Supplemental section of the file (for printing purposes, starts at p. 102)
A2 – Unilateral Policy Bad / International CP
Download 1.03 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Europe does not have a coordinated asteroid defense policy
- 1. No risk of Apophis strike and sensationalism means no Russian funding deflection of other asteroids
- 2. A Russian Apophis mission will CAUSE a collision
- 3. Perm: do both 4. Empirically, Russian space agency is incompetent
- US must take the lead—Russia will use nuclear weapons
- US action key to solvency
- A vote for Russia’s space agency is a vote for patriarchy
A2 – Unilateral Policy Bad / International CPMultilateralism in planetary defense causes policy paralysisSeamone ‘4 (Evan, JD Univ. of Iowa College of Law!! and Judge Advocate General for the US Army, 17 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 1, lexis) Natural impact threats raise a crucial point involving cooperation within and among different nations -- unrestrained cooperation and interdisciplinary involvement can produce chaos rather than effectiveness. 93 On a continuum from short-notice threats to long-term ones, as the magnitude of a natural impact threat increases or the response time grows shorter, more agencies will petition for involvement in the decision-making process. While space and military agencies might dominate the initial stages of decision-making, law enforcement, health, environmental, and fiscal agencies will merge into the decision-making framework over time. The influx of agency involvement can, of course, offer alternative perspectives. However, disruption, dilution, or ignorance of established frameworks will, no doubt, limit the overall effectiveness of joint efforts. The solution to this problem of coordination is not necessarily to give the lead to one agency and then prevent other agencies from meaningful modification of existing standards; nor is the answer carving out limited areas in which different agencies should legislate. Instead, the answer is to draw on the experience of all the agencies that could potentially become involved, identify their needs, exchange views, and then incorporate joint considerations into a single set of coordinating instructions. The National Response Plan incorporates many of these lessons. A2: EU CPEurope does not have a coordinated asteroid defense policyTask Force ‘2k (British National Space Centre, Report of the Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects, http://www.spacecentre.co.uk/neo/report.html) There is no coordinated approach to Near Earth Objects in Europe. The Spaceguard Foundation continues to promote interest and helped organise a major international conference on the subject in Turin in 1999.The Foundation is based in Italy, and is closely linked to the Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale in Rome, supported by the Italian Research Council. The Institute is building a small survey telescope in Italy, and at Pisa there is a group expert in planetary dynamics and Near Earth Object orbit calculations. There are also related activities in universities and institutes including some in France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Greece and former Soviet Union countries. Interest in the subject is developing in a number of European institutions, including the Council of Europe. The European Union and its Commission have no formal policy on Near Earth Objects at present. A2 Russia CP1. No risk of Apophis strike and sensationalism means no Russian funding deflection of other asteroidsO'Neill 1-2 (Ian, PhD Solar Physics, “Much Ado About Apophis,” 1-2-10, http://www.astroengine.com/?p=6989) Apophis is a 300 meter wide asteroid that caused a stir back in 2004. When NASA discovered the near-Earth asteroid (or NEO), it appeared to be tumbling in our direction Armageddon-style and the initial odds for a 2029 impact were 1-in-37. Understandably, people got scared, the media went nuts and astrophysicists were suddenly very interested in space rock deflection techniques. Fortunately for us, NASA has downgraded the threat to a zero (note zero) chance of Apophis bumping into us in 2029, and lowered the risk of a follow-up impact in 2036 from a 1-in-45,000 chance to a 1-in-250,000 chance. It’s important to note that NASA didn’t just pull these numbers out of a hat; the space agency has been tracking Apophis intently since its discovery, plotted its position and projected its location to a very high degree of precision. The more we watch Apophis, the more the world’s scientists are convinced that the asteroid poses a very tiny risk to life on Earth. In fact, giving anything a 1-in-250,000 chance of happening is more of a courtesy than a ‘risk.’ Granted, we’re talking about a global catastrophe should Apophis hit, but would you ever bet on those kinds of odds? Apparently, the Russian space agency thinks it’s more of a game of Russian Roulette than NASA thinks. “I don’t remember exactly, but it seems to me it could hit the Earth by 2032,” said Anatoly Perminov, the head of Roscosmos, on December 30, 2009. “People’s lives are at stake. We should pay several hundred million dollars and build a system that would allow to prevent a collision, rather than sit and wait for it to happen and kill hundreds of thousands of people.” Wait a minute. Does Perminov know something NASA doesn’t? Is he even referring to Apophis? You know, the same asteroid NASA has calculated that has a cat in hell’s chance of causing bother in 2036? And what’s this about the year 2032? Just for the record, Perminov is indeed referring to Apophis, but he got the date wrong (Apophis does not make a flyby in 2032). Perminov also puts a price on saving hundreds of thousands of people… “several hundred million dollars” should do it, apparently. On the one hand I’m impressed that Roscosmos is calling for some kind of anti-asteroid shield, but on the other, Perminov’s concern is terribly misplaced (and potentially damaging). His statement sounds as if he’s only just heard about Apophis and then thrown into a press conference unprepared, then asked what he’s going to do about this impending doom. Naturally, in that situation he would have blurted out the first thing that popped into his head: We need to save the world! However, this isn’t the first time he’d heard about Apophis. Boris Shustov, the director of the Institute of Astronomy under the Russian Academy of Sciences, tried to repair the damage pointing out that Perminov was just using Apophis as a “symbolic example, there are many other dangerous objects we know little about.” However, saving the world from a theoretical “dangerous object” that may or may not hit us for the next few hundred /thousand/million years is less likely to get funding that an imminent 2032… sorry, 2036 impact. Although Perminov might sound reasonable in asking for asteroid deflection funding, using sensationalist means to try to leverage funding only serves to make the same funding hard to come by. 2. A Russian Apophis mission will CAUSE a collisionBarry 12-31 (Ellen, NYT staff reporter, NYT, 12-31-09, lexis) Russell L. Schweickart, a former Apollo astronaut who is chairman of the B612 Foundation, a California group that promotes efforts to deflect asteroids, hailed much of the proposal and said Mr. Perminov was the most influential official ever to articulate a coordinated deflection plan. But he objected to using Apophis to test new deflection methods, saying there was more risk if something went wrong. ''It takes a very small change in the Apophis orbit to cause it to impact the Earth instead of missing it,'' Mr. Schweickart said. ''There are a million asteroids out there. Find another one.'' 3. Perm: do both4. Empirically, Russian space agency is incompetentO'Neill ‘8 (Ian, PhD Solar Physics and correspondent for Universe Today, New Facts Emerge from Soyuz Emergency Landing, 4-21-08, http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/21/new-facts-emerge-from-soyuz-emergency-landing/) This incident highlights the risk involved with space travel, and whilst access to space is becoming more and more routine, the fact remains that things can go wrong. Many news sources are highly critical of the Russian space agency, arguing that they are incompetent. This might be a little strong, but in matters such as the safe return of astronauts, absolute clarity is needed. Attempts to cover up technical faults, citing of "bad omens" and misinformation will not help the Russian efforts in space. US must take the lead—Russia will use nuclear weaponsRIA Novosti ‘8 (RIA Novosti, Russian news service, 9-5-08, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080905/116573883.html) MOSCOW, September 5 (RIA Novosti) - Russia supports the idea of international cooperation to deal with the threat of an asteroid collision, the head of the federal space agency said on Friday. "The problem really exists, and we need to think about how to solve it - naturally through broad international cooperation within the framework of the UN," Anatoly Perminov said in an interview with the Russian daily Krasnaya Zvezda. He said a Russian radar facility, RF-70, used by the Space Forces, could be useful in dealing with the threat. Russian scientists earlier suggested nuclear explosive devices are the most effective means of protecting the Earth from possible collisions with space bodies, including comets and asteroids. US action key to solvencyBarrett ‘6 (Scott, Professor and Director of International Policy, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University and Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Center for the Study of Globalization, Yale University, 6 Chi. J. Int'l L. 527, lexis) But can we expect that this public good will be provided? Or will free riding undermine global provision of asteroid protection? The US would likely have the greatest incentive to provide this public good since it would, in absolute terms, bear the greatest loss from an asteroid collision. Indeed, it is easy to demonstrate that the economics of asteroid protection are so attractive that it would be beneficial for the US to finance the entire protection program. 40 Since it pays the US to supply the public good unilaterally, theory suggests that the good will be supplied. As it happens, behavior is consistent with this prediction. The US is already "doing more about Near Earth Objects than the rest of the world put together." 41 For example, the US has already funded a program to track large objects in space, a prerequisite for further action. (Fortunately, the nature of asteroid travel means that we should have decades, if not centuries, to prepare for a possible collision; however, comets with long-period orbits cannot be observed as easily, and these are thus particularly dangerous.) [*538] What theory cannot predict is how the public good of asteroid defense will be financed. It could be financed entirely by the US, but it could also be financed via any number of other burden-sharing arrangements. 42 To illustrate this point, consider the financing of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait was also a best shot, global public good. It enforced the norm safeguarding a state's territorial sovereignty, stabilized the global oil market, and invigorated the United Nations by carrying out the threat expressed in Security Council Resolution 678, which authorized the use of "all necessary means" to free Kuwait. 43 The US would have gained substantially from restoring Kuwait's sovereignty, but so would all other countries. Thus, while the US led the coalition against Iraq, many countries contributed, both financially and in kind. According to a Department of Defense study, foreign governments funded almost 90 percent of the military effort. 44 Bennett, Lepgold, and Unger claim that other countries paid because the US would not have intervened without allied contributions. 45 However, assuming that was not the case -- meaning that the US was willing to intervene unilaterally -- other countries would likely have contributed anyway. The US would have wanted to share the burden and other countries would have recognized their obligation to pay their fair share. A vote for Russia’s space agency is a vote for patriarchyO'Neill ‘8 (Ian, PhD Solar Physics and correspondent for Universe Today, New Facts Emerge from Soyuz Emergency Landing, 4-21-08, http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/21/new-facts-emerge-from-soyuz-emergency-landing/) As previously reported on the Universe Today, something went wrong with the Soyuz descent capsule as it completed its return mission from the International Space Station on Saturday. Back then, the Russian space authority reported the capsule had undergone a ballistic re-entry (rather than the planned "guided descent") after the crew changed the flight plan without communicating the alteration to mission control. This was the sole (official) reason given for the hard landing the three crew members suffered. South Korea's first astronaut, Yi So-yeon, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko and American Peggy Whitson endured forces exceeding nine-G (nine-times Earth gravity) as they tumbled through the atmosphere. One Russian space official cited an old naval superstition that having women on board the flight was a "bad omen" and that planners would reconsider having a female-dominant crew in the future. These remarks understandably caused a stir. Reject patriarchyReardon ‘93 (Betty A., Director of the Peace Education Program at Teacher’s College Columbia University, Women and Peace: Feminist Visions of Global Security, p. 30-2) In an article entitled “Naming the Cultural Forces That Push Us toward War” (1983), Charlene Spretnak focused on some of the fundamental cultural factors that deeply influence ways of thinking about security. She argues that patriarchy encourages militarist tendencies. Since a major war now could easily bring on massive annihilation of almost unthinkable proportions, why are discussions in our national forums addressing the madness of the nuclear arms race limited to matters of hardware and statistics? A more comprehensive analysis is badly needed . . . A clearly visible element in the escalating tensions among militarized nations is the macho posturing and the patriarchal ideal of dominance, not parity, which motivates defense ministers and government leaders to “strut their stuff” as we watch with increasing horror. Most men in our patriarchal culture are still acting out old patterns that are radically inappropriate for the nuclear age. To prove dominance and control, to distance one’s character from that of women, to survive the toughest violent initiation, to shed the sacred blood of the hero, to collaborate with death in order to hold it at bay—all of these patriarchal pressures on men have traditionally reached resolution in ritual fashion on the battlefield. But there is no longer any battlefield. Does anyone seriously believe that if a nuclear power were losing a crucial, large-scale conventional war it would refrain from using its multiple-warhead nuclear missiles because of some diplomatic agreement? The military theater of a nuclear exchange today would extend, instantly or eventually, to all living things, all the air, all the soil, all the water. If we believe that war is a “necessary evil,” that patriarchal assumptions are simply “human nature,” then we are locked into a lie, paralyzed. The ultimate result of unchecked terminal patriarchy will be nuclear holocaust. The causes of recurrent warfare are not biological. Neither are they solely economic. They are also a result of patriarchal ways of thinking, which historically have generated considerable pressure for standing armies to be used. (Spretnak 1983) These cultural tendencies have produced our current crisis of a highly militarized, violent world that in spite of the decline of the cold war and the slowing of the military race between the superpowers is still staring into the abyss of nuclear disaster, as described by a leading feminist in an address to the Community Aid Abroad State Convention, Melbourne, Australia: These then are the outward signs of militarism across the world today: weapons-building and trading in them; spheres of influence derived from their supply; intervention—both overt and covert; torture; training of military personnel, and supply of hardware to, and training of police; the positioning of military bases on foreign soil; the despoilation of the planet; ‘intelligence’ networks; the rise in the number of national security states; more and more countries coming under direct military rule; 13 the militarization of diplomacy, and the interlocking and the international nature of the military order which even defines the major rifts in world politics. (Shelly 1983). Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.03 Mb. Share with your friends:
|