Wraithleader 1nr

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NR

Page 1 of 5

Roadmap is Heg (1-2), Nasa (3-5)

Hegemony 1. Pretty sure I did the opposite. My first card shows how hegemony creates a backlash: means I get his advantage. 2. That's over-extrapolating the card - it says technology and industrial leadership are key to hegemony. 3. Chinaa) False - his evidence said the climate meeting for the first time included the US and China. China showing up doesn't mean anything if they don't agree. b) It postdates my evidence by 2 years, which means nothing. China rejected it then and there's no reason they wouldn't reject it now. 4. Falsehood is falsea) They're not even considering it. "both should have been pleased that there was no attempt to set specific targets for their own greenhouse gas emissions, which they have refused to consider." b) Enviro-leadership with expected cooperation is exactly what my evidence was talking about: that alienates China and India causing political backlash: "In an ominous response, state media in China stressed the growing closeness of the two rising economic giants of Asia on the issue. "China, India agree to work more closely," said the headline in China Daily, the international voice of the ruling Communist Party." c) Unilateral foreign policy is the problem Unilateral heg creates global disorder. Shuja 08 Sharif Shuja [Monash University, Global Terrorism Research Unit Honorary Research Associate], “Why America Can Not Ignore Soft Power”, March 22, 2008, p. 17 Because of its enormous hard power capabilities, US policy-makers have been conscious of the fact that the United States potentially can, if it chooses, significantly influence its external environment. And possession

of this power often has given rise to the desire to use it.'^^^ Garry Leach, the editor of Columbia Journal, observes: The Bush Administration's unilateralist and militaristic foreign policy has made evi- dent the cracks in the new world order. In fact, in the face of a growing global resistance to the US-driven neo-liberal project, the Bush Administration's military and economic policies have contributed to a new world disorder. US military interventions have further destabilized already embattled nations, while the Bush White House's support for authoritarian regimes and its insistence on promoting free market reforms have spurred civil unrest among peoples of the South adamantly opposed to such policies.'*' Since the end of the Cold War, the US has found herself fighting in the former Yugoslavia, followed by the war in Afghanistan, and then again the ongoing occupation of Iraq. And what has China been up to in the meantime?

5. Okee doke. Here’s some other stuff then. Hegemony causes US-China arms-race. Gries 7 [Harold J. & Ruth Newman Chair in U.S.-China Issues and Director of the Institute for U.S.-China Issues at the University of Oklahoma. Director of the Sino-American Security Dialogue (SASD)], “Harmony, Hegemony, and US – China Relations” And this is what strikes me as new, and potentially dangerous, about Chinese Occidentalism today. The dialectic of similarity to and difference from the U.S. has swung decidedly in favor of difference. Unlike

China’s earlier “peaceful rise” and “peaceful development” discourse, which clearly the new discourse of “civilization

had a status quo orientation, focusing on China’s development within the existing world system,

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NR

Page 2 of 5

modes” and “harmonious worlds” appears more revisionist, pointing to a distinctly Chinese and different regional order. It evokes a hierarchical, China-at-the-center vision of East Asian politics. Furthermore, the new Chinese Occidentalism depicts Americans as an aggressive, militaristic, and threatening people. It certainly does not help that the current Bush administration’s embrace of military and unilateral means to resolve international disputes in Iraq and

The danger is that heightened Chinese perceptions of U.S. threat could promote the emergence of an acute “security dilemma” in U.S.-China relations. Feeling threatened by a “hegemonic” U.S., Chinese could decide to step up their military modernization for defensive reasons. Americans would likely respond to increased Chinese arms acquisitions with heightened threat perception of their own, leading the U.S. to embrace its own defensive arms buildup. The unintended result: a possible U.S.-China arms race in East Asia. Absent feelings of mutual trust, and given the deep elsewhere has provided ample fodder for Chinese nationalist arguments.

animosities that have led to the recent deterioration of Sino-Japanese relations and the always volatile situation in the Taiwan Strait, there is a real possibility that the United States will get drawn into yet another conflict with China in the first decades of the twenty-first century. What can be done? While American and Chinese nationalists produce Orientalist and Occidentalist discourses based on similar epistemologies of difference, other Americans and Chinese can construct discourses of similarity. At its best, American and Chinese cultural products, like the special section on contemporary Chinese literature in this issue of World Literature Today, celebrate our common humanity. Translation and cultural exchange can reveal our shared challenges: modernization, globalization—indeed, the human condition. In the end, cultural products that raise awareness of our common humanity can serve as a vital counterweight to the discourses of difference and threat that undermine U.S.-China relations.

6. Climate change ain't anthropogenic. Cross-apply Warming. 7. The disad is heg - it's a turn. Heg causes backlash, global disorder, and an arms race. If you want me to take it a step further I can - without global order there's nothing to prevent Khalizad 05 from stepping in. K'05 says dealing cooperatively prevents the impact; I've shown you how heg destroys that. That's a turn.

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NR

Page 3 of 5

Nasa 1. New spending? What? Nasa is funded now; NASA contributes $100 billion now, and it only costs us less than 20 billion; that's a NB of 80 billion. Some backup in case I don’t understand his point: (1/2) NASA is typically cut to fund new programs. AP 03 The Associated Press, "Budget cuts hurt NASA", Published, July 10, 2003, Re-Published in The Topeka Capital-Journal Online, http://cjonline.com/stories/071003/pag_nasa.shtml (HEG)

"When you start adding up the overall NASA budget picture and the shuttle budget picture over the past decade, it's rather clear the shuttle had disproportionately taken budget cuts to fund the space station, to fund Russian participation in the station," Logsdon said. "The shuttle program has served as

Between 1993 and 2000, the space shuttle's operating budget was slashed by more than $1 billion a year as a result of policy decisions by NASA, the White House and Congress to cancel two major shuttle upgrades and to shift money to help finance construction of the space station and to reduce a government-wide budget deficit. sort of a cash cow."

(2/2) Space is on the chopping block; any new spending will kill it. Space Politics 09 Space politics.com, June 25 2009, “Senate doesn’t follow House lead on exploration cuts”, http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/06/25/senate-doesnt-followhouse-lead-on-exploration-cuts/ (HEG)

The Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up their FY2010 appropriations bill yesterday and appear to have more closely followed the White House’s request than the House did earlier this month. According to the summary, the bill provides $18.68 billion for NASA overall, equal to the administration’s topline request. The summary doesn’t give the full breakout of funds by account so it’s hard to tell how closely this matches the president’s request (especially if they created a “Construction and environmental compliance” account like the House did.)

Also unclear is the fate of some smaller programs, like Centennial Challenges and related innovation efforts that are feared to be on the chopping block despite their small ($20 million) price tag. However, we do know thanks to the Orlando Sentinel that the bill includes three earmarks for Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) totaling $1.6 million, primarily for facilities at the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The full Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to take up the bill at 3 pm this afternoon.

2. UQ is on my sidea) Obama hasn't used the amount of PC he'll need to pull off Aff plan; my PC links are uncontested. b) Stimulus doesn't apply, that wasn't spending on NASA. He didn't need this amount of PC either. 3. Incorrecta) Nothing happened at any of the G(X) summits. b) turnin' the turn Increase in great-power cooperation ended in a lack of cooperation and hostilities. Time 09 The Times Online, "G20 summit: Gordon Brown's G20 dream fades amid European hostility", Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd., March 20, 2009, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5941616.ece

The Prime Minister has been forced to lower expectations for the G20 summit, where leaders of the richest 20 countries will gather. Mr Brown has stopped comparing his event on April 2 to the Bretton Woods meeting in 1944 which set up the postwar world financial system. He

recognises that there is no appetite to create new global institutions in the face of reservations

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NR

Page 4 of 5

in the European Union and the US. 4. There's no advantage to concede - none of the underlined portions of his cards show how carbon tax solves econ, or even hints at that. My impact o/w. 5. It was a turn, remember? Case extenuates power problems which accesses Mead. 6. case doesn’t o/wa) -hinges on him winning heg. b) my evidence showed how NASA funding was key; 41 states and 100billion to the econ. c) here’s backup: A strong space program is key to the economy. AA 98 Aerospace America [A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS], June, 1998 (HEG) Space Commercialization: Pushing Ahead in Congress The

worldwide commercial space sector has been growing by at least 20 percent annually for the past several years, making it one of the largest industries in the world. The entire space industry recorded revenues of nearly $ 77 billion in 1996 and employed an estimated 835,900 people. Clearly, U .S. leadership and increased growth in the booming global market depends on a commitment to enhance the competitiveness of our industry. The federal government should step up efforts to promote competition and remove obstacles to industry growth and leadership in launch vehicles and space applications such as satellite communications, navigation,

For forty years, a strong U.S. civil space program has been a key element in economic competitiveness, international prestige, national security, and humanitarian and and Earth observations as well as in space-related services, information, and other products.

disaster relief efforts. However, new elements have been introduced in national civil space policy, including tighter constraints on federal budgets and an increasing demand for some form of economic return on federal investments. In short, a cooperative relationship between the government and industry should be the cornerstone of any policy. The government invests in science and technology in support of the "public good." On the other hand, industry's main role is to develop and exploit the opportunities for opening new markets generated by the growth of space activities. When presented with an opportunity to earn a reasonable return on investment at a reasonable level of risk, industry will provide the capital, manpower, and business, technical, and marketing expertise needed to establish and maintain commercial operations.

7/8. Space colonization a) Without NASA we have no way to access space colonization from our soil. NASA is key to international cooperation which is key to space colonization. b) NASA's efforts are key to an international solution - rather than have america act as a hegemon or as non-involved we should engage in multilateral relations. Cross-apply 'unilateral hegemony bad' from above. 9. How do we get that space colonization if we don't have NASA? He's proving my point here. 10. Again with the "100% conceded". Facts don't lie. a) Those are all solvable via NASA. Once NASA's gone, who's going to solve them? b) How do 6 extinction scenarios o/w one, or at the most, two? 11. Turn the turn againa) Obama wants to but uses his PC on carbon tax. That was uncontested. His PC is key to NASA. That was uncontested. b) Bush's plans: his card says "…together with its pursuit of missile defense, (…) the USA risks

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NR

Page 5 of 5

starting…an arms race in space." His impact hinges upon space being militarized, which hinges on missile defense. And, Obama doesn't support missile defense. Obama canceled missile defense to appease Russia, Gardiner 09 Nile Gardiner [Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator], "Barack Obama surrenders to Russia on Missile Defence", Telegraph (UK), September 17, 2009, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100010237/barack-obama-surrenders-to-russia-on-missile-defence/ I blogged a couple of weeks ago that the Obama administration was about to abandon its plans for Third Site missile defence installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. I wrote then that “if enacted, this would represent a huge turnaround in American strategic thinking on a global missile defence system, and a massive betrayal of two key US allies in eastern and central Europe. Such a move would significantly weaken America’s ability to combat the growing threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program, and would hand a major propaganda victory to the Russians.” It now looks as though the president has

The Weekly Standard is reporting that: “According to reliable sources, Obama administration officials are on their way to Poland and the Czech Republic to deliver very bad news. The administration intends to cancel completely the missile defense sites that had been promised to these governments by the previous administration.” Goldfarb also links to a post by leading defence expert Gary Schmitt, who writes: “Guess who’s coming to surrendered to Russian demands to kill off Third Site. Michael Goldfarb at

dinner (in Warsaw)? Four senior Obama officials, including Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security “Sandy” Vershbow, are apparently in the air right now on their way to Poland. Why? If the Washington hot rumor mill is right, to deliver the news to the Poles and then the Czechs that the administration has decided not to go forward with a missile defense system for Europe and the United States against the budding missile threat from Iran.” This is bad news for all who care about the US commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the defence of Europe as well as the United States. It represents the appalling appeasement of Russian aggression and a willingness to sacrifice American allies on the altar of political expediency. A deal with the Russians to cancel missile defence installations sends a clear message that even Washington can be intimidated by the Russian bear. What signal does this send to Ukraine, Georgia and a host of other former Soviet satellites who look to America and NATO for protection from their powerful neighbour? The impending cancellation of Third Site is a shameful abandonment of America’s friends in eastern and central Europe, and a slap in the face for those who actually believed a key agreement with Washington was worth the paper it was written on.

Everything proceeding this hinges upon [b)] being true. It's denied.