Empirics prove that this cp has full solvency- we never went to the moon yet it drastically increased our primacy through propaganda during the cold war-solves leadership We faked the moon landings to get ahead of the USSR during the Cold War
Conspiracy theories and hoaxes, no date
[Conspiracy theories and hoaxes, “Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Why Fake a Moon Landing?” no date, http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-why-fake-a-moon-landing.html, accessed 6/27/11, HK]
Whether the conspiracy was possible or if there was a motive for faking the landings, is a big part of the moon hoax.Many conspiracy debunkers say that there was no reason for the US to fake the moon landings.This is false,as at the time America was publicly losing the space race, as Russia had put the: First man/woman in space. First animal in space. First three person mission in space. And the first space station in orbit. Even though these landmarks were achieved using crude methods, (i.e. putting a man on a rocket or adding a extra man on a two manned spaceship) to the public eye, it would seem as if the US were losing the space race. And ‘IF’, and only if the US couldn’t put a man on the moon in time, then the deadline that JFK set, and public pressure, could have forced the government to fake a moon landing. So the US did have a motive for faking a moon landings, but how would NASA have carried out this enormous conspiracy? In this hoax imagine that you are the contractors, NASA tells you about the moon landing conspiracy and pays you for your services that your not giving. You make announcement to the public telling them that your making rocket parts. (This is for the share holders.) Then at the first day of work you tell everybody in the factory that their not really making rocket parts, and that if they play this out they’ll be set for life. Employees that don’t comply get stern death threats from NASA officials. The advantage to this is type of conspiracy is, no real equipment has to be made, except for a rocket to go up and a lander to come down. The disadvantage to this is how many people are told about the conspiracy. At one point over half a million people were involved in the Apollo project at one time, and the conspiracy believers are saying that no one came forward even on their death beds (dead men/women can not be killed) and out of all of those people nobody saw a sense of duty to tell the people of their country the truth!!
All non- unique, they have faked the space program before And government secrets aren’t all bad-safety reasons, public scrutiny and more
Feldman, law teacher at Harvard University and part of Council of Foreign Relations, 09
[Noah, law teacher at Harvard University and part of Council of Foreign Relations, The New York Times, “In Defense of Secrecy” 2/10/2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15wwln_lede-t.html, accessed 6/27/11, HK]
On the surface, it might seem that more and better information about the government’s decisions (and decision-making processes) is always preferable, especially if the information is provided before events transpire. As good-government advocates are right to remind us, if the public learns of an important decision only after it has been made, advocacy groups and concerned citizens cannot influence it. They can only give their endorsement or disapproval after the fact and hope it has some effect the next time around. When it comes to the proposal and drafting of legislation, we expect public engagement, even as we acknowledge that special-interest groups can use that process to torpedo innovative laws in the way the insurance industry brought down health care reform during President Clinton’s first term. Yet there are many circumstances in which secrets are critical. Consider the quotidian business of government inspection: it requires the element of surprise, or else regulated industries could game the system by preparing for oversight on specified days and places. A grander example comes from diplomacy. Whether to negotiate with Iran is an important topic of debate, but the actual negotiation, and even the steps leading up to it, cannot successfully be conducted under the glare of public scrutiny. Neither side would take the risks necessary for real engagement as long as its high-risk efforts could be exposed to denunciation and ridicule if it failed. The financial bailout has its own needs for secrecy. It is essential for Congress to debate what sorts of industries or companies should be saved and how, and it must authorize the money, just as it must pay for a war. But the decisions to bail out AIG and to let Lehman Brothers fail, whatever their merits, were the sorts of immediate, crisis-driven judgment calls that could not have reasonably been subjected to extensive public debate, or that would have been improved by public lobbying and interest-group advocacy. If specific companies could lobby for bailouts, and their competitors could argue against, the bailouts would turn into political football — which is what arguably distorted the effort to bail out the auto companies. Obama presumably knows all this; his pronouncements about transparency so far have been so general as to be largely symbolic. That he issued a statement urging his subordinates to “increase and improve opportunities for public participation in government” without providing any specifics suggests that he wants to change the background tone of government — but also that he recognizes the limits of transparency.
Government secrets are justified
Jarvis, New York Graduate School of Journalism, 6/22/2008
[Jeff, New York Graduate School of Journalism, Personal Democracy, “The Ethics of Openness”, 6/22/2008, http://rebooting.personaldemocracy.com/files/JeffJarvis.pdf, accessed 6/27/11, HK]
Turn it inside out. Why should we have to ask for information from our government? The government should need permission to keep things from us. Every act of government on our behalf should be free by default, with rare exceptions: the personal business of citizens, national security, ongoing criminal investigations. See Ellen Miller’s call for transparent and open government on page 59 in this anthology.. See also Barack Obama’s technology policy, calling for standardization and openness of government data, citizen involvement in decisions, and a chief technology office to implement this.