Constellation Neg STEM Advantage Answers

1NC Education/R&D CP
The United States Federal Government should adopt a comprehensive initiative to boost federal funding for Research and Development, especially frontier research, and provide incentives for education in science and technology. Boosting federal R&D and focusing it on frontier research, coupled with education initiatives to encourage domestic talent is key to boosting STEM. William R. Brody, Pres. Johns Hopkins U, 7-21-2005, U.S. Competitiveness,
http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/july%2021/brodey.pdf Talent is our nations most important innovation asset, and so it is vital that we build the base of scientists and engineers working in this country at the frontiers of new discovery. Innovation capacity in a modern technological society depends almost entirely on a broad class of scientists and engineers who can imagine, and then implement, bold new ideas. But unless the United States takes action swiftly, the demand for science and engineering talent will soon outstrip supply. The number of jobs requiring technical training is growing at five times the rate of other occupations, yet the average age of our science and engineering workforce is rising, the number of new entrants into fields other than the biological and social sciences is static or falling, and the all-important perception of these jobs as being remunerative, important and exciting career options is declining. Many of Americas working scientists and engineers are products of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958, passed in the wake of Sputnik. The NDEA sparked a half-century of remarkable innovation and wealth creation--and it may help explain why approximately 60 percent of the CEOs of the Fortune 100 have science or engineering degrees. In the knowledge economy, the ability to understand technology, and anticipate the technological foundations of growth, is becoming increasingly critical to every career path. The trouble is, enrollments are moving in precisely the wrong direction. A quarter of the current science and engineering workforce in America is more than 50 years old, and many will retire by the end of this decade. New entrants into science and engineering fields are not replacing these retirees in sufficient numbers. It is clear that the science and engineering problem begins early in the K12 educational pipeline. We are losing our future scientists and engineers around the junior high school level. In the 4th grade, U.S. students score above the international average in math and near first in science. At 8th grade, they score below average in math, and only slightly above average in science. By 12th grade, U.S. students are near the bottom of a 49-country survey in both math and science, outscoring only Cyprus and South Africa. Less than 15 percent of U.S. students have the prerequisites even to pursue scientific or technical degrees in college. And most have little interest in pursuing scientific fields. Only 5.5 percent of the 1.1 million high school seniors who took college entrance exams in 2002 planned to pursue an engineering degree. This brings me to the first of two urgent priorities facing our nation at the start of the twenty-first century: We need access to the best tech

talent in the world. And to assure that access, we must take immediate and deliberate steps to expand the pool of technical talent available in the U.S. This priority has two components. First, we must nurture, encourage, and greatly expand our homegrown pool of talent. The science and engineering pilot program offered by Mr. Gordon of Tennessee is an imaginative and innovative approach to this problem that would establish a regional pilot program to improve scientific and technological skills of elementary and secondary school teachers, and to encourage those teachers to directly participate in ongoing research projects at national laboratories and research universities. I applaud this effort to bring the excitement and challenge of scientific research into our elementary and high school classrooms, to help stimulate a new generation of future scientists and engineers. At the undergraduate level, financial incentives matter a great deal, especially given escalating tuition costs. The Tech Talent Bill, passed in 2002 by the House and largely incorporated into the 2002 National Science Foundation Authorization Act, addressed this issue by creating a class of incentives for universities to increase the fraction of students receiving undergraduate degrees in science and engineering. However, these NSF-directed programs have not been funded as authorized, so their potential impact remains unrealized. The availability of scholarship money is a critical factor in the choice of majors. Recognizing this, the National Innovation Initiative proposes the creation of an Investing for the Future Fund which would be a national Science and Engineering scholarship fund created from private sector donations. The fund would create tax incentives for corporate and individual donors who support the next generation of innovators. The goal would be to provide a scholarship to any qualified student majoring in math or science at a four-year college who has an economic need and who maintains a high level of academic achievement. Finally, in terms of homegrown talent, it is increasingly important that we reach out to under served and under-represented students. By 2020, more than 40 percent of college-age students will be of African, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-European descent. Currently, African Americans, Hispanics, and other ethnic and racial minorities account for only 6 percent of the science and engineering workforce--a figure far below their demographic presence. Women, who make up nearly half the total workforce, represent only a quarter of the science and engineering professions. If America is to strengthen its base of science and engineering talent, it must perforce rely on these, the fastest-growing segments of the workforce, to provide significant numbers of new scientists and engineers.

2NC CP Solves
Empirics prove past competitiveness has been sustained through R&D and educational support. William R. Brody, Pres. Johns Hopkins U, November, 2005, Compete or Else
Innovation, http://www.innovation-america.org/compete-or-else The legacy America bequeaths to its children will depend on the creativity and commitment of our nation to build a new era of prosperity at home and abroad. The generation of new knowledge through research, and the transmission of existing knowledge in a world-leading educational system are the two essential elements of a productive and innovative society. Since World War II, America has led the world in science and technology innovations largely because it was willing to make the considerable investments in both its educational systems and its research and development infrastructure that have enabled the natural creative genius of the American people (and visitors to our shores from all over the world) to flourish. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we should be very, very flattered that so many other nations seek to emulate the methods of our succes. But we also must be aware that today, as in no other time in our recent past, we are challenged by other nations equally determined to succeed. As Americans, we wish them ever successexcept the kind that would come at our own expense. The race belongs to the swiftest. We must keep running.

Combination of federal funding of frontier research and science and math education key to competitiveness. Vernon Ehlers, House of Reps, Michigan, 7-21-2005, US Competitiveness: The
Innovation Challenge, http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/109h/22550.pdf As a firm believer that innovation is the key to U.S. economic growth, vitality, and national security, I am pleased that the Science Committee is holding this important hearing. One of my top priorities in Congress has been to educate other Members about innovation and foster policies that enhance it. The United States is on the cutting edge of global competition because of our past investments in science and technology. Whether we remain in that position depends on how well we understand the drivers of innovation and how we choose to respond. There are many ways we can foster innovation and competitiveness at the national level, but some are less obvious than others. I have consistently advocated for two main goals: increased funding across the federal agencies that support fundamental research; and strengthening math and science education in our current and future workforce. Economists attribute more than half the economic growth in the past 50 years to technological innovation. Federally funded basic research has been responsible for groundbreaking technologies, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the global positioning system (GPS), human genome mapping, fiber optics, lasers, and the Internet. Bolstering our workforce requires improving current training programs and strengthening core math and science teaching and curricula throughout our K12 system. In the House I co-chair the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Education Caucus, a member organization that works to support STEM Education at all levels. Improving the science literacy of our current and future workforce will ensure the quality of our intellectual infrastructure. In addition to the ways I have mentioned, we

must continue to be aware of other areas that impact the innovation process and maintain Congressional awareness and support of those areas.

Education CP Solves
Department of Labor evaluation of the workforce aimed at improving federal support for science and tech education, coupled with legislation to create educational opportunities solves for manufacturing competitiveness DOC, Jan. 2004, Manufacturing in America, US Dep. Commerce, manufacturing.gov
Manufacturers across the country raised significant concerns about whether America was training the next generation of workers required to meet the needs of an increasingly high-tech workplace as well as to develop the manufacturing industries of the future. There was clear support for the development of improved vocational/ technical training at both the secondary and post-secondary level, as well as for programs designed to improve the skills of career-changing adults interested in manufacturing jobs. There was also support for improvements in basic math and science education, such as the current five-year, $1billion initiative for a new math and science partnership program that will strengthen math and science teaching and education at all levels. It is important to define the starting point for improving the skills and preparation of the U.S. workforce. Toward that end, the Department of Labor, in conjunction with the Departments of Commerce and Education, should undertake a benchmark analysis of the existing skills of the U.S. workforce and the future needs of the U.S. manufacturing sector. The effort should be designed to inform both programmatic changes at the federal level and suggestions for curricula at the local level. The analysis should address ways that federal programs that support basic education for elementary and secondary students will prepare them to enter the workforce without the need for significant remedial education. The analysis should catalog the basic academic skills needed for individuals entering the manufacturing workforce and assess the extent to which primary and secondary education in the United States provide those skills. The second step in the analysis goes to the specialized training needed to succeed in the manufacturing environment of the future. Historically, U.S. schools, particularly in secondary education, provided a number of opportunities for vocational training. Over time, these opportunities have declined, and the educational system has relied more heavily on specialized vocational-technical schools, at both the secondary and post-secondary level, to fill in the gap. The analysis should examine whether the existing system of vocational- technical education is sufficient to meet the needs of the U.S. manufacturing sector and should propose recommendations for change where needed. Establish a High School and Technical Education Partnership Initiative Congress should pass legislation creating a coordinated high schools and technical education improvement program, utilizing secondary and technical education state grants, as proposed in the presidents budget for fiscal year 2004. This program would provide high-quality technical education through partnerships between high schools and postsecondary institutions. Such an initiative, administered by the Department of Education, would support secondary and postsecondary career and technical education programs in high-demand occupational areas. The high school component would include a challenging academic core to ensure that students in the program meet state achievement standards and obtain a clear pathway to further education beyond high

school, through apprenticeship or postsecondary technical certificates and associate or baccalaureate degree programs. Such an initiative will ensure that students are being taught the necessary skills to make successful transitions from high school to college and college to the workforce.

Frontier Research CP Solves

Tech workforce is the vital internal link to competitiveness federal assistance to frontier research key. William R. Brody, Pres. Johns Hopkins U, November, 2005, Compete or Else
Innovation, http://www.innovation-america.org/compete-or-else Talent is our nation's most important innovation asset, and so it is vital that we build the base of scientists and engineers working in this country at the frontiers of new discovery. Innovation capacity in a modern technological society depends almost entirely on a broad class of scientists and engineers who can imagine, and then implement, bold new ideas. But unless the United States takes action swiftly, the demand for science and engineering talent will soon outstrip supply. The number of jobs requiring technical training is growing at five times the rate of other occupations, yet the average age of our science and engineering workforce is rising, the number of new entrants into fields other than the biological and social sciences is static or falling, and the all-important perception of these jobs as being remunerative, important and exciting career options is declining. In the knowledge economy, the ability to understand technology, and anticipate the technological foundations of growth, is becoming increasingly critical to every career path. The trouble is, enrollments are moving in precisely the wrong direction. A quarter of the current science and engineering workforce in America is more than 50 years old, and many will retire by the end of this decade. New entrants into science and engineering fields are not replacing these retirees in sufficient numbers. We should greatly increase both government and private funding in research, with a particular emphasis on "far out" frontier research that has the potential of creating new industries and transforming how we work and live. It's just like Dale Earnhardt Jr. would tell you-when the race gets tough, step on the gas.

R&D solves the economy Mikhail Zinshteyn, Writer for Campus Progress, 8-3-2010, America is Falling
Behind in Subsidizing Innovation, http://www.campusprogress.org/articles/america_is_falling_behind_in_subsidizing_inno vation1/ A 2009 report by The American Prospect detailed the sobering reality of Americas lackluster technological base within the energy industry. What about the promise of the solar industry? There was only one American company (First Solar) among the top 10 worldwide in photovoltaic-cell production in 2008 the United States accounted for only 5.6 percent of global production of photovoltaics in 2008, down from 30 percent in 1999. A look into wind energy showed only one U.S. company in the top ten internationally. It is true Obama pledged to double our exports over five years, even going so far as to invite prominent CEOs to head a task force to secure his promise to U.S. manufacturers. With an emphasis on domestic production, greater funding for homegrown industries is the logical next step. But the trade deficit keeps growing, even as exports have increased 17 percent compared to last year. And strangely, the U.S. dollar has risen in value against competing currencies, increasing the cost of American-made products at a time when domestic consumption is still hampered by the recession. The relationship between R&D

funding and domestic production cannot be overstated. A Milken Institute report showed one high-tech manufacturing job in California gives rise to 15 additional jobs outside the factory. Its not only about national prestige; a well-funded R&D program is one of the best chances the U.S. has of overcoming this jobless recovery.

Way to solve competitive thru R&D investments Jason Bordoff, Policy director of the Hamilton project at Brookings, February 2009, Strengthening American Competitiveness: Regaining Our Competitiveness,
Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/02_american_competitivenes s_brainard/02_american_competitiveness_brainard.pdf America has been losing its historical dominance in science and technology because Washington has failed to invest in R&D, while other nations have been doing just that. Because growth is largely the product of innovation, the U.S. must stay on the cutting edge of innovation to ensure that its people can fi nd opportunities and achieve prosperity. Failing to do so puts at risk the fl ow of new ideas and technologies, and undermines U.S. competitiveness. President Obama must put in a place a system that protects and encourages innovation by enabling the U.S. to: Provide incentives for innovation. For centuries, governments and individuals have off ered fi nancial prizes to encourage innovation; under the right conditions, this is money well spent. Th omas Kalil suggests that the U.S. government make greater use of inducement prizes to spur more innovative solutions to a range of scientifi c challenges. He cites fi ve areasspace exploration, African agriculture, vaccinations, energy and climate change, and learning technologies where prizes could help generate eff ective new ideas and technologies. Patent only the best. Th e U.S. patent system is broken; it hinders innovation not because it provides too few patents but because it issues too many. Th is patent thicket means that in many areas the costs of patent litigation exceed the value of the patents themselves. Doug Lichtman argues for extending a strong presumption of validity only to patents that have been adequately reviewed, and making applicants pay the cost of the review. Th is will enable only worthy innovations to receive patents, thus leaving open the possibility of greater innovation in those areas where patents have not yet been granted. Invest in blue-sky R&D. Almost two-thirds of total spending on research and development comes from the private sector. Th ough the private sector should continue to take the lead in funding R&D, the U.S. government has a critical role to play; because businesses do not capture all the benefi ts of their research, they tend to underinvest in R&D, especially the basic research that might have the biggest long term pay-off s to society. And fi rms capture less than one-quarter of the value of their innovations, reducing their incentives to invest in any R&D that is not immediately commercially marketable. Bordoff , Michael Deich, Rebecca Kahane, and Peter Orszag argue for refocusing federal investments in R&D on blue-sky basic research. Litan, Lesa Mitchell and E.J. Reedy recommend reforming the system of technology transfer from research universities to the marketplace so that universities focus on the volume of transfer rather than profi tability, to support the commercialization and diff usion of as much basic research as possible. Promote innovation clusters. Regional industry clusters, through their agglomeration eff ects, have long represented a valuable source of innovation, productivity and job creation. Th e federal government can help boost competitiveness

by catalyzing increased cluster activity in U.S. regions. According to Karen Mills, Elisabeth Reynolds and Andrew Reamer, Washington should establish a cluster information center to map the geography of clusters; maintain a register of cluster initiatives and programs; and conduct research on cluster dynamics, eff ects and best practices. In addition, a grant program to support regional and state cluster initiatives nationwide would direct fi nancial and other assistance to cluster initiatives. Th e preferred home for this two-part program would be a national innovation foundation which Robert Atkinson and Howard Wial propose creatinga nimble, lean and collaborative entity devoted to enabling fi rms and other organizations to maximize their innovation activities.

Competitiveness/Education High Now

Competitiveness and domestic education is high Frank A. Weil, Chairman of Abacus and Associates, July 27, 2010, "What Columbus
Must Have Worried About", Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-aweil/what-columbus-must-have-w_b_661039.html --The availability of adjustment in the modern world, when the excesses have been wrung out after the credit crisis, is simply amazing. With the internet and all forms of modern communication, including Google, our whole system is adjusting among regions, sectors, and substance daily. That was not true in the past. This kind of continuous, constant adjustment practically assures us that, if anywhere near the right macro policies are managed by our government, it would be impossible for the economy to collapse as it did in the 1930s. --Despite the recent credit crisis, corporate America has large amounts of cash stashed away, which it clearly intends to deploy to its advantage, particularly when costs seem relatively reasonable due to deflation. Perhaps to a lesser extent that is also true of American consumers when they see something they want. Witness: iPhones and iPads, which are not inexpensive, being bought by the millions. Little of that purchasing power was readily available in the 1930s when consumer credit barely existed. --Despite the decline in manufacturing in recent decades, in part due to exchange rate adjustments, American competitiveness is increasing. That increasing competitiveness coupled with a relatively well-educated work force suggests that we will gradually see new forms of employment incrementally adding to the work force, as part of the continuous adjustment process mentioned above. The contours of "the new continent" that is just over the horizon may not yet be quite clear, causing many doomsayers to look in the rear view mirror and say "watch out below." For two centuries, the wisest investors in America have been saying "do not sell America short." They continue to be correct. Even though we may be looking at a long, slow recovery, which will of course have short term bumps in its path, it almost certainly will continue to favor people who remain believers.

No risk of a collapse Bill Conrad, staff writer for the Plano Star Local, 10-4-2010, Despite the end of
the recession, future still cloudy for U.S. economy, http://www.couriergazette.com/articles/2010/10/03/plano_star-courier/news/534.txt Economic experts agree that the recession is over, but they differ on opinion as to what lies in the future. The recession was recently declared over by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The bureau said the economy reached its low point in June 2009, which was the official end of the recession and the beginning of economic expansion. The recession lasted 18 months, making it the longest since World War II. Prior to

the recent recession, the two longest post-war recessions were 16 months long and occurred from 1973 to 1975 and 1981 to 1982. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters when the United States gross domestic product falls. The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble and the collapse of the subprime mortgage industry in 2006 and 2007 led to a 0.7 percent decline in GDP for the first quarter of 2008. The GDP grew 0.6 percent in the second quarter of that year before declining for four consecutive quarters, with the biggest decline being 6.8 percent in the final

quarter of 2008. The economy began to grow again from July 2009 to September 2009 and has posted positive growth since, including 1.7 percent in growth during the second quarter of 2010. What lies ahead? With the U.S. economy experiencing slow but positive economic growth, what does the future hold? Nathaniel Karp, chief U.S. economist for BBVA Compass, said he believes the country is on the right track and will continue on a path of recovery. The stimulus
package did what it was designed to do, which was avoid a depression which is where we were headed, Karp said. Several years ago, there was no assurance

that the largest banks were not going to fail. People were worried about who was going to be next. Wachovia and Lehman Brothers went down and people thought that Citibank might follow. The main objective of the stimulus and the new economic policies was to avoid a depression, increase business and consumer confidence and stabilize the economy so that the private sector can take over the recovery. The private sector continuing the recovery is an important part of the process, according to Karp, and something that is necessary for continued growth. Karp said he believes a second stimulus package is not necessary and would not be effective. With the government intervening, you are borrowing from future generations, he said. The price you are paying is higher than if the private sector had done it right away, but that was not going to happen. The package filled the gap that the private sector left. We accomplished the first step by stabilizing the economy, and now we should let the private sector carry forward. Any other stimulus package wouldnt have the same meaning and impact. Right now we are not facing a meltdown and are not facing a depression. In addition, there is still money unspent from the first stimulus.

No STEM Shortage
No STEM shortage- statistics go neg Greg Toppo and Dan Vergano, 7/9/2009, Scientist shortage? Maybe not
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2009-07-08-science-engineer-jobs_N.htm) WASHINGTON The predictions are dire, the language grim: Looming shortfalls. Gathering storm. Disturbing mosaic. No, it's not the economy, global warming or the sitcom industry. It's the coming shortage of U.S. scientists and engineers, foretold for decades by corporate, government and education advocates. While there have been warnings for more than 50 years, a renewed push over the past four years has earned the attention of both the Bush and Obama administrations. Speaking to the National Academy of Sciences in April, Obama announced "a renewed commitment to education in mathematics and science," fulfilling a campaign promise to train 100,000 scientists and engineers during his presidency. Only problem: We may not have jobs for them all. As the push to train more young people in STEM science, technology, engineering and math careers gains steam, a few prominent skeptics are warning that it may be misguided and that rhetoric about the USA losing its world pre-eminence in science, math and technology may be a stretch. One example: Numbers from the U.S. Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics issued Tuesday showed the unemployment rate for electrical engineers hit a record high, 8.6%, in the second quarter, more than doubling from 4.1% in the first quarter.

No STEM Shortage
Supply for high skilled workforce meets demand sufficient number of talented students to ensure competitiveness. Hal Salzman, works at the Urban Institute, and Linday Lowell, works at the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown, May 2008, Making
the grade, Nature, 453, 28-30, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/453028a.html Improving education should be a priority for the nation, but erroneous interpretations of international test scores may drive economic and competitiveness policy in the wrong direction. When we consider that education testing shows formidable US strength as the largest producer of top-scoring students alongside a significant problem at the bottom, the threat to future competitiveness seems to be something quite different from the headlines2. Caution is needed so we neither create policies that overstock the science and technology workforce nor unthinkingly implement the education and social practices in other high-scoring countries. A full grasp of the meaning of test-score differences should lead the next president to address education and competitiveness problems more effectively than the recent America COMPETES legislation, which is now languishing for a lack of funding. Focusing the great consternation about education on real rather than imagined problems requires a careful assessment of the evidence. Lagging behind? It is misleading to gauge the relative position of the United States in the world based on a simplistic ranking of its students' test scores. This is much like measuring shoe size to predict runners' future race times while ignoring their past performance. There are substantial methodological limitations in using these tests to compare nations, including reporting 'rankings' that are based on minute differences that are not statistically significant3. For example, when considering statistically significant differences, national test scores can be clustered into three meaningful levels and the United States consistently ranks in a middle group on maths and science while being top ranked in civics4 the study of citizenship and government. Overall, about one-fifth of other nations rank better and two-fifths rank underneath the United States. Average test scores are largely irrelevant as a measure of economic potential. Still, average performance tells us nothing about the distribution of students with the very best test scores. In maths and science, when looking at average scores, the United States is outranked by countries such as Finland and South Korea. But the rankings change when we examine the percentage of students who perform at the top, those most likely to be tomorrow's innovators. The South Korean average places it in the topranked group of nations, yet its relative proportion of top performing students is 30% lower than that of the United States. In fact, the United States has a higher percentage of top-performing students than 5 of the 14 others in the topranked group of countries with high average scores. Making the grade Moreover, it would seem inappropriate to consider the United States, a country with a population of more than 300 million, in competition with Singapore, a country of 4.5 million, or with even smaller New Zealand. The economies in these countries range from a gross domestic product (GDP) of $124 billion in New Zealand to $236 billion in Finland, compared with the $14-trillion GDP of the United States. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be Massachusetts with a population of 6.4 million and a gross state

product of $338 billion, or Colorado with 4.8 million residents and a $230-billion state product. Although the top group also includes economic powerhouses South Korea and Japan, which come in at under a fourteenth and less than a third, respectively, of the size of the US economy, for the most part it makes more sense to compare US state economies with other countries because it is Massachusetts or California that is 'competing', for example, with Singapore in developing their biotech industries. If, as we argue, average test scores are mostly irrelevant as a measure of economic potential, other indicators do matter. To produce leading-edge technology, one could argue that it is the numbers of high-performing students that is most important in the global economy. These are students who can enter the science and engineering workforce or are likely to innovate whatever their field of study. Remarkable, but little noted, is the fact that the United States produces the lion's share of the world's best students (see graph). Making the grade At the same time, low-performing students can hamper productivity and here, unfortunately, the United States also stands out. The United States produces more than one million low-performing maths and science students each year, more than any other country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development except for Mexico (see graph below). Although programmes to improve education for low-performing students and schools are included in the various policy reports, they are shunted to the background when the headlines focus on increasing the numbers of those at the top, and overall seem to carry little weight when they are diluted as part of a long laundry list of recommendations. Market maths Without a doubt, science, maths and technology education is needed in today's society, whether for its citizens to understand enough to participate in public debate or just to operate the technology of everyday life. However, some argue for more advanced courses as if they want to prepare all students to be scientists or engineers. We believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with such an approach. History suggests that policies designed to stockpile scientists and engineers are counter-productive. The space race is typically cited as a success story of American technological prowess, but less often discussed is the impact of the workforce build-up on US engineering and science in the years that followed. Following a spike in the numbers of science and engineering college graduates in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a spectacular bust followed that led to high unemployment in these fields. For many years afterwards, fields such as physics were thought of as poor career choices5. Similar boom-and- bust cycles have continued for the past four decades, in engineering, in information technology (IT) and in science. History suggests that policies designed to stockpile scientists and engineers are counter-productive. When demand is translated into increased salaries and job openings, students respond. When the IT industry was growing, the number of graduates in computer science kept pace, doubling over six years. Following the collapse of the IT industry bubble, the number of graduates fell by 17% between 2003 and 2005. Employment in this field is just now reaching the levels of the boom years but, with little prospect of rapid growth, students seem to be wise in choosing other fields. Or, consider petroleum engineering. This is an industry that has had slow growth for two decades and, correspondingly, undergraduate enrolments declined 85% during that period, and master's programmes instead attracted students from areas of the world with fast-growing oil exploration. Today, 75% of US master's graduates in petroleum engineering are foreign students on temporary visas. Now, the US industry has a real need for more engineers because of increased demand for oil and new exploration coupled with 20 years of minimal hiring

and an ageing workforce. The oil industry has responded by increasing entrylevel salaries 3060% over the past four to five years, far greater than in other fields. As a result, petroleum-engineering graduates have doubled in the past five years and freshmen enrolments, at Texas Tech University in Lubbock for example, have increased more than sixfold.

No skills shortage Harold Salzman, PHD, Senior Research Associate, the Urban Institute, 11-6-2007,
Globalization of R&D and Innovation: Implications for U.S. STEM Workforce and Policy, Submitted to the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation of the Committee on Science and Technology, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/901129_salzman_stem_workforce.pdf Wheres the Problem? Hiring Difficulties versus Labor Market Shortages and Perceptions about the Future of Science and Engineering It is generally asserted, without much evidence, that education deficits are responsible for the difficulty employers experience in hiring. It is important to distinguish between the problems an employer may have hiring the people he or she wants and an actual shortage of workers or potential workers. Although there may, in fact, be a labor market shortage, all the evidence cited in various policy reports is entirely individual employer accounts of problems in hiring. The industries most vocal about labor market shortages and the need to import workers may be voicing unrealistic expectations of desired work experience more than deficiencies in the skills or education of a new hire, or just dissatisfaction with the cost of labor. In previous research (Lynn and Salzman 2002), we found that managers in engineering and technology firms do not claim a shortage of applicants, nor do they complain about applicants with poor math and science skills or education. They do often note difficulty in finding workers with desired experience, specific technical skills, or a sufficient number of brilliant workers in the pool.8 The complaint, quite often, appears to be one of unrealistic expectations, as unwittingly illustrated in a recent BusinessWeek (2007) article on labor shortages. In this article, a company president described the current labor shortage as follows: There are certain professions where skills are in such demand that even average or belowaverage people can get hired. It is difficult to consider an inability to only hire above-average workers a labor market shortage. Complaints also reflect firms dissatisfaction about the need to train new entrants; often at issue is whether firms or education institutions should shoulder the costs of training new hires.

No labor shortage flawed data and industry lies. T. D. Clark, Staff writer for Industry Market Trends, 11-21-2006, Labor Shortage:
Fact or Fiction? http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2006/11/qualified_labor_shortage_debate_fa ct_or_faction.html Doomsayers rely on such demographic data, as well as employment projections from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), to determine that as early as 2010 there won't be enough workers available to staff the nation's jobs. But such predictions often are flawed or fail to take into account a full view of the facts. Perhaps more intriguing: by 2012, there will be 3.3 million fewer workers than jobs. But there are numerous flaws with that math. Most significantly, the two

data sets involved, both of which are supplied by BLS, are derived from different sources and cannot be compared accurately. To subtract one from the other is to make an apples-and-oranges comparison that is invalid and misleading. There are a slew of other examples in the cover story debunking the BLS, but even without all these mitigating factors, the number of available workers still will exceed the number of jobs, according to the HR Magazine analysis. Then again, a piece from The Seattle Times earlier this month has the ability to send the labor shortage debate into a tailspin once again, with immigration as the catalyst. Stephen Anthony, president of the Fort Worth Building and Construction Trades Council, a network of union groups, said illegal immigrant welders have kept wages down for U.S. workers. Union welders earn on average $23 an hour, while nonunion welders generally earn about $12 an hour in the Fort Worth area, he said. Yet Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based group that opposes illegal immigration, is skeptical. "Any industry you care to name, you will generally find that the employer says, 'We can't find anybody,'" he said. "What they really mean is, 'Given what we want to pay, we can't find anybody.' And that's the kicker." Are select employers and the BLS full of, ahem, BS? Are they creating a false sense of panic as it relates to labor shortages in order to acquire workers willing to work for income less than they're worth? Well, perhaps we should toss in some more statistics to complicate the debate further. This month, the Small Business Times had the lowdown on some figures released by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) based on a survey of small businesses. "An historically high 63.3 percent of the adult population has a job, and the unemployment rate [was] 4.4 percent in October," said NFIB chief economist William Dunkelberg. "This does not sound like a labor market with deficient labor demand, but it's showing clear signs of a mismatch between supply and demand, with clear shortages of qualified workers." That's qualified workers. Hmm, so, 1) highly skilled/qualified workers 2) willing to work for less than their worth? Sounds just like the problems IMT hears from engineers on a fairly frequent basis. One of our readers recently touched on both factors: What does exist is a shortage of educated, skilled, motivated people who are willing to work for small dollars, few or no benefits, in positions offering little advancement potential. Employers want to get by very cheaply, so instead of hiring an experienced individual who knows the technology, they'll haul a guy off the plant floor and make do with him, paying him very small dollars. I've seen this done repeatedly in corporations whose names you would recognize. According to The Associated Press (via Leading the Charge), the purported shortage is felt the greatest in the energy and power sector, where there may soon be a shortage of workers who operate power plant equipment and repair power lines. A handful of schools aim to correct the problem by offering power industry training, and utility companies have started "aggressively seeking out colleges to create more." "Every day we delay hiring people, another 40-year veteran is retiring and won't be there to pass along valuable experience," said Jim Hunter, director of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers utility department. While labor shortages in the utilities sector might appear more sincere, there is still plenty of other compelling information out there claiming that the labor shortage debate carries little merit and is even a hoax. The news and comments posted at the Inside Recruiting blog, for instance, perpetuate these beliefs; meanwhile, the blog even serves up a recent reader poll, the results of which indicate that not everyone is on board with the labor shortage estimates currently circulating. The most critical piece that has come across our desks on the labor shortage scare is derived from The

American Economic Alert in an article entitled "The Labor Shortage Hoax," by Alan Tonelson, a Research Fellow at the U.S. Business & Industry Educational Foundation and the author of "The Race to the Bottom: Why a Worldwide Worker Surplus and Uncontrolled Free Trade are Sinking American Living Standards." In his analysis, Tonelson tears into recent labor shortage stats and studies with the ferocity of a pit bull, even taking on the likes of Deloitte regarding a study the company did for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM): To put it mildly, NAM should ask for its money back. Only 10 percent of the 8,000 companies contacted by Deloitte replied, and as Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel noted, lots of self-selection surely was at work. Specifically, employers not perceiving any shortages probably were much less likely to bother responding than those that did. But that's only the beginning of Tonelson's criticism: Deloitte ignored a major irony that practically shouts out from the results: Although the consulting firm recommended that companies spend at least three percent of their payrolls on employee training, it found that fully three-quarters of all respondents fell short of this threshold. Does this sound like the behavior of firms that value trained workers and are desperate to secure them? Clearly, the validity and accuracy of labor shortage data is questionable. And the myriad of factors that play into the debate, whether retiring baby boomers, illegal or even legal immigrants, offshore outsourcing or fewer upcoming engineers all seem to feed the flames of this hot-button topic from different and seemingly unrelated angles. It's a debate that will surely continue but so long as outspoken pundits and everyday workers continue to voice their displeasure with sloppy data and unnecessary panic, a labor shortage capable of bringing the U.S. economy to its knees is about as likely as John Kerry becoming a successful stand-up comic.

No shortage of scientists Beryl Lieff Benderly Miller-McCune, June 14, 2010, The Real Science Gap,
http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/the-real-science-gap-16191/ Congress and successive administrations have responded with steps they have been told will solve the problem. But some of the solutions they have adopted and hope to continue in particular, large increases in funding for research and graduate training will, experts in the scientific labor market believe, have the opposite effect, ultimately discouraging high-achieving Americans from committing their working lives to scientific innovation. The solutions that will attract the nations brightest youngpeople back to science, these experts argue, are not even on the table. The current approach trying to improve the students or schools will not produce the desired result, the experts predict, because the forces driving bright young Americans away from technical careers arise elsewhere, in the very structure of the U.S. research establishment. For generations, that establishment served as the worlds nimblest and most productive source of great science and outstanding young scientists. Because of long-ignored internal contradictions, however, the American research enterprise has become so severely dysfunctional that it actively prevents the great majority of the young Americans aspiring to do research from realizing their dreams. To remain competitive against rising rivals, the nation must reconstruct this system so it once again guides the best of Americas large supply of young scientific ability into research and innovation. This process, experts contend, begins with identifying the real reason that scientifically gifted young Americans are increasingly unable and unwilling to pursue scientific careers. It is not, as many believe, that the nation is producing too few scientists, but, paradoxically, just the opposite. There is no scientist shortage, declares Harvard economics professor Richard Freeman, a pre-eminent authority on the scientific work force. Michael Teitelbaum of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, a leading demographer who is also a national authority on science training, cites the profound irony of crying shortage as have many business leaders, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates while scores of thousands of young Ph.D.s labor in the nations university labs as low-paid, temporary workers, ostensibly training for permanent faculty positions that will never exist. Back when todays senior-most professors were young, Ph.D.s routinely became tenure-track assistant professors, complete with labs of their own, in their late 20s. But today, in many fields, faculty openings routinely draw hundreds of qualified applicants. The tiny fraction who do manage to land their first faculty post are generally in their late 30s or early 40s by the time they get their research careers under way. Todays large surplus of scientists began in the life sciences but is now apparent in fields as diverse as astronomy, meteorology and highenergy physics. These surpluses, Teitelbaum notes, hardly constitute market indicators signaling shortages. The shortage theorists and the glut proponents, however, do agree on two things: First, something serious is wrong with Americas scientific labor supply. A prime symptom noted by all: a growing aversion of Americas top students especially the native-born white males who once formed the backbone of the nations research and technical community to enter scientific careers. Increasingly, foreign-born technical and scientific personnel on temporary visas staff Americas university labs and high-tech industries. The second point of agreement is that, unless the underlying problem is fixed, it will

No Scientist Shortage

seriously impair the nations ability to recruit top-flight homegrown talent both for domestic innovation and for the high-level, classified, technical work vital for national security. But disagreement rages about causes and cures. Is the influx of foreigners a cause of high-achieving Americans reluctance to become scientists, as the labor force experts assert, or an effect, as the industry interests insist? Once all the political rhetoric and verbiage of blue-ribbon panels is cleared away, the data clearly support those arguing for the existence of a glut of aspiring scientists. Americas schools, it turns out, consistently produce large numbers of world-class science and math students, according to studies by Harold Salzman of the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University and his co-author, B. Lindsay Lowell, director of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University. But the incentives that once reliably delivered many of those high scorers into scientific and technical careers have gone seriously awry.

Squo Solves Predictive

Status quo solves new education programs Gary Locke, is the United States Commerce Secretary, 7-14-11, STEM Jobs Help
America Win The Future, The White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/14/stem-jobs-help-america-win-future Highlighting the importance of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education and jobs, the U.S. Commerce Department today released a new report profiling U.S. employment in the critical fields that drive our nations innovation and competitiveness. STEM workers are helping America win the future by generating new ideas, new companies and new industries. Not surprisingly, President Obama has made STEM education a key priority of his administration, with an ambitious agenda to move American students to the top of the pack internationally in science and math achievement over the next decade. Initiatives like Race to the Top and the Educate to Innovate campaign demonstrate the administrations ongoing commitment to making sure Americans get the science and technology skills they need to fill the jobs of the future. STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future, by Commerces Economics and Statistics Administration, shows that growth in STEM jobs has been three times greater than that of non-STEM jobs over the last 10 years. And throughout the next decade, STEM occupations are projected to grow by 17 percent, compared to 9.8-percent growth for other occupations. Expanding the participation of students in the STEM fields including girls, minorities and students with disabilities is not just the right thing to do; its the smart thing to do. Investments in basic research and the people who can make great discoveries with new ideas will help drive our technological innovation and global competitiveness. STEM jobs are the jobs of the future, and they are essential to growth in America.

STEM job growth is inevitable Mary Ann Lopez, reporter for the NaperVille news, 7-20-11, STEM education leads
to higher paying jobs, more job security, NaperVille, http://naperville.patch.com/articles/report-stem-education-leads-to-higher-payingjobs-more-job-security A report released last week from the U.S. Department of Commerces Economics and Statistics Administration showed that careers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) pay better and offer more job security because of the demand for professionals in those fields. The results of the report, STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future, reinforces what officials in Indian Prairie School District 204 already know: offering students STEM classes is critical. District 204 students increasingly request STEM-related courses, with an emphasis on engineering, said Jay Strang, District 204s assistant superintendent for instructional services. We see our students taking higher-level course work in science, technology, engineering and math, he said. We also see many of our students interested in internships and summer work experience that exposes them to STEM activities. According to the government report, 7.6 million people, or 5.5 percent of the labor force, worked in STEM occupations in 2010. Over the past 10 years, growth in STEM jobs was three times greater than that of non-STEM jobs. STEM employment is expected to

continue to grow at a faster rate than other jobs in the coming decade, a key report finding in the report. Meanwhile, STEM workers are also less likely to experience joblessness. "This report profiles the fast-growing, productive STEM workforce and illustrates how we can win the future by encouraging the pursuit of 21st Century jobs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics," U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in a news release.

Not Key to the Economy

STEM not key to the U.S. economy Charlie Ball, a reporter of the New Scientist, 7-20-11, Do we really need more
science graduates? New Scientists, http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/bigwideworld/2011/07/do-we-really-need-morescience-graduates.html At the start of July, new data on what students who graduated in 2010 are doing now was released by the Higher Education Statistics Agency. First, it shows us that initiative after initiative to try to get more young people into science don't yet seem to be having much impact. There are some minor changes in graduate numbers, but with the exception of a rise of 5.5 per cent in the number of maths graduates this year, there's nothing of great significance. Second, we seem to have an awfully high unemployment rate for science graduates for a nation that apparently doesn't have enough of them. And, actually, the same goes for PhDs as well. To give an example, last summer 12,000 psychology students and 10,000 history students graduated (I chose these subjects because they are two of the most popular - psychology is actually the fastest growing in the UK). In the same year, only 2200 physics students and 2400 chemistry students graduated (what's more, I'm a chemistry graduate and my wife a history graduate so it's a comparison that's close to my heart). But it was the physics graduates and chemistry graduates who were most likely to be out of work 6 months later. From the cohort of graduates whose whereabouts were known about, 11 per cent of those physics graduates were still out of work 6 months after graduating, and only 3 per cent were in a job in science. (History and psychology did slightly better, at 8.5 per cent and 8 per cent of graduates unemployed respectively). This is an issue because these are the figures that will be going onto the websites that the A-level students of the future will be using to check the employment prospects of the courses they're going to be paying a lot of money for. When they see the outcomes for science courses compared to other subject that aren't suffering a "shortage", some of them are going to wonder what on earth the fuss is about. So, let's get it out there: Do we really have a shortage of science graduates There is an obvious answer, of course: we have a shortage of good science graduates. So, what exactly is the problem with the ones we do have The CBI members tell us that they are short of "employability skills". Not technical skills. So, are they suggesting that our science students are spending too much time learning science and not enough time learning business Or maybe graduates are not as good as they used to be. Except here are the Association of Graduate Recruiters two weeks ago issuing survey findings that showed that their members (many of whom are also CBI members) think that the quality of graduates has gone up this year, a finding that, oddly, failed to be reported in the press. Take a look at PhD student Penny Sarchet's take on the survey here. At the heart of this lack of clarity are a series of questions that never really get properly addressed, or when they do, don't get well disseminated. When we say we need more science graduates, what subjects do we mean Is it all BScs Do we mean biologists If we need more chemistry graduates, is that all disciplines and specialities within chemistry What other skills do they need Are we using the graduates we do produce properly Are we telling them that they might need to do PhDs Are some people trying to avoid asking or answering these questions because they fear that the next generation of scientists might be put off if

they find out they might need to do lots of maths or take a PhD Now, does anyone know a group of people who like detail, wrangling complex problems and coming up with practical solutions, who don't take statements uncritically at face value, who are unafraid of hard work and who would really, really like UK science to thrive, to tackle these questions.

AT: Cyber War

The risk is exaggerated misleading data, decentralization, and general deterrence. Joe Windish, Staff writer for the Moderate Voice, 10-27-2010, The exaggerated
Cyber-War Threat, http://themoderatevoice.com/90070/the-exaggerated-cyber-warthreat/ Seymour Hersh wonders, should we be worried about a cyber war? The short answer, NO! The amount of cyber-jargon weve got in government is stupefying: A Cyber Czar rules Cyber Command assessing the cyber threat to our cyber security; we need cyber weapons to defend against a cyber attack, protect against cyber-pillaging and wage cyber war; we must develop cyber capabilities able to withstand sustained cyber operations to say nothing of the cyber-crime threat from cyber-criminals. And in the end Hersh suggests its bureaucrats building political support for their expanded turf and former government officials building sales for their books. The piece begins and ends with the first international crisis of George W. Bushs Administration a crisis caused by a lack of political leadership and military commanders unable to ever give up a mission. A couple snippets. First, a fundamental confusion: I was told by military, technical, and intelligence experts that these fears have been exaggerated, and are based on a fundamental confusion between cyber espionage and cyber war. Cyber espionage is the science of covertly capturing e-mail traffic, text messages, other electronic communications, and corporate data for the purpose of gathering national-security or commercial intelligence. Cyber war involves the penetration of foreign networks for the purpose of disrupting or dismantling those networks, and making them inoperable. Blurring the distinction between cyber war and cyber espionage has been profitable for defense contractorsand dispiriting for privacy advocates. The most common cyber-war scare scenarios involve Americas electrical grid. Even the most vigorous privacy advocate would not dispute the need to improve the safety of the power infrastructure, but there is no documented case of an electrical shutdown forced by a cyber attack. And the cartoonish view that a hacker pressing a button could cause the lights to go out across the country is simply wrong. There is no national power grid in the United States. There are more than a hundred publicly and privately owned power companies that operate their own lines, with separate computer systems and separate security arrangements. The companies have formed many regional grids, which means that an electrical supplier that found itself under cyber attack would be able to avail itself of power from nearby systems. Decentralization, which alarms security experts like Clarke and many in the military, can also protect networks. What about Stuxnet? If Stuxnet was aimed specifically at Bushehr [nuclear-energy plant, in Iran], it exhibited one of the weaknesses of cyber attacks: they are difficult to target and also to contain. India and China were both hit harder than Iran, and the virus could easily have spread in a different direction, and hit Israel itself. Again, the very openness of the Internet serves as a deterrent against the use of cyber weapons.

No Cyber war Ronald Bailey, science correspondent, 1-18-2011, Cyberwar is Harder than it
Looks, Reason, http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/18/cyberwar-is-harder-than-it A new report, Reducing Systemic Cybersecurity Risk, [PDF] by British researchers Ian Brown and Peter Sommer for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) evaluates threats to the security of the Internet and other aspects of cyberspace, including hacking, viruses, trojans, denial-of-service, distributed denial of service using botnets, root-kits, and disruptive social engineering techniques. Such weapons have become ubiquitous and already used in government and industrial espionage, identity theft, web-defacements, extortion, system hijacking, and service blockading. The recent denial of service attacks on Estonia and Georgia give us some sense of the effectiveness of cyber attacks. As James Lewis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted, [PDF] These countries came under limited cyber attack as part of larger conflicts with Russia, but in neither case were there casualties, loss of territory, destruction, or serious disruption of critical services. Brown and Sommer conclude, It is unlikely that there will ever be a true cyberwar. By cyberwar, they mean one fought solely over and with information technologies. Why? Because it takes a lot of effort to figure out new vulnerabilities in already protected critical systems and the effects of an attack are difficult to predict, including blowback on the perpetrators. More importantly, they note, There is no strategic reason why an aggressor would limit themselves to only one class of weaponry. In a real war, cyberattacks would be an adjunct to conventional efforts to blow up critical infrastructure. Because attacks can be launched from any set of computers, attackers can remain hidden. Consequently, a strategy of deterrence will not work in cyberwarfare because the target for retaliation is unknown. This means that resilience is the main defense against cyberweapons, a combination of preventive measures and contingency plans for a quick post-attack recovery. If cyberwarfare against infrastructure was easy, terrorists like Al Qaeda would have already tried the tactic against us and our NATO allies. Brown and Sommer observe that the Internet and the physical telecommunications infrastructure were designed to be robust and self-healing, so that failures in one part are routed around. You have to be cautious when hearing from people engaging in fearmongering about huge blackouts and collapses of critical infrastructures via the Internet, says University of Toronto cyberwarfare expert Ronald Deibert in the January/February 2011 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. There is a lot of redundancy in the networks; its not a simple thing to turn off the power grid. In addition, our experience with current forms of malware is somewhat reassuring. Responses to new malware have generally been found and made available within days and few denial of service attacks have lasted more than a day. In addition, many critical networks such as those carrying financial transactions are not connected to the Internet requiring insider information to make them vulnerable. While not everyone uses up-to-date malware detection, most government agencies, major businesses, and many individuals do, which means that would-be attackers must take the time and effort to find new flaws and develop new techniques. For example, the success of the Stuxnet worm that attacked and disabled Iranian nuclear centrifuges required very extensive intelligence gathering and knowledge of specific software flaws as well as someone able to walk into the facilities with an infected USB drive.

Low risk and no impact of cyber war Times of India, 1-28-2011, Risks of cyber war exaggerated: Study,
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/enterprise-it/security/Risks-of-cyber-warexaggerated-Study/articleshow/7312651.cms LONDON: A study has said that the risks involved in a cyber war have been "over-exaggerated" with the vast majority of hi-tech attacks not deserving the name at all. The study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development is part of a series considering incidents that could cause global disruption. It said that while pandemics and financial instability could cause problems, cyber attacks are unlikely to, and that the trouble they cause is likely to be localised and short-lived. But the report warns that governments need to plan for how they could mitigate the effects of both accidental and deliberate events. "We don't help ourselves using 'cyberwar' to describe espionage or hacktivist blockading or defacing of websites, as recently seen in reaction to WikiLeaks," the BBC quoted Professor Peter Sommer, visiting professor at LSE who co-wrote the report with Dr Ian Brown of the Oxford Internet Institute, as saying. "Nor is it helpful to group trivially avoidable incidents like routine viruses and frauds with determined attempts to disrupt critical national infrastructure," Prof Sommer stated. While acknowledging the risk of a catastrophic cyber incident, such as a solar flare that could knock out satellites, base stations and net hardware, it said that the vast majority of incidents seen today were almost trivial in comparison as they did not last long and only hit a few people or organisations. "It is unlikely that there will ever be a true cyberwar, because no aggressor would stick to one class of weaponry," the report said. It also said that existing defences and the unpredictable effects of such an attack could limit its effectiveness.

AT: Cyber War Motive

No incentive for massive cyber war Evgeny Morozov, Staff writer for the Boston Review, July/August 2009, CyberScare, http://bostonreview.net/BR34.4/morozov.php Putting these complexities aside and focusing just on states, it is important to bear in mind that the cyber-attacks on Estonia and especially Georgia did little damage, particularly when compared to the physical destruction caused by angry mobs in the former and troops in the latter. One argument about the Georgian case is that cyber-attacks played a strategic role by thwarting Georgias ability to communicate with the rest of the world and present its case to the international community. This argument both overestimates the Georgian governments reliance on the Internet and underestimates how much international PRparticularly during wartimeis done by lobbyists and publicity firms based in Washington, Brussels, and London. There is, probably, an argument to be made about the vast psychological effects of cyber-attacksparticularly those that disrupt ordinary economic life. But there is a line between causing inconvenience and causing human suffering, and cyber-attacks have not crossed it yet. The usefulness of cyber-attacks as a military tool is also contested. Some experts are justifiably skeptical about the arrival of a new age of cyber-war. Marcus J. Ranum, Chief Security Officer of Tenable Network Security, argues that it is pointless for superpowers to develop cyber-war capabilities to attack nonsuperpowers, as they can crush them in more conventional ways. As for non-superpowers, their use of cyber-capabilities would almost certainly result in what Ranum calls the Blind Mike Tyson effect: the superpower would retaliate with offline weaponry (blind me, I nuke you). If Ranum is right, we should forget about the prospect of all-out cyber-war until we have technologically advanced superpowers that are hostile to each other. Focusing on cyber-crime, cyberterrorism, and cyber-espionage may help us address the more pertinent threats in a more rational manner.

AT: Cyber War China

Our Cyber Tech is better we will win any conflict regardless of their cyber capabilities. Robert S. Ross, professor of political science at Boston College, an associate of the
John King Fairbank Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University and a fellow of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. September/October 2009, The National Interest, HEADLINE: Here Be Dragons, Robert S. Ross and Aaron L. Friedberg Debate: Is China a Military Threat?, p. Lexis Beijing is also developing cyber-warfare techniques, but exaggerated assessments of this capability fail to evaluate Chinas own emerging vulnerability to such attacks. Cyber-warfare technologies and skills are readily accessible and U.S. advanced munitions are increasingly dependent on hightechnology communication and surveillance technologies. The United States is thus vulnerable to cyber attacks, and a Chinese cyber offensive against the United States could influence U.S. operations in the western Pacific. Nonetheless, the reciprocal effect of Washingtons cyber-warfare capability on Beijings ability to wage high-technology warfare is equally significant. The same advanced Chinese technologies and weaponry that pessimists argue present a major threat to U.S. security, including ASBMs, are highly dependent on advanced communication and surveillance technologies that are particularly vulnerable to U.S. cyber attacks. And once the United States degrades the PLAs advanced communication technologies, China would lose its high-technology asymmetric capability that so alarms Americas pessimists, and it would be very susceptible to a wide range of superior U.S. sea-based forces, even if the United States suffered from an effective Chinese cyber attack.

AT: Cyber War Russia

No risk of Russian cyberteror cooperation and treaty negotiations Brandon Dimmel, Staff writer for InfoPackets, 12-15-2009, USA, Russia Join
Forces in the Fight Against Cyber Crime, http://www.infopackets.com/news/security/2009/20091215_usa_russia_join_forces_in_ the_fight_against_cyber_crime.htm In the past, Russia and America were rivals. But now, it appears that the two are joining forces to fight a common foe, with hopes of tightening Internet security for the near and distant future. Insiders are calling the talks a newage Geneva, akin to the nuclear arms discussions of an older generation. The purpose of these new meetings is to reduce the number of hacker attacks on major institutions, including government agencies, banks, businesses, and the military. According to reports, it's believed a common policy on cyber security will help reduce the number of these attacks, some of which originate in Russia and target American firms. Devastating Cyber Attacks Spur International Talks "Both sides are making positive noises," said James Lewis, senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. "We've never seen that before." (Source: guardian.co.uk)

AT: Cyber Terrorism

The cyber-terrorism argument is dumb Nate Anderson, 11-12-2007, Ars Technica, Jihadist e-bomb fails to explode on
November 11, experts doubt claim, http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2007/11/jihadist-e-bomb-fails-to-explode-onnovember-11-experts-doubt-claim.ars Sachs went on to dismiss the whole idea of such an attack, saying that the "odds of a terrorist group 'terrorizing' the Internet with cyber-bullets and e-bombs are about as small as the odds of the Morse Code coming back as a primary means of communication. It's not zero, but it's also not much more than zero." Sadly, no terrorists contacted Sachs to talk about what had (or had
not) happened. Perhaps cyber-Jihadists just aren't that hot with dates? Or perhaps they realized that

disrupting their own best communications and fundraising channel wasn't such a bright idea. When it comes to Internet threats, current criminal botnets and even spammers pose more of a threat to sites and security researchers than do unsubstantiated tales of cyber-Jihad (though holy war makes for much better headlines).

No cyber terrorism no attack yet, US defense is air-gapped, companies have proven resilient, hackers have no political goals and wont cooperate with terrorists Gabriel Weimann, senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and
professor of communication at the University of Haifa, Israel, Cyberterrorism: How Real Is the Threat?, December 2004 It seems fair to say that the current threat posed by cyberterrorism has been exaggerated. No single instance of cyberterrorism has yet been recorded; U.S. defense and intelligence computer systems are air-gapped and thus isolated from the Internet; the systems run by private companies are more vulnerable to attack but also more resilient than is often supposed; the vast majority of cyberattacks are launched by hackers with few, if any, political goals and no desire to cause the mayhem and carnage of which terrorists dream. So, then,
why has so much concern been expressed over a relatively minor threat?

No impact to cyber terrorism never an attack, dont have the ability, infrastructure is resilient Gabriel Weimann, senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and
professor of communication at the University of Haifa, Israel, Cyberterrorism: How Real Is the Threat?, December 2004 Amid all the dire warnings and alarming statistics that the subject of cyberterrorism generates, it is important to remember one simple statistic: so far, there has been no recorded instance of a terrorist cyberattack on U.S. public facilities, transportation systems, nuclear power plants, power grids, or other key components of the national infrastructure. Cyberattacks are common, but they have not been conducted by terrorists and they have not sought to inflict the kind of damage that would qualify them as cyberterrorism. When U.S. troops recovered al Qaeda laptops in Afghanistan, officials were surprised to find its members more technologically adept than previously believed. They discovered structural and engineering software, electronic models of a dam, and information on computerized water systems, nuclear power plants, and U.S. and European stadiums. But the

evidence did not suggest that al Qaeda operatives were planning cyberattacks, only that they were using the Internet to communicate and coordinate physical attacks. Neither al Qaeda nor any other terrorist organization appears to have tried to stage a serious cyberattack. For now, the most damaging attacks and intrusions, experts say, are typically carried out either by disgruntled corporate insiders intent on embezzlement or sabotage or by individual hackerstypically young and male seeking thrills and notoriety. According to a report issued in 2002 by IBM Global Security Analysis Lab, 90 percent of hackers are amateurs with limited technical proficiency, 9 percent are more skilled at gaining unauthorized access but do not damage the files they read, and only 1 percent are highly skilled and intent on copying files or damaging programs and systems. Most hackers, it should be noted, concentrate on writing programs that expose security flaws in computer software, mainly in the operating systems produced by Microsoft. Their efforts in this direction have sometimes embarrassed corporations but have also been responsible for alerting the public and security professionals to major security flaws in software. Moreover, although there are hackers with the ability to damage systems, disrupt e-commerce, and force websites offline, the vast majority of hackers do not have the necessary skills and knowledge. The ones who do, generally do not seek to wreak havoc. Douglas Thomas, a professor at the University of Southern California, spent seven years studying computer hackers in an effort to understand better who they are and what motivates them. Thomas interviewed hundreds of hackers and explored their "literature." In testimony on July 24, 2002, before the House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Thomas argued that "with the vast majority of hackers, I would say 99 percent of them, the risk [of cyberterrorism] is negligible for the simple reason that those hackers do not have the skill or ability to organize or execute an attack that would be anything more than a minor inconvenience." His judgment was echoed in Assessing the Risks of Cyberterrorism, Cyber War, and Other Cyber Threats, a 2002 report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, written by Jim Lewis, a sixteen-year veteran of the State and Commerce Departments. "The idea that hackers are going to bring the nation to its knees is too far-fetched a scenario to be taken seriously," Lewis argued. "Nations are more robust than the early analysts of cyberterrorism and cyberwarfare give them credit for. Infastructure systems [are] more flexible and responsive in restoring service than the early analysts realized, in part because they have to deal with failure on a routine basis."

Access a low probability of cyber-terror threats are exaggerated. Gabriel Weimann is a senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and professor of communication at the University of Haifa, Israel, December 2004,
Cyberterrorism: How Real Is the Threat? U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), Special Report No. 119 The potential threat posed by cyberterrorism has provoked considerable alarm. Numerous security experts, politicians, and others have publicized the danger of cyberterrorists hacking into government and private computer systems and crippling the military, financial, and service sectors of advanced economies. * The potential threat is, indeed, very alarming. And yet, despite all the gloomy predictions, no single instance of real cyberterrorism has been recorded. This raises the question: just how real is the threat? * Psychological, political, and economic forces

have combined to promote the fear of cyberterrorism. From a psychological perspective, two of the greatest fears of modern time are combined in the term "cyberterrorism." The fear of random, violent victimization blends well with the distrust and outright fear of computer technology. * Even before 9/11, a number of exercises identified apparent vulnerabilities in the computer networks of the U.S. military and energy sectors. After 9/11, the security and terrorism discourse soon featured cyberterrorism prominently, promoted by interested actors from the political, business, and security circles. * Cyberterrorism is, to be sure, an attractive option for modern terrorists, who value its anonymity, its potential to inflict massive damage, its psychological impact, and its media appeal. * Cyberfears have, however, been exaggerated. Cyberattacks on critical components of the national infrastructure are not uncommon, but they have not been conducted by terrorists and have not sought to inflict the kind of damage that would qualify as cyberterrorism. * Nuclear weapons and other sensitive military systems, as well as the computer systems of the CIA and FBI, are "air-gapped," making them inaccessible to outside hackers. Systems in the private sector tend to be less well protected, but they are far from defenseless, and nightmarish tales of their vulnerability tend to be largely apocryphal.