They steal 1AC – It’s just the plan with something else tacked onto it. The only way for the aff to win is to prove ZERO risk of a net benefit, which is ridiculous.
Regressive – we could never account for every possible instance of consultation – they crush predictability which is the gateway to fairness and education. 190+ countries, thousands of international organizations, and billions of humans could all be consulted about the plan.
Voter for fairness and education
2. Perm: Do both
3. Perm: Do the plan and consult on other space policy; that’s best for science and technology
MIT 8 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Future of Human Spaceflight”, December, http://web.mit.edu/mitsps/MITFutureofHumanSpaceflight.pdf)
The primary objectives of exploration, national, and international prestige do not dictate exclusively national programs. Human spaceﬂight is sufﬁciently difﬁcult and expensive that international collaboration may be the only way to accomplish certain goals. Although most countries’ space programs contain nationalistic rhetoric, most also recognize the beneﬁts of cooperation.The United States has a
long history of collaboration with the European, Japanese, Canadian, and other space agencies, which should of course continue. International partnerships in human spaceflight represent the best use of science and technology to advance broad human goals and bring nations together around common values, hence they are a primary objective. The 1975 Apollo -Soyuz Test Project, for example, showcased an international gesture of cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union at a time of tension between the nations. Through these and similar means, human spaceﬂight can be an effective instrument of global diplomacy. United States should reafﬁrm its long standing policy of international leadership in human spaceﬂight and remain committed to its existing international partners. In a signiﬁcant shift from current policies, such leadership should not be deﬁned only as “ﬁrst, largest, and in charge.” Leadership should also represent foresight in building new relationships and collaborations, and in setting an example for human spaceﬂight as a civilian enterprise. Given the public enthusiasm for human spaceﬂight around the globe, a clear perception of the United States as collaborating with other countries to accomplish goals in space would have far reaching beneﬁts. The United States should invite international and commercial partners to participate in its new exploration initiatives to build a truly global exploration effort, with signiﬁcant cost sharing.
Perm: Do the counterplan
5. The Perms solve
We can do both; as long as the US is heading the project we still get our advantages
No reason consulting on space elevators is uniquely key
They steal the 1AC, that justifies Perm: Do the counterplan. As long as they are just plan plus, then the perm is not severance.
7. Turn: Binding consultation crushes U.S. leadership
Carroll 9 (James FF, Notes & Comments Editor â€“ Emory International Law Review, J.D. with Honors â€“ Emory University School of Law, â€œBack to the Future: Redefining the Foreign Investment and National Security Act's Conception of National Securityâ€, Emory International Law Review, 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 167, Lexis)
n221. See Thomas Friedman, Op-Ed., 9/11 is Over, N.Y. Times, Sept. 30, 2007, Â§ 4, at 12. This does not mean, however, that foreign countries should hold a veto over U.S. foreign or domestic policies, particularly policies that are not directly related to their national survival. Allowing foreign countries or international institutions to veto or modify unrelated U.S. policies would make a mockery of our foreign policy and destroy the credibility of American leadership. International cooperation does not require making our policy subservient to the whims of other nations. See generally The Allies and Arms Control (F.O. Hampson et al. eds., 1992). See also Khalilzad, supra note 177.
And, Heg solves global nuclear war
Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.