Case outweighs – We win timeframe. Our Grant evidence indicates that China is rising in the status quo, new technologies are necessary to deal with their rise. Unchecked China leads to nuclear war, that’s the Strait Times evidence from the 1ac. China is rising now, any perception of U.S. weakness can cause miscalculation and war. Prefer timeframe because war with China causes gridlock in congress meaning nothing gets passed which makes the 1nc impacts inevitable
Case solves the impact. Our Kagan 11 evidence from the 1ac indicates that strong power protection keeps all wars from going nuclear. This means the disad has no terminal impact.
[Insert Non-Unique, will be updated from tournament to tournament]
4. Space policies popular despite fiscal pressures
Raju and Bresnahan, 11 (4/20/11, Manu Raju and John Bresnahan, Politico, “Shooting for the moon amid cuts,” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53495.html)
For all the rhetoric about cutting government spending, NASA’s space mission remains sacred in Congress. A handful of powerful lawmakers are so eager to see an American on the moon — or even Mars — that they effectively mandated NASA to spend “not less than” $3 billion for a new rocket project and space capsule in the 2011 budget bill signed by the president last week. NASA has repeatedly raised concerns about the timeframe for building a smaller rocket — but the new law expresses Congress’s will for the space agency to make a massive “heavy-lift” rocket that can haul 130 metric tons, like the ones from the days of the Apollo. Congressional approval of the plan — all while $38 billion is being cut elsewhere in the federal government — reflects not only the power of key lawmakers from NASA-friendly states, but the enduring influence of major contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing in those states.
5. Congress supports space policies – Parochial and national security concerns
Raju and Bresnahan, 11 (4/20/11, Manu Raju and John Bresnahan, Politico, “Shooting for the moon amid cuts,” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53495.html, JMP)
While some praise Congress for pushing the United States to remain a world leader in space science, critics say the national space program is effectively run by lawmakers protecting jobs in their home states. “Manned spaceflight is prohibitively expensive, especially considering our budgetary woes,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. “At one point, the administration was trying to lead NASA out of that, but congressional politics protecting parochial interests have forced the agency to waste money in the recent short-term continuing resolutions and are forcing a specific approach down NASA’s throat in the yearlong spending bill.” The latest $3 billion will likely be awarded to the same major companies that had contracts under the Bush-era Constellation program, most notably Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Alliant Techsystems — firms with extensive operations in Alabama, Maryland, Texas and Utah. As a whole, NASA is facing its own budget crunch, with its $18.5 billion budget recently trimmed by about $275 million. A top space expert, Scott Pace of The George Washington University, testified last month that NASA spent at least $21 billion over the past two decades for various programs, including manned space flight, that were later canceled. But Congress has no desire to let the agency slow down its work to return to the moon and beyond, even if that potentially could take decades to accomplish. Lawmakers from those states say their push is not parochial — that it’s rooted in the national interest to ensure the U.S. remains the base for an industry that supports thousands of highly skilled jobs. Moreover, they say it makes sense to give money to contractors with proven track records in this technical field, especially ones who have already begun work on the next generation of rockets. “Dismissing [the 130-ton rocket], or the capsule work, as constituent concerns misses the point that these are unique, national capabilities necessary to remain a leader in space exploration,” said Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.). “The Chinese are building a 130-ton rocket to go to the moon. We are dependent on the Russians for access to the International Space Station. The greatest nation on Earth, the one who stunned the world and inspired a generation by sending a man to walk on the moon, cannot afford to be eclipsed by Russia or China.”
6. Strong congressional support for space policies
Powell, 9 (12/21/09, Stewart M., Houston Chronicle, “ Moon mission gets help in Congress; Lawmakers insert wording into bill signed by Obama to get leverage over funds for manned spaceflights,” http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6780240.html, JMP)
WASHINGTON — Fearful that the White House might scale back manned space exploration, a bipartisan group of lawmakers slipped a provision into a massive government spending package last week that would force President Barack Obama to seek congressional approval for any changes to the ambitious Bush-era, back-to-the-moon program. The little-noticed legislative maneuver could yield massive payoffs for the Houston area, which has tens of thousands of jobs tied to manned space exploration. The congressional action hands NASA supporters additional leverage in their behind-the-scenes campaign to persuade Obama to budget an extra $3 billion a year to finance the return of astronauts to the moon by 2020 rather than revamping — and cutting — the manned space effort. “Congress' commitment to our nation's human spaceflight program is unwavering with respect to the path we have already charted,” says Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, whose congressional district includes Johnson Space Center. “The debate should not be if we are moving forward, but how we are going to pay for it.”
7. NASA policies don’t require political capital- bipartisan support ensures popularity
SpacePolitics.com, 5/25/2011, “Congressional support for NASA’s MPCV decision”, http://www.spacepolitics.com/category/congress/page/2/
The “key decision” that NASA announced Tuesday regarding the agency’s space exploration plans was not too surprising, and perhaps a bit underwhelming: NASA is transitioning its existing work on the Orion spacecraft to the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). In the NASA statement and media teleconference later that day, NASA indicated there would be effectively no major modifications to Orion to become MPCV, but offered little in the way of specifics on the cost of the MPCV or when it would be ready to begin flights. The MPCV was included in the NASA authorization act last year with a specific requirement to “continue to advance development of the human safety features, designs, and systems in the Orion project.” There was, then, an expectation that NASA would do what it announced yesterday, and transition its existing Orion contract to the MPCV; there was also some frustration in Congress that NASA was taking a long time to make that decision. Now, though, that NASA has done just that, members of Congress are expressing their support for that move, while pressing NASA to also make a decision soon on the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lifter. “This is a good thing,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) said in a statement. The decision “shows real progress towards the goal of exploring deep space” and also helps Florida, he added, since hundreds will be employed at the Kennedy Space Center to process the MPCV for launch. The release also notes that NASA administrator Charles Bolden called Nelson personally to inform him of the decision. In that call, Bolden told the senator that soon “NASA will be making further decisions with regard to the ‘transportation architecture’ of a big deep space rocket.” Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) also supported the decision. “After more than a year of uncertainty and delay, NASA has come to the same conclusion that it reached years ago — Orion is the vehicle that will advance our human exploration in space,” she said in a statement (not yet posted online.) She reminded NASA, though, that it “must continue to follow law” and announce plans for the SLS. “NASA needs to follow this important step by quickly finalizing and announcing the heavy lift launch vehicle configuration so that work can accelerate and the requirements of the law can be met.” “This was the only fiscally and technologically prudent decision that NASA could make,” Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) said in a statement. “With this decision NASA can continue to build on current projects and investments rather than further delay with unnecessary procurements.” NASA’s decision means that Lockheed Martin’s contract to work on Orion/MPCV will continue, and that’s a relief for people in Colorado, where much of that work is taking place. In a joint statement, Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) noted the decision protects over 1,000 aerospace jobs, and nearly 4,000 total jobs, in the state, which to them appeared to be just as important as the MPCV’s role in future human space exploration. “With the Space Shuttle Endeavor’s [sic] final launch, Orion represents the next frontier in human space exploration and has the potential to stir the imagination of a new generation of young scientists while giving our economy a much needed boost,” Bennet said.
8. No risk of a link – a logical policy maker can pass both the plan and congress bill if both are advantageous. Just because the plan may be unpopular, that doesn’t mean lawmakers will backlash against a bill they would have previously voted for
Share with your friends: