSSFeed&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tsc%2Ffeeds%2Frss%2Ftop-read-stories+%28TheStreet.com+Top+Read+Stories%29Despite the hyperbole, massive defense spending is clearly, for better or worse, a cornerstone of the U.S. economy and, because it is strategically spread across so many states, it has backing not only from hundreds of members of Congress, from all across the political spectrum, but also from dozens of key interest groups , from right wingers to labor unions like the International Association of Machinists. "The spending cuts of the budget control act enacted last summer place at risk the jobs of highly skilled, highly motivated workers," said IAM President Tom Buffenbarger , in a prepared statement. "We can ill afford to idle these men and women and the machines they operate indefinitely." The Defense Department budget for fiscal year 2012, which ends Sept. 30, 2012, is $518 billion. Two segments of that budget are targeted for "sequestration": They are the $113 billion procurement segment and the $75 billion research and development budget. "The sequestration would reduce these down to a little less than $100 billion in procurement and a little less than $70 billion in research and development in fiscal year 2013," said Cord Sterling, AIA vice president, in an interview. The cuts accelerate in later years. "We are very hopeful they will not get to the point where they implement the sequestration numbers," Sterling said. Otherwise, he said, many of the jobs lost would be skilled trades jobs that are not easily replaced. "It takes eight years to train a skilled welder," he noted. "We don't have the depth in the industrial base that we had during the cold war. If you take a procurement holiday, the country could not sustain this industry." While the threat of the loss of a million jobs may not be particularly realistic, "I don't think there is any vice in bringing attention to the danger of these job cuts being implemented," Aboulafia said. "I don't think it's likely

to happen, but that would be a painful outcome if it did." In fact, downward pressure on defense spending already exists due to the ongoing withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq," Aboulafia added. "But the idea that a mutually agreed upon suicide pact becomes law is just not reality."

No sequester – lawmakers will compromiseMarcus Weisgerber and Zachary Fryer-Biggs, 3-8-2012, “U.S. Defense Companies Should Remain Strong if No Sequestration,” Defense News, http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120308/DEFREG02/303080003/U-S-Defense-Companies-Should-Remain-Strong-No-SequestrationRep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he does not expect sequestration to happen. The congressman said that expiring tax cuts would cover the sequester expense, meaning no deal is necessary. “I think that the likely scenario is that the tax cuts expire, sequestration doesn’t happen, and we go into January fighting,” Smith said at the conference.


Yes Naval Power

Naval power projection high – other countries cant catch upGreg Grant, military.com associate editor, 2-20-2009, “CSBA’s $20 billion a Year Shipbuilding Plan,” DoD Buzz, http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/02/20/csbas-20-billion-a-year-shipbuilding-plan/To begin with, Work says, the U.S. Navy is in far better condition than many believe. Alarmists who say U.S. naval

power is in serious decline perform a rather dishonest counting of the current number of ships and compare that to the 1980s “600 ship Navy” standard. A more honest net assessment compares the size and combat power of the Navy to potential contemporary competitors, which paints a very different picture. Counting those ships that can “perform naval fire and maneuver,” including submarines and aviation platforms, the Navy has 203 warships. The Russian and Chinese navies combined operate 215 warships, so the U.S. has close to the “two navy standard” the Royal Navy aimed to maintain in its heyday. Measuring fleet tonnage displacement, the best proxy for measuring a fleet’s overall combat capability, the U.S. Navy enjoys a “13-Navy standard” over the world’s next biggest navies. Because the U.S. Navy early on shifted to vertical launch

magazines, it carries far more missiles, 7,804 in 75 warships, than any other navy, adding up to a “twenty-navy firepower standard.” The Navy enjoys a very high operational tempo that is unmatched by any other nation. The fleet is transforming to a “collaborative battle network” force that will integrate aerial and sea drones, satellites, seabed sensors into an unmatched command and control system. The Navy can also count on the naval power of its closest ally: the U.S. Coast Guard, with 160 cutters and 800 small craft, a force ideally suited for engaging partner navies. Then there are the 10 carrier air wings, naval special warfare units, P-8A Poseidon Multi-Mission aircraft, aerial drones and 569 MH-60 helicopters. The MH-60s are the “small craft” of the U.S. Navy, faster than any ship, able to patrol vast areas and armed with torpedoes or Hellfire

missiles. The Navy doesn’t need to worry about losing global maritime supremacy anytime soon, so Work says, the focus should be less about ship numbers and more on how the Navy fits into the national strategy and how to maintain naval dominance going forward in the face of technological advances in precision weapons and targeting. The biggest challenge the fleet will face in the future isn’t that some nation (China) might build a blue water fleet to challenge the Navy on the open ocean, as that would play to our naval and air strengths. Rather, its what Work calls “land based maritime reconnaissance-strike complexes,” land based anti-ship missiles of ever greater range, accuracy, maneuverability and number. The idea of parking carriers offshore and launching sustained air strikes is no longer valid, or at least won’t be very soon. The key parameter in future wars, conducted both from the air and sea, will be range, Work says. The Navy must fight outside the range of an enemy’s anti-air and anti ships missiles, or at least outside the missile salvo fire range. Another evolving challenge is ever more sophisticated undersea combat systems, drones, sonar systems and advanced submarines.

No challengersDennis Blair, former Commander in Chief of US Pacific Command, and Kenneth Lieberthal, professor of political science at the University of Michigan and former senior director for Asia on the National Security Council, May-Jun 2007, “Smooth Sailing: The World's Shipping Lanes Are Safe,” Foreign Affairs Vol 86 no 3, JSTOROnly a navy that can dominate a large area of water over a long period of time can seriously disrupt tanker

traffic. Effectively detecting, identifying, intercepting, and, if necessary, dispatching boarding parties onto or forcibly stopping ships

passing through a blockade area requires a large number of surface ships equipped with embarked helicopters and supported

by maritime patrol aircraft. Today, the U.S. Navy has no rivals in its capacity to impose and sustain such blockades. China, India, Japan, and Russia are the only other countries with the economic potential to build large blue-water navies in

the same league with the United States', but they are still at least 20 years away from developing the fleet strength, naval-supply networks, and operational skills needed to mount sustained blockades far from their home ports.

Our naval power is already ultra awesomeRobert Kaplan, Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, 12-17-2008 “A Gentler Hegemony,” Lexis. That is akin to where we are now, post-Iraq: calmer, more pragmatic and with a military -- especially a Navy -- that, while in relative decline, is still far superior to any other on Earth. Near the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy had

almost 600 ships; it is down to 280. But in aggregate tonnage that is still more than the next 17 navies combined. Our military secures the global commons to the benefit of all nations. Without the U.S. Navy, the seas would be unsafe for merchant shipping, which, in an era of globalization, accounts for 90 percent of world trade. We may not be able to control events on land in the Middle East, but our Navy and Air Force control all entry and exit points to the region. The multinational anti-piracy patrols that have taken shape in the Strait of Malacca and the Gulf of Aden have done so under the aegis of the U.S. Navy. Sure the economic crisis will affect shipbuilding, meaning the decline in the number of our ships will continue, and there will come a point

where quantity affects quality. But this will be an exceedingly gradual transition, which we will assuage by leveraging naval allies such as India and Japan.


AT: Chinese Navy Is Scary

The US Navy will be able to fight new Chinese developmentsInside the Navy Inside Washington Publishers “CLARK: NAVY SEES CHINA'S MODERNIZATION, WILL PLAN APPROPRIATELY” July 25, 2005Rather, China is concerned about aviation and maritime capabilities that other nations could bring to bear in their region of the world, he said. "So they're trying to build a capability to make sure that they're not pushed in a corner in their own part of the world," Clark said. Earlier that morning at the same conference, national security analysts said China wants to develop missile systems capable of threatening long-range land bases and moving targets such as ships at sea. "And I will tell you that whether they're going to do that or not, I guarantee you that I believe that it is my duty and responsibility to expect it -- based on what I understand about what they're doing -- to expect that they're trying to do that," Clark said. "I will tell you that the budget submit that's on the Hill is providing the kind of capability to make sure that the United States Navy can fight in that theater or exist in that theater, understanding the kind of capability that they're trying to bring to bear."

The US will be able to defeat the Chinese navy in a conflictInside the Navy Inside Washington Publishers “CLARK: NAVY SEES CHINA'S MODERNIZATION, WILL PLAN APPROPRIATELY” July 25, 2005Clark said two parts of the U.S. Navy's Sea Shield architecture would be critical for dealing with such threats. "The first one is sea-based missile defense," he said. "So if somebody is going to build missile systems that come after us, I want to make sure that I've got a missile system, a defensive system that not only can protect ourselves but can project that defense over other coalition or friendly forces in the theater." Michael McDevitt, a retired rear

admiral with the Center for Naval Analyses, spoke at the same event. "We need to be able to defeat their network so that in fact that targeting is just too hard to do. In other words, their system of systems, we have to be able to defeat," said

McDevitt. "And then we also have to be able to shoot them down." A third alternative called spoofing could use decoys to fool the seeker on an enemy missile, he said. The second important area is anti-submarine warfare, Clark said, noting China is building submarines at a rapid rate. "They're buying them from other countries," he said.

"They're building their own capabilities." He noted the Navy published a new ASW concept a few months ago. "I fundamentally don't believe that the old attrition warfare, force-on-force anti-submarine warfare construct is the right way to go in the 21st century," Clark said. "When we apply the netted force construct in anti-submarine warfare it will change the calculus in that area of warfighting forever, and it will be a courageous commander who decides that he's going to come waltzing into our network." McDevitt said the Navy needs "a step function improvement" in ASW. "It's gotten quite good," he said. "I don't mean to suggest that it's not capable." But as long as the Chinese navy continues to field very-difficult-to-detect-diesel submarines and multiply them in numbers, "the U.S. Navy has to get better," he said.

China’s navy poses no threat to the US – can’t project forceConn Hallinan, foreign policy analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus. 2/22/05 “Cornering the Dragon.”http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0502dragon.htmlChina’s military budget is less than one tenth that of the U.S. and it does not have a massive arms industry, preferring to purchase submarines, destroyers, aircraft, and high performance anti-aircraft missiles from Russia and Israel. In spite of Rumsfeld’s grim forecast, the Chinese navy is designed for defending its territorial waters, not projecting force elsewhere. While the U.S. has a dozen aircraft carriers, China has one, and an old obsolete Soviet one at that . While China has deployed large numbers of intermediate range ballistic missiles facing Taiwan, most observers see this more as an attempt to intimidate the Taiwanese than as a prelude to invasion or a threat to U.S. forces in the region. The missiles are far too inaccurate to pose a military threat, on top of which Taiwan has become so central to China’s economy that any actual attack on the island would be an act of economic suicide. Jonathan Pollack, director of the Strategic Research Department of the U.S. Naval War College, told the New York Times that while China did have the largest standing army in the world and was in the process of modernizing, “I don’t see these capabilities as the leading edge of a more comprehensive, long-term plan to either supplement U.S. military power in the Western Pacific or challenge U.S. power on a global scale,” adding, “Let’s not make them out to be 10 feet tall.”


SQ Solves SATCOM

DOD will solve the adhoc approach to SATCOM nowBarry Rosenberg, editor-in-chief of Defense Systems, 2/25/2010, “DOD's reliance on commercial satellites hits new zenith”, Defense Systems, http://defensesystems.com/Articles/2010/03/11/Cover-story-The-Satcom-Challenge.aspx?p=1That’s a message that seems to be getting through to the military based on changes in DOD vernacular, which has evolved from calling satellite communications a surge capacity after the 2001 terrorist attacks to calling it an augmentation and now referring to it as integral. It’s now common to hear conversations center around commercial satellite communications as a core capability, as Cartwright describes it. Such a change in philosophy is not a surprise after Central Command officers, such as former Brig. Gen. Mark Bowman, have

publicly said 96 percent of satellite communications in the Centcom area of responsibility comes from the commercial sector while only 4 percent comes from Milsatcom. “The DOD is coming to the realization now that as they become more dependent on commercial services that perhaps they need to work closer with the commercial industry to ensure that their requirements are met by commercial systems,” said J.J. Shaw, director of North American and global naval programs at Inmarsat. Shaw is a former Navy commander who managed the Navy’s Challenge Athena program to acquire commercial satellite communications services for carrier battle groups. “For instance, if Inmarsat were to build a satellite system, the DOD would

like to make sure we’re using encrypted telemetry, tracking and control so we have positive control of our satellites." “ The paradigm has shifted from commercial satcom being surge augmentation to being core,” Shaw said. “It has changed [the military’s] perspective to the point where they realize they need to work with the commercial industry to ensure that their requirements are met.”

Pentagon is devoting a billion in dedicated funding to commercial satellite bandwidth – postdates their ev by two yearsBrendan McGarry, 4-24-2012, “Military may spend $1 billion on satellite program,” SF Gate, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/23/BUC51O7OQO.DTLThe U.S. military may spend $1 billion during the next decade to piggyback its communications equipment onto commercial satellites. The Air Force, which plans to ask companies for contract bids as early as September, has heard from "numerous" satellite operators and manufacturers interested in the deal, said George Sullivan, a contract specialist for the service. Boeing Co. and Loral Space & Communications Inc. expect to compete,

company executives said. The Defense Department has been looking for ways to ease stress on its own satellite networks, and has increasingly turned to commercial providers for extra bandwidth to handle demands such as drone surveillance and radio communications. "The requirement for bandwidth is insatiable," said Jim Simpson, vice president of business development for Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems, part of the aerospace company. Contract winners would qualify to fly and operate government equipment on commercial spacecraft. That hitchhiking gear is known in the industry as a hosted payload, which may include sensors or other instruments used to detect missiles, monitor orbital debris and track troops. The U.S. military may fly more than a dozen hosted payloads during the next decade, said Don Brown, vice president for hosted payloads at Intelsat General Corp., part of closely held Intelsat SA, the world's largest commercial satellite operator. That would put the potential value of the Air Force contract at almost $1 billion, assuming it flies 12 payloads at a cost of $82.5 million apiece, the service's price tag of a demonstration program last year. There is "pent-up demand" for the business, according to a report published last month by Northern Sky Research, a market research company. The

Defense Department has about 70 experimental payloads, and NASA and other agencies have in stock "instruments sitting on shelves waiting for a ride," according to the report. The global market for hosted payloads is expected to at least triple to more than $300 million annually in the next decade, with at least $1.8 billion in total revenue during that period, it states. The Pentagon has experimented with hosted payloads. It's a different approach than the current practice of leasing bandwidth, or capacity,

on commercial satellites already in orbit. The military now relies on commercial satellites for about 80 percent of its bandwidth needs, fueled by soaring demand from war zones, said Christopher Baugh, president of Northern Sky Research. Drone video captured over Afghanistan is distributed on satellites owned by companies such as SES SA and Intelsat.

DoD is already awarding long-term SATCOM contractsTerry Costlow, 2-24-2012, “Satellite bandwidth demand keeps soaring despite budget cuts,” Defense Systems, http://defensesystems.com/Articles/2012/02/08/C4ISR-2-satellite-bandwidth.aspxAlthough overall defense budgets are being trimmed, there’s little slowdown in the drive to provide more satellite bandwidth. User demand continues to rise, and developers are providing it by using two techniques; launching

satellites and using technologies that more fully use available links. The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and the General Services

Administration (GSA) plan to award $5 billion in satellite communications services contracts that will run for a decade. These Future Commercial Satellite Communications (COMSATCOM) Services Acquisition (FCSA) contracts underscore the ongoing shift to commercial providers.


SQ Solves Commercial SATCOM

DOD has already shifted to commercial acquisition – totally inevitableKatie Hudson, 6-24-2011, “Bandwidth Demand is ‘Never Ending,’” Hosted Payloads, http://www.hostedpayload.com/blog/bandwidth-demand-is-never-endingNow, with budget cuts, the military is actively looking for ways to grow their bandwidth capabilities without the costs of building and launching their own satellites. Although the partnership between government and commercial is nothing new, it will now have a significant shift. According to experts, nearly 80 percent of the U.S.

government’s satellite communications capacity comes from the commercial sector. The increase of demand for satellite services due to an increase in bandwidth will soon mean more transponders in orbit. In fact, in the National Defense article, quotes Tip Osterthaler, CEO and president of SES World Skies U.S. Government Solutions as saying that the growth of unmanned systems is being grossly underestimated. Although Obama recently announced to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, the need for intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance will still increase. In the article, Osterhaler, a retired Air Force brigadier general was quoted as saying, “Fewer boots on the ground mean more eyes in the sky." Commercial companies in the next few years will be upgrading their geosynchronous satellite fleets, as well as an increase in low-Earth orbit

transponders. Toward the end of the decade, hosted payloads are also expected to gain popularity. The demand for an increase in bandwidth coupled with a growth in unmanned systems such as UAVs, means a collaboration between the government and commercial providers will have to take place soon. ISR, DOD, and other government agencies are indeed driving a higher demand on satellite bandwidth capability and therefore there has to be closer partnership between the military and commercial satellite companies.

DOD will already switch to permanent budget for commercial SATCOM – contingency funds have dried upTitus Ledbetter, 3-16-2012, “Source of DoD Commercial Bandwidth Funds is Drying Up,” Space News, http://www.spacenews.com/military/120316-dod-bandwidth-funds-drying.htmlWith a primary source of funding for commercial satellite capacity drying up, the U.S. Department of Defense must find an alternative means to feed the tremendous appetite for bandwidth generated by unmanned aircraft, according to a

U.S. Air Force official. For the past decade or so, the Pentagon has relied heavily on Overseas Contingency Operations

(OCO) accounts funded by wartime supplemental appropriations bills to pay for commercial satellite services. But the Pentagon likely will not be able meet the demand for commercial satellite bandwidth with OCO funding in the months and years ahead, said Air Force Col. Michael Lakos, the service’s military satellite communications lead. Speaking at the Satellite 2012 conference here organized by Access Intelligence LLC, Lakos pleaded with satellite industry executives to come up with cheaper ways of providing bandwidth that is critical to a growing number of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) applications. “There is not a lot of money to put those into the service budgets because those are being shrunk,” he said. The Air Force has been wrestling with the funding problem internally, Lakos said. “At the same time, we are going to have to leverage you folks from industry to help us solve that problem, but again, trying to do it better but cheaper at the same time,” he said. Bandwidth requirements for UAV operations have increased since the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq late last year, according to Ed Spitler, vice president of managed network services for Artel LLC, based in Reston, Va. Artel provides satellites network solutions to U.S. military customers. Industry officials have maintained that the military’s demand for commercial bandwidth will not decline as its forces withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan because the draw-downs will increase its reliance on bandwidth-hungry UAVs. However, some satellite operators, such as Intelsat, have reported softening Pentagon

demand in recent months. There is little question, however, that the Pentagon’s reliance on UAVs is growing. The Defense

Department’s 2013 budget request allocates nearly $2 billion to the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper UAV programs, a sum that covers procurement of 43 aircraft and related activities, according to budget documents.

Long-term contracts for commercial SATCOM nowSimon Kershaw, 3-27-2012, “Commercial sitcom remains vital to military,” Defense Systems, http://defensesystems.com/articles/2012/02/28/industry-perpsective-commercial-satellite-services.aspxIt's no surprise that many of the new military satellite communications systems that DOD is deploying and planning are adopting commercial business practices and technologies to improve cost, schedule and performance.

Commercial satellite communications providers are seeing a trend towards new defense acquisition strategies, where a larger share of the program risk is taken by industry balanced with a different shape of contract -- typically with a longer-term service engagement. The United Kingdom’s Defence Ministry pursued this strategy in 2008 when it took delivery of the Skynet-5 fleet of military satellite communications satellites, which now serve more than a dozen DOD and allied customers. Another issue that plagues governmental users of DOD assets is prioritization, where a surge in military usage may override other government departments' requirements. Here again commercial satellite communications assets in X-band (SHF) have been providing interoperability to cost effectively accommodate re-

allocated traffic. The First Gulf War accelerated DOD’s use of commercial satellite communications services and this trend continues to the present day with Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Commercial Satcom has the flexibility to respond effectively in contingency operations, when demand for bandwidth surges beyond routine operations.

West Coast – June 2012 Policy Update · Web viewThe key word, though, is eligible. Not all...

Documents

Transcript of West Coast – June 2012 Policy Update · Web viewThe key word, though, is eligible. Not all...