China Cooperation Aff ddw 2011 China Cooperation Aff



Download 0.8 Mb.
Page1/25
Date19.01.2019
Size0.8 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   25

China Cooperation Aff DDW 2011


China Cooperation Aff

China Cooperation Aff 1

1AC – Plans 4

1AC China Advantage – Short Version 5

1AC Credibility Advantage – Short Version 12

1AC Mars Advantage 17

1AC China Advantage – Long Version 20

1AC Credibility Advantage – Long Version 33

***China Advantage*** 39

Inherency – Plan = Key to Chinese Cooperation – Specific Policy Needed 39

Now Key Time 40

China Militarizing Space Now 41

Arms Race Now 43

Arms Race Bad 46

Space War Coming Now 47

Impacts—Space War Goes Nuclear 48

Impacts—China War Bad 49

Impacts—Space Arms Race–Prolif, Warming, Terrorism 50

Impacts—Chinese Militarization—Extinction 52

Impacts—Militarization—Preemptive Strikes 57

Impacts—Chinese Militarization First Bad 58

U.S.-China Coop Good – Economy, Terror, Prolif 59

U.S.-China Coop Good – Space Debris, Climate Change 60

U.S.-China Coop Good – East Asian Regionalism 61

Space Coop Good—Aerospace Industry 62

Solvency—Now Key 63

Solvency—General—US-China Space Coop Solves 65

Solvency—Coop Solves Militarization 66

Solvency—Coop Solves Miscalc 67

Solvency—Coop Solves Relations/Conflict 68

Solvency—Coop Solves ASATs 70

AT: China Says No 71

XT – China Says Yes – Wants Coop 74

AT: China Won’t Cooperate—Human Rights 80

AT: China Relations High Now 81

AT: Coop Now 82

AT: No China War 83

AT: No China Space Mil 84

AT: Alt Caus—Missile Defense 85

AT: US Too Far Ahead 86

AT: China Can/Will Do It Alone 87

A2: Tech Transfers Bad 88

Solvency Mechanism—Chinese Firms 94

AT: No Chinese Firms 95

AT: China Doesn’t Subsidize SOEs 98

AT: Private Companies Not Solve Relations 99

AT: Not Solve – Wolf Clause 100

Presidential Leadership Key to Coop 101

China Key to Mars 102

***Credibility Advantage*** 105

2AC Impact Add-on 105

NASA Credibility Low Now 106

AT: Obama Credibility High Now 108

Obama Power Good 109

AT: Plan Makes Cred Worse 111

Plan Solves NASA Credibility 112

Solvency—Leadership 118

Solvency—Mars Leadership/Engagement 119

Solvency—“Screw Congress” 120

Solvency—AT: Takes Too Long 121

AT: Obama’s Credibility Not Solve War 122

AT: NASA Credibility Not Solve War 123

***Mars Advantage*** 124

Mars Key 124

Mars Good—Get Off The Rock 127

Mars Good—Get Off the Rock—AT: Long Timeframe 132

Mars Good—Get Off The Rock—Mars Key 133

Mars Good—Economy 136

Mars Good—Competitiveness 137

Mars Good—Unemployment 138

Mars Good—Soil 139

Mars Good—Technology 142

Mars Good—Key To Human Spirit 143

AT: Robots Solve 144

***Answers To Turns/Offcase Arguments*** 145

A2: Budget Cuts Turn 145

AT: Plan Kills Hegemony 149

2AC AT: Politics – Obama Good 150

AT: Anti-China Lobby Powerful 153

2AC AT: Spending DA 154

AT: India DA 155

2AC Privatization CP 156

***T Blocks*** 158

2AC AT: ‘Offer’ = Extra-T 158

1AR 2 – W/M 160

2AC AT: T ‘Its’ 161

1AR T—Development—Ext (Private Companies) 162

***Random*** 163

Chinese Sanctions Bad 163

164



1AC – Plans

Plan 1:

Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration of Mars, including an offer to the People’s Republic of China of participation in a cooperative mission that explores Mars.
Plan 2:

Plan: The USFG should substantially increase its terrestrial development of Mars through the provision of grants for state-owned aerospace and technology assets in the People's Republic of China.
1AC China Advantage – Short Version
Contention 1: China
China is militarizing space – a failure of the U.S. to respond kills space leadership

Richard D. Fisher -- a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Alexandria, Va, (1/20/11, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704320104575014341463615862.html, Caplan)



China's Jan. 11 test of exoatmospheric missile interception is worth paying attention to—especially in Washington. It isn't just an early step toward development of a missile-defense system; it's also a signal of a radical change in the country's stance on the militarization of space. The United States should take this as a wake-up call that in the long term, China intends to challenge its strategic superiority in aerospace. The People's Liberation Army publicly unveiled its new strategy as part of the Air Force's 60th anniversary in November last year. It appears that this strategy was formulated in 2004, but the world did not learn about it until PLA Air Force Commander General Xu Qiliang summarized it as "effecting air and space integration, possessing capabilities for both offensive and defensive operations." Meanwhile, Chinese diplomats continued to hew to the line set down in 1985 by the late leader Deng Xiaoping, when he told former U.S. President Richard Nixon that China "is against whoever goes in for development of outer space weapons." China started an intensive diplomatic and propaganda campaign against American missile defense programs. Most recently Beijing added its vocal assistance to Vladimir Putin's intimidation campaign, which succeeded in helping to convince current U.S. President Barack Obama to reverse his predecessor's commitment to build ground-based defenses in Europe against Iran's Chinese-aided nuclear missile threat. Today, China is beginning to shed the cloak of deception over its own missile-defense efforts, and has all but declared its intention to build an aerospace power to rival that of the U.S. After General Xu's statements, Chinese media commentaries explained that the new aerospace strategy emerged from Communist Party leader and PLA commander Hu Jintao's December 2004 call for the PLA to implement new "historic missions," which include defending China's international interests. The PLA Air Force in particular will shift from being a "campaign air force" for theater-level wars (such as against Taiwan) in cooperation with the Army, Navy and Second Artillery missile force, to a "strategic air force" increasingly capable of independent action farther from home. Of particular importance is the PLA's willingness to publicly justify a space combat mission. While it is not yet clear which service will lead this mission, the PLA Air Force is the most vocal booster. In an Oct. 31 interview, General Xu stated that "competition among armed forces is moving toward the space-air domain and is extending from the aviation domain to near space and even deep space . . . having control of space and air means having control of the ground, the seas and oceans, and the electromagnetic space, which also means having the strategic initiative in one's hands . . ." General Xu's candor forced the Foreign Ministry to inveigh the following month: "We oppose the weaponization of outer space or a space arms race . . ." But even some Chinese scoff at this self-serving propaganda. Also in November, a Chinese military expert stated that as long as "hegemonism" (code for the U.S.) maintains primacy in space, "air-and-space non-militarization is merely people's naive illusion, or just a slogan and banner." This isn't the first warning to Washington. In 2006, the PLA used ground-based lasers to "dazzle" a U.S. satellite, and in January 2007 demonstrated a ground-launched satellite interception. Last November, Chinese experts noted that the PLA may develop "assassin" satellites and "laser-armed" satellites, and reported China may already be developing an "orbital bomber." The PLA may also consider placing military assets on the moonthe first "Chang'e Three" moon lander may be equipped with a small radar and laser range-finder for "scientific" missions. The strict military-civilian "dual use" policy governing China's space program may mean that future larger unmanned Moon bases could be used to locate and target U.S. deep-space satellites that provide warning of missile strikes. It's already public knowledge that China is now developing or deploying four new nuclear-armed intercontinental land-mobile and sea-based nuclear missiles. The key variable is whether the PLA will equip these missiles with multiple warheads, as some Asia sources have suggested to me, which could conceivably allow China quickly to achieve 400 or more warheads. These same sources also estimate a national missile-defense capability could emerge before the mid-2020s. China is upgrading its aerospace capabilities closer to earth, too. Since the November PLA Air Force anniversary, PLA leaders have stated that China's fifth-generation fighter could fly "soon" and be in service by 2017-19, exceeding a recent U.S. government estimate by about a decade. Other Chinese sources speculate the PLA may build 300 of these fighters. As China signals its intention to build space-combat capabilities, increase the size and survivability of its nuclear missile forces, and build new fifth-generation air combat systems, the Obama administration is signaling retreat on the same fronts. Having declared his disdain for "Cold War" weapons in early 2009, it is unlikely that Mr. Obama will begin U.S. space-combat programs that could match and deter China in space. If anything, in fact, U.S. officials convey an indifference to China's aggressive intent. In early 2009, Mr. Obama reduced the limited number of ground-based missile interceptors to be based in Alaska and terminated a theater missile-defense program to enable one interceptor to shoot down multiple warheads. By August, the administration had defeated a Congressional attempt to extend production beyond 187 of the Lockheed Martin F-22, the premier U.S. fifth-generation jet fighter. Continuing this course risks sacrificing the air superiority in Asia the U.S. has purchased through great sacrifice. If the PLA is able to attack U.S. space assets, it can limit the U.S. military's ability to detect and respond to PLA movements. Should China decide to increase its warhead numbers to the hundreds and defend them, the U.S. nuclear deterrent extended to Japan and other allies will lose its credibility. And if a larger number of PLA fifth-generation air-superiority fighters is able to overwhelm a lesser number of U.S. F-22s, then U.S. naval forces and bases in the Western Pacific will be more vulnerable to PLA air and missile strikes. As a new U.S. administration tries to "move beyond the Cold War," primarily by limiting U.S. military power, China is signaling its intent to start an arms race. An American failure to respond would constitute a retreat from leadership. Asians will then face two unpalatable choices: accommodate China or obtain their own military deterrence. Both would increase political instability and in turn threaten the region's economic growth.
These tensions hurt the relationship – threatens full-scale war

John Chan – frequent contributor to Global Research, political analyst with WSW (2/22/11, "US threatens “military option” against China over space arms race," http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/usch-f22.shtml, RG)

US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks and published by the British Telegraph reveal that Washington has threatened military action against China’s anti-satellite and anti-ballistic missile systems. Moreover, the threat, first formally issued in 2008, has recently been reinforced by a new 10-year US National Security Space Strategy, released on February 4.

The secret cables demonstrate deep concern within both the Bush and Obama administrations about China’s capacity to destroy the satellites upon which the US military depends heavily for navigation, surveillance and precision-guidance weapons. The documents reveal aggressive messages from Washington to Beijing over the past three years. The cables relate to three sets of missile tests. On January 11, 2007, China launched a SC-19 missile to destroy an old weather satellite 850 kilometres above the earth. On February 18, 2008, the Bush administration ordered a cruiser USS Lake Erie to fire a SM-3 interceptor missile to destroy USA 193, a spy satellite 240 kilometres above the earth. In January 2010, China launched another SC-19 missile to intercept a Chinese medium-range ballistic missile flying 250 kilometres above the earth—a sophisticated test of a type only previously carried out by the US. Leaked files from the US embassy in China dated January 6, 2008, disclosed that the US had requested its major allies, such as the UK, Australia, Canada, Japan and South Korea, to join a coordinated diplomatic campaign against China’s January 2007 test. The diplomatic offensive constituted the “international opinion” at the time, accusing China of “militarising” outer space. Just a month before its own February 2008 satellite interception, the US delivered a démarche to the Chinese foreign ministry, while asking US allies, such as Germany, Italy, Israel and Japan, to do likewise. “The United States requests your government’s assistance in applying diplomatic pressure to the Chinese government,” the cable stated. The State Department issued “talking points” for these allies. One was that “China is now responsible for more breakup debris in low earth orbit than any other spacefaring nation,” alleging that this could damage other satellites. In public, the Bush administration insisted its February 2008 interception—the first since the US stopped conducting such tests in 1985—was a necessary safety measure to prevent a malfunctioning spy satellite’s toxic fuel tank from causing harm when falling to the earth. In fact, the $30 million operation aimed to send a message to China.The January 2008 démarche to China, sent by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, contained an explicit threat that “any purposeful interference with US space systems will be interpreted by the United States as an infringement of its rights and considered an escalation in a crisis or conflict.” It declared that the US reserved the right “to defend and protect its space systems with a wide range of options, from diplomatic to military”. The threat extended to any alleged Chinese “interference with the space systems of other nations which are used by the United States”. This would “be considered as contrary to the interest of maintaining international peace and security”. The démarche ended with a series of provocative questions: “What analysis did China perform to estimate the debris that would be caused by the intentional destruction of your satellite in the January 11, 2007, test?” and “What are China’s future intentions for its direct-ascent ASAT development and testing program?” The next cable shows that the US decision to destroy the USA 193 spy satellite in February 2008 angered Chinese leaders. A secret memo sent from the US embassy on February 22, 2008, noted that senior Chinese figures “repeatedly emphasized that the United States should provide information on the planned satellite interception prior to releasing the information to CNN. The Bush administration had instructed the Beijing embassy to notify the Chinese foreign ministry only after the US Pacific Command had executed the strike. Another Beijing embassy cable, dated June 13, 2008, recorded a dialogue between US Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security John Rood and China’s Assistant Foreign Minister He Yefei over the 2007 Chinese test, nuclear forces, space programs and the US “missile defence” program, which features SM-3 and other interceptor missiles. China refused to accept the US position that its National Missile Defence (NMD) program was “defensive” and posed no threat to Russia and China. Minister He argued that the US program would “break the global balance” because the US already had the greatest offensive military capabilities and the NMD would undercut the deterrence abilities of other states. The Chinese minister also warned that US-Japan cooperation on the NMD had “greatest relevance to China” because missile defence radar in Japan would cover all of China. The NMD would “force China to rethink its nuclear strategy”. The Chinese minister rebuffed a request from Rood to make China’s nuclear arsenal “transparent” because that “would eliminate its deterrent value”. The assistant foreign minister assured Rood that China would never seek nuclear superiority by “following the footsteps of the Soviet Union”. On space technology, Rood was told that China had not “crossed any thresholds” that threatened the US leadership, but China “cannot accept others setting limits on our capabilities”. This exchange took place against a definite background. Russia and China regarded the NMD as an aggressive rather than a defensive program. An article in the prominent US journal Foreign Affairs in 2006 had argued that the era of a US “nuclear primacy” had arrived because the numerical and technological superiorities of the American nuclear arsenal far exceeded those of Russia and China. The article insisted the US was now in a position to carry out a nuclear “first strike” to annihilate Russian and Chinese nuclear forces, with the NMD tasked with intercepting any surviving nuclear missiles from Russia or China.

These tensions have been exacerbated since Obama took office. The White House embarked on an even more aggressive course toward China, signalling a full-scale campaign on strategic, diplomatic and currency fronts by announcing $6.4 billion arms sales to Taiwan. In January 2010, Beijing responded with an anti-ballistic missile test, designed to show Washington that Beijing was also developing a missile defence system. The Obama administration reacted by reiterating the line of the former Bush presidency. A cable sent by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instructed US diplomats to demand that Australia, Japan and South Korea once again join “in demarching China in a fashion similar to the US approach”. Clinton sharply asked in the démarche: “Which foreign ballistic missile threats are China’s BMD development and testing program intended to defend against?” Clinton instructed embassy officials that if they were asked about the Obama administration’s position on China’s anti-missile test, they must restate the US objections to China’s 2007 test. She stated that the January 2008 US démarches threatening China with a “military option” were “still valid and reflect the policy of the United States”. The threat against China was underscored by this month’s US National Security Space Strategy (NSSS) report. It calls for the establishment of a network of “partnering nations”, such as Japan and Australia, for the “collaborative sharing of space capabilities in crisis and conflict”. In an indirect warning to China, the Pentagon declares: “We believe it is in the interests of all space-faring nations to avoid hostility in space. In spite of this, some actors may still believe counterspace actions could provide military advantage.” The report said the US military “must deny and defeat an adversary’s ability to achieve its objectives”. In other words, the US may carry out pre-emptive strikes on Chinese anti-satellite systems as a means to deny China the capacity to attack the US space arsenal. US Deputy Defence Secretary Gregory Schulte told reporters that the US “retains the option to respond in self-defence to attacks in space, and the response may not be in space, either”. From sharp but secret exchanges between the two governments, the US belligerence to China’s satellite and missile programs has been made public via the NSSS report, itself an indicator of the emerging danger of war between the US and China.
China war escalates and goes nuclear

Lee J. Hunkovic -- professor at American Military University, (“The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, American Military University, 2009, p.54)



A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a third world war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all other countries in the world that participate in the global economy, in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study.

Download 0.8 Mb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   25




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page