US military power and leadership is key to solve climate change.
Maybee 8 (Sean C, US Navy commander, p. 98, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i49.htm)
For the purpose of this essay, national security is defined as the need to maintain the safety, prosperity, and survival of the nation-state through the use of instruments of national power: diplomatic, military, economic, and informational power will be the drivers of GCC responses as they provide the needed resources ideas and technology. It will be through invoking military and diplomatic power that resources are used and new ideas are implemented to overcome any GCC challenges. In addition to fighting and winning the nation’s wars, the US military has a long history of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, but the potential impacts of GCC should lead national security policymakers to consider how environmental security will play a role in the future.
US leadership is key to solve warming.
Maybee 8 (Sean C, US Navy commander, p. 98, http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/i49.htm)
The national security implications of GCC pose unique challenges for the United States in part because it is best suited to lead counter-GCC efforts. The Nation has the economic and informational power to develop and resource effective methods and the international status to foster global cooperation and implementation. The U.S. military already has a robust capacity to respond and could continue to develop and use it to help other nations to build that capacity. In addition, by addressing environmental security, the United States may foster trust and cooperation while beginning to anticipate some GCC effects.
Impacts – Laundry List
Heg is necessary to prevent WMD prolif, promote human rights, and promote democracy.
Walt 2 (Stephen, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls." Naval War College Review, Vol. 55, Iss. 2. pg. 9 (20 pages) Spring 2002.
Proquest)
Thus, anyone who thinks that the United States should try to discourage the spread of weapons of mass destruction, promote human rights, advance the cause of democracy, or pursue any other positive political goal should recognize that the nation's ability to do so rests primarily upon its power. The United States would accomplish far less if it were weaker, and it would discover that other states were setting the agenda of world politics if its own power were to decline. As Harry Truman put it over fifty years ago, "Peace must be built upon power, as well as upon good will and good deeds."17 The bottom line is clear. Even in a world with nuclear weapons, extensive economic ties, rapid communications, an increasingly vocal chorus of nongovernmental organizations, and other such novel features, power still matters, and primacy is still preferable. People running for president do not declare that their main goal as commander in chief would be to move the United States into the number-two position. They understand, as do most Americans, that being number one is a luxury they should try very hard to keep.
***GENERAL***
Links - Generic Space
Any Space activities are extremely expensive
Parkinson, 91 - British Aerospace (Space Systmes) (8/8/91, R C, “Why space is expensive—operational/economic aspects of space transport,” http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=q10870gu8888l1n1&size=largest)
Space activities are expensive. This has come to be accepted. The few commercial successes, like communications satellites, have succeeded despite the expense. Other things that could be done and it would be god to do cannot be afforded or, rather, can be afforded only when rich government are prepared to spend for national prestige, military security or other intangible motives. Consider two current examples. The United States plan to build a large, permanent space station-Freedom-in orbit about Earth by the mid 1990s. It will provide a base for launching more ambitious expeditions further out in space—returning to the Moon or going to Mars. It will also provide a permanent laboratory for microgravity manufacture of materials impossible to create here on Earth. However, the cost of bringing it into being is expected to run to $15 billion, and some $1.5 billion each year will be needed to keep it in operation. Justifying such expenditures in terms of benefits received is difficult. Europe’s ambitions are more modest. The principal European plan links a German proposal for a small orbiting laboratory (Columbus) with a French proposal for a recoverable spaceplane (Hermes). Nevertheless, the pricetag to build Columbus and Hermes together currently approaches $10 billion, and annual operations will probably approach $1 billion-a commitment comparable with US programmes. In the past it has been possible to convince governments to fund such project ‘for the glory’. With such arguments, costs have been secondary. What mattered was driving technology forward, and being first. The cost reflected the difficulty of the projects attempted and the capabilities of the nations funding them. However, as the easy objectives in space have been achieved and costs continue to grow, there is a growing danger that further activity will be halted unless attention is given to making space operations less expensive. At the same time, past investment has not worked towards developing a cheaper space infrastructure but in ‘one-off spectaculars’, which hardly helps reduce costs. Attempts to reduce costs are laudable, but it must first be understood why space is currently so expensive. Aerospace engineering is exciting and glamorous, but unless the costs are sorted out it will not be possible to pursue it.
Space exploration will cost NASA more than 15 billion dollars of its budget
Timisoara, 04- writer for the spacedaily.com -(1/19/04, Virgiliu Pop, “Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost,” http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04b.html)
The new space policy of the Bush administration, aimed at taking the humankind back to the Moon and on to Mars, came under fire before even being released. In their bid at the Democratic nomination for the White House, several politicians criticized George W. Bush's grand space plans, arguing that the money would find a better use here, on Earth. "I also want to explore planet Earth and planet D.C.," Dennis Kucinich said. Al Sharpton too suggested that Bush instead try to discover the lower-income parts of Washington. "I mean, it won't cost as much ... and it would be just as enlightening for him". Joseph Lieberman stated that the money would be needed "right here on Earth to give health care that's affordable to ever! Ybody, to improve our education system, and do better on veterans' benefits and homeland security". And Howard Dean agreed that "space exploration is terrific", but went on to ask – "Where is the tax increase to pay for it? It is not worth bankrupting the country." Since the beginning of the space era, it has been argued that the money spent on space exploration should rather be used on meeting the needs of the underprivileged. "If our nation can spend … twenty billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of dollars to put God's children on their own two feet right here on earth." – were stating respected figures like Martin Luther King Jr. People like him were not necessarily opposing space exploration; they were instead disputing the priorities – is space exploration worth pursuing when money is so badly needed elsewhere? Unfortunately, the benefits of the space exploration are not self-evident, no matter how real they are. And people are genuine in their worry that money is being wasted in space. Their concern with spending priorities needs to be addressed. The high profile of space exploration makes it appear more expensive than it actually is. The uninformed, yet caring citizen, is under the earnest impression that the money would make a genuine difference in the fight against poverty. The real dimensions of the social needs are, in reality, out of proportion with the money spent in space – be it in the past, now or in the immediate future. Otherwise, there won't be any social needs left after the Congress stopped funding the Apollo missions to the Moon. In the same time, many of the critics of the space programme on social grounds are "limousine liberals". They point the finger at the US government for wasting their tax money in space instead of helping the poor, but they are not feeling guilty for their own consumerist life style and for their own scale of priorities. For instance, this year, total pet-related sales in the United States are projected to be $31 billion – the double, almost to the cent, of the $15.47 billion NASA budget. An estimated $5 billion worth of holiday season gifts were offered – not to the poor – but to the roving family pets – six times more than NASA spent on its own roving Martian explorers, Spirit and Opportunity, who cost the American taxpayer $820 million both. Instead of providing a launch pad for the immorally expensive shuttles, Florida can do better and clothe the underprivileged - a genuine alligator pet collar cost only $400 a piece. Are space rockets expensive toys for the big boys? In any case, they cost less than the $20.3 billion a year spent in the US on the human popular toy industry. One doesn't need toys to play with when the most popular game is playing deaf and blind to the needs of the poor – provided one criticizes the waste in space. Instead of betting on the future, Americans spend $586.5 billion a year on gambling. It is perhaps immoral to criticize one's personal choice, so instead of kicking the habit and feeding the poor with this money, one should stop instead the enormous waste in space who stands at a scandalous amount of 40 times less than gaming tokens. Speaking about personal choice, $31 billion go annually in the US on tobacco products - twice the NASA budget -, and $58 billion is spent on alcohol consumption -almost four times the NASA budget. Forget space spin-offs – here are genuine tangible benefits: $250 billion are spent annually in the US on the medical treatment of tobacco- and alcohol-related diseases - only sixteen times more than on space exploration. In the eve of the launch of Apollo 11, a moving event occurred at NASA's moonport. Reverend Ralph Abernathy, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and heir to Martin Luther King Jr., came to Cape Canaveral together with several hundred members of the Poor People's Campaign, to protest the money being spent on space exploration, while so many people remained poor. He was met by Thomas Paine, the administrator of NASA, who was informed that in the face of such suffering, space flight represented an inhuman priority and funds should be spent instead to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, tend the sick, and house the homeless. Paine enlightened the good reverend that the advances in space exploration were child's play compared to the tremendously difficult human problems of the society, and told him that "if we could solve the problems of poverty by not pushing the button to launch men to the moon tomorrow, then we would not push that button." Here are $976.3 billion dollars – almost a trillion - spent every year in the US on pets, toys, gambling, alcohol and tobacco. It is 63 times the amount spent on space exploration – with the difference that NASA has not destroyed lives as the alcohol, tobacco and gambling did. It is not the exploration spirit that Americans need to give up in order to alleviate poverty. It is the consumerist spirit. Instead of not pushing the button, why not kick the habit?
Share with your friends: |
