Resolution: The affirm resolves that the United States Federal Government should substantially increase the development

and exploration of space beyond the Earth's mesosphere. Contention 1: Inherency Inherency- international treaties prohibit U.S. Progression in space weaponization.
CIAO Focus May 2004 (CIAO Focus, May 2004: Space Weapons, http://www.ciaonet.org/focus/focus_0405.html)
inevitability. The Given recent public statements and military assessments, such as the Air Force's Vision 2020 report, the deployment of space weapons has the air of

weaponization of outer space is controlled through norms and treaties, most notably the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which prohibited the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in space and was signed by 97 countries, including the United States. The treaty bans weapons of mass destruction from space, defined as "nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction." Space
weapons fall into three general categories: those that would defend against ballistic missile attacks, those that attack or defend satellites, and those that would strike terrestrial targets. Proponents of space weaponization argue that since the United States spends 65% of the world expenditure on commercial satellites and approximately 95% of the world expenditure on military space uses, the government must provide for defensive measures to protect such assets. Space weapons could also be used to make preemptive strikes against enemy targets and, possibly, to defend against missile attack. The stakes are high. In addition to the great expense and difficulty involved in developing space weapons, a race with China to weaponize space might be in the offing. Critics suggest that inexpensive technologies could thwart costly space weapons and that the U.S. should take the lead in updating the Outer Space Treaty to ensure that space is kept weapons free.

No Plan for Space Missile Interception

Mackenzie Eaglen 2010(Research Fellow for National Security Studies at the Allison Centery for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. Why Missile Defense is Still Needed http://www.riponsociety.org/forum310g.htm)
The administrations plan for missile defense has four stages that continue through 2020. The program includes both land and sea-based interceptors. Ultimately, the fourth phase would move the system beyond regional defense and protect the entire U.S. homeland against an ICBM attack. Unfortunately,

The number of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California has been cut from 44 to 30, the planned third site for missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic was cancelled, and funding has been eliminated for space.
the administration has cut back on other integral parts of the comprehensive program.

Contention 2: Harms Subpoint A: Hegemony

American Hegemony is on the decline and China is challenging US heg- chipping away at it Schweller and Pu 11 ( Randall and Xiaoyu, Schweller is a Poly Sci professor @ OSU and Xaioyu
is a doctorate student, published Summer 2011, After Unipolarity: China's Visions of International Order in an Era of U.S. Decline, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/international_security/summary/v036/36.1.schweller.html) Ginger Hegemonic orders rest on both material and ideological bases, and weak actors, though unable to confront the hegemony directly, can still delegitimize the ideological foundation of hegemony through everyday resistance and visions of alternative orders. The United States has successfully shaped world politics with some big ideas such as capitalism is better than socialism and democracy is better than dictatorship.67 Recently, however, the emerging non- Western powers have let it be known that they do not share the United States views on these issues.68 As Bruce Jentleson and Steven Weber argue, Outside the United States, people no longer believe that the alternative to Washington led order is chaos. . . . [T]he rest of the world has no fear about experimenting with alternatives.69 This section
analyzes Chinese visions of the current and future international order. Pluralistic in their views on the outside world, Chinese strategists have been passionately debating how Beijing should proceed. 70 Rather than presenting one particular Chinese idea,71 therefore, we present diverse Chinese perspectives, showing consensus where it exists and general trends in Chinese thinking.72 We categorize these visions of global order into three ideal types: a

new Chinese order, a modified liberal order, and a negotiated order, each challenging U.S. hegemony in different ways.73 These visions of a future order map on to three potential strategies. China might (1) embrace
delegitimation, functioning as a spoiler with a competing view for how the world should be structured; (2) emerge as a supporter of the existing system, working within the existing rules of the game and contributing its fair share to global governance; or (3) continue to shirk some of its

focusing on internal development and consolidation, contributing selectively to global governance, and seeking to implement its vision of global order gradually.74
international commitments and responsibilities,

Declining hegemony causes global war it risks unstably multipolarity, Chinese aggression and miscalculation empirically Khalilzad, 2011 former director of planning at the Defense Department [Zalmay February 8, 2011 The Economy and National Security Accessed July 29 http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-securityzalmay-khalilzad?page=1 The National Review Online] The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of greatpower competition. Beijings economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. Chinas strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, Chinas expansive territorial claims and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.
If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge.

Hegemony prevents Asian and Great Power wars it empirically keeps wars regional Lewis 2009; Expert at Center for Strategic and International Studies. [James, James Andrew Lewis is a senior fellow
and director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at CSIS, national security, and the international economy. worked in the federal government as a foreign service officer and as a member of the senior executive service. His assignments involved Asian regional security, military intervention and insurgency, conventional arms negotiations, technology transfer, sanctions, Internet policy, and military space programs. September 24. The Blessings of Pax Americana, the good cop.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/the_blessings_of_pax_americana.html. Accessed: 7/24/11//AG] The American Non-Empire --- what kind of "empire" is this, anyway? --- is far and away the best cop in world history, bringing the longest period of world peace (since 1948), the widest spread of freedom and democracy, the freest economies ever known, and as a direct result, the greatest world-wide prosperity from China to Brazil. Yes, we've seen horrific tyrannies and wars since 1948 --- but they have been local. No repeat of the Thirty Year War, of the Napoleonic mass wars, 1848, 1878, 1914, 1932, and in spite of decades of Cold War, no imperial expansion by Stalin and Mao Zedong. The Cold War stayed cold, a damned good thing. The Europeans have turned their armies into welfare programs. We were invited to rescue them when the Balkans blew up during the Clinton years. The Middle East is always on a low boil, but it never blows up. (So far.) The same goes for Asia. Koreans still hate Japan because of the horrific actions of the Japanese armies in World War Two. So do the Chinese. But they haven't come to blows. They understand that they are benefiting from the Good Cop of Pax Americana. Just let the US Navy withdraw from Asia and watch the Japanese getting a nuclear bomb, the Chinese invading Taiwan, and a new age of armed alliances emerging. Democratic governance only spread in Asia after the US
victory over Japan. Before that it was tried by Sun Yat Sen and failed. Who would you like to be guarding the world instead of the United States? The UN? China or Russia?

sixty years the troubles have been kept local and regional. That is an unprecedented achievement for the United States. Those facts are all around us. Everybody
Europe? Well, let them call the UN Human Rights Commission the next time they have a problem. (That would be Iran, the Sudan, and Libya.) For knows it -- our allies, fake allies, enemies and friends. It's hard to tell who's who, but every time they get a choice between American leadership and anything else, they choose us. Then they go home and bitch about it.

It's either Pax Americana, nuclear war, or tyranny.

Subpoint B: China
Chinese expansion into space challenges US national security
Martel 2003 William C. Martel (Professor of National Security Affairs at Naval War College, RI) and Toshi Yoshihara (Research Fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Massachusetts) 2003, Avoiding a Sino-American Space Race, Washington Quarterly: Autumn 2003 issue, published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/440173_915549761_918386378.pdf

This prevailing indifference, however, risks overlooking the longer-term consequences of China's growing space power and, more dangerously, the potential collision of U.S. and Chinese interests in space. From China's perspective, the United States' self-appointed guardianship of space is presumptuous and represents a genuine challenge to China's national security concerns. For the United States, China's extension into space symbolizes its ambitions to challenge U.S. national security. Deeply seated, mutual suspicions are evident in both countries' strategic assessments as the contours of potential strategic competition between Washington and Beijing emerge. In essence, both sides agree that the other represents a challenge. Although this potential clash of interests is not yet sufficiently severe to be visible to casual observers, the United States and China are on the threshold of a space race that could radically influence international security. US satellites vulnerable to attack from China
William C. Martel (Professor of National Security Affairs at Naval War College, RI) and Toshi

Yoshihara (Research Fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Massachusetts) 2003, Avoiding a Sino-American Space Race, Washington Quarterly: Autumn 2003 issue, published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/440173_915549761_918386378.pdf

In sum, because U.S. military effectiveness and commercial competitiveness depend so overwhelmingly on space, the country is increasingly vulnerable to an adversary's malicious use of space or attacks against space systems. As the Rumsfeld Commission report warned The United States and China are on the threshold of a space race. ominously, "If the [United States] is to avoid a 'space Pearl Harbor,' it needs to take seriously the possibility of an attack on U.S. space systems. The nation's leaders must assure that the vulnerability of the United States is reduced and that the consequences of a surprise attack on U.S. space assets are limited in their effects."7 At present, most nations cannot challenge the United States directly, but there are fears that states might someday attack U.S. satellites to cripple its military capabilities. Policymakers in the United States are increasingly concerned that this is precisely China's strategy. China can destroy US satellites
MacDonald 2008 Bruce W. MacDonald (Senior Director at the United States Institute of Peace) 2008, China, Space Weapons, and US Security, Council Special Report No.38, September 2008, published by the Council on Foreign Relations, http://books.google.com/bookshl=en&lr=&id=o0GkabrNftIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Bruce+W. +MacDonald+(Senior+Director+at+the+United+States+Institute+of+Peace)+2008,+China, +Space+Weapons,+and+US+Security, +Council+Special+Report+No.38,+September+2008,+published+by+the+Council+on+Foreign+ Relations&ots=OTkmlF7uGY&sig=ncw52NFQTbv6Zh5k4EefU7dtgqw#v=onepage&q&f=false

On January 11, 2007, China launched a missile into space, releasing a homing vehicle that destroyed an old Chinese weather satellite. The strategic reverberations of that collision have shaken up security thinking in the United States and around the world. This test demonstrated that, if it so chose, China could build a substantial number of these anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) and thus might soon be destroy substantial numbers of U.S. satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), upon which the U.S. military heavily depends. On February 21, 2008, the United States launched a modified missile-defense interceptor, destroying a U.S. satellite carrying one thousand pounds ot toxic fuel about to make an uncontrolled atmospheric reentry. Thus, within fourteen months, China and the Linked States both demonstrated the capability to destroy more satellites, heralding the arrival of an era where space is a potentially far more contested domain than in the past, with few rules.1 Loss of US satellites would cause global economic and communication failure
Martel 2003 William C. Martel (Professor of National Security Affairs at Naval War College, RI) and Toshi Yoshihara (Research Fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in Massachusetts) 2003, Avoiding a Sino-American Space Race, Washington Quarterly: Autumn 2003 issue, published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/440173_915549761_918386378.pdf

Conventional wisdom holds that space is so vital to national security and economic prosperity that the United States will do whatever it takes to protect its ability to use space. This rationale was enshrined in an influential report issued in January 2001 by a blue-ribbon commission on space,1 headed by Donald Rumsfeld before he became secretary of defense, which strongly advocated greater protection for U.S. space assets. The Rumsfeld Commission asserted that "[t]he security and economic well being of the United States and its allies and friends depend on the nation's ability to operate successfully in space. To be able to contribute to peace and stability in a

distinctly different but still dangerous and complex global environment, the [United States] needs to remain at the forefront in space, technologically and operationally, as we have in the air, on land and at sea."2 Furthermore, the report argued that "the present extent of U.S. dependence on space, the rapid pace at which this dependence is increasing, and the vulnerabilities it creates, all demand that U.S. national security space interests be recognized as a top national security priority."3 In economic terms, the United States relies on space technologies and capabilities to support a wide range of commercial activities. Among the most important commercial assets in space is the constellation of Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation satellites. The precise timing signals emitted from the GPS allow automobiles, aircraft, and ships to locate their positions and establish the chronological order for virtually all financial transactions. Indeed, the global financial network would collapse without GPS. Equally important, commercial satellites carry most global communications. Despite the phenomenal growth rate of fiber optics networks, commercial satellites still dominate long-haul global communications.

Economic collapse causes nuclear war

Lewis 98, (Chris H., environmental historian, University of Colorado-Boulder), THE COMING AGE OF SCARCITY, 1998, p. 56 AD: 7-7-09 CS

Most critics would argue, probably correctly, that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to withdraw from the global economy and undermine the economies of the developed world, the United States, Europe, Japan, and others will fight neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global economy. These neocolonial wars will result in mass death, suffering, and even regional nuclear wars. If First World countries choose military confrontation and political repression to maintain the global economy, then we may see mass death and genocide on a global scale that will make the deaths of World War II pale in comparison. However, these neocolonial wars, fought to maintain the developed nations' economic and political hegemony, will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization. These wars will so damage the complex economic and trading networks and squander material, biological, and energy resources that they will undermine the global economy and its ability to support the earth's 6 to 8 billion people. This would be the worst-case scenario for the collapse of global civilization.

Subpoint C: Near Earth Objects

And an asteroid impact can independently cause extinction Chapman 04 (Clark R., planetary scientist, first editor of Journal of Geophysical Research- Planets, PhD MIT, Frontiers, The hazard of near Earth asteroid impacts on earth, http://www.b612foundation.org/papers/Chapman_hazard_EPSL.pdf, Google scholar, NC) I briefly summarize three scenarios (drawn from many more in [63]), which illustrate the breadth of issues that must be confronted in managing potential consequences of NEA impacts. For each impact disaster scenario, I consider the nature of the devastation, the probability that the event will happen, the likely warning time, the possibilities for post-warning mitigation, the nature of issues to be faced in after-event disaster management, and

of most practical interestwhat can be done now to prepare in advance. 6.1. 23 km diameter A millionmegaton impact, even though f100 times less energetic than the KT impact, would probably destroy civilization as we know it. The dominant immediate global effect would be sudden cooling, lasting many months, due to massive injection of dust into the stratosphere following impact. Agriculture would be largely lost, worldwide, for an entire growing season. Combined with other effects (a firestorm the size of India, destruction of the ozone layer, etc.), it is plausible that billions might die from collapse of social and economic institutions and infrastructure. No nation could avoid direct, as well as indirect, consequences of unprecedented magnitude. Of course, because civilization has never witnessed such an apocalypse, predictions of consequences are fraught with uncertainty. As discussed earlier, few bodies of these sizes remain undiscovered, so the chances of such an event are probably < 1-in-100,000 during the next century. The warning time would almost certainly be long, in the case of a NEA, but might be only months in the case of a comet. With years or decades of advance warning, a technological mission might be mounted to deflect the NEA so that it would miss the Earth; however, moving such a massive object would be very challenging. In any case, given sufficient warning, many immediate fatalities could be avoided by evacuating ground zero and longer-term casualties could be minimized by storing food supplies to survive the climate catastrophe. Susceptible infrastructure (transportation, communications, medical services) could be strengthened in the years before impact. However, no preparation for mitigation is warranted for such a rare possibility until a specific impact prediction is made and certified. The only advance preparations that might make sense would be at the margins of disaster planning developed for other purposes: considering such an apocalypse might foster out of- the-box thinking about how to define the outer envelope of disaster contingencies, and thus prove serendipitously useful as humankind faces an uncertain future. 6.2. Once-in-a-century mini-Tunguska atmospheric explosion Consider a 3040-m office-building-sized object striking at 100 times the speed of a jetliner. It would explode f15 km above ground, releasing the energy of f100 Hirboshima-scale bombs. Weak structures would be damaged or destroyed by the blast wave out to 20 km. The death toll might be hundreds; although casualties would be far higher in a densely populated place, they would much more likely be zero (i.e., if the impact were in the ocean or a desolate location). Such an event is likely to occur in our grandchildrens lifetime, although most likely over the ocean rather than land. Even with the proposed augmented Spaceguard Survey, it is unlikely that such a small object would be discovered in advance; impact would occur without warning. Since it could occur literally anywhere, there are no location- specific kinds of advance measures that could or should be taken, other than educating people (perhaps especially military forces that might otherwise mistake the event as an intentional attack) about the possibilities for such atmospheric explosions. In the lucky circumstance that the object is discovered years in advance, a relatively modest space mission could deflect such a small body, preventing impact [26

Primary enemy of satellites is space debris and A.S.A.T.s

Matthews 11 (William, Defense News, Gannet Government Media Corporation, leading military and government news, Keep Space Debris Free
US Congress Told, March 20, 2011, http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3999596&c=AIR&s=TOP, NG)

No nation benefits more from space or has more to lose if space becomes a shooting gallery than the United States," said Michael Krepon of the Henry Stimson Center. "It's so easy to mess up space," he said. "Space dominance is extremely hard to achieve in a debris-strewn environment, and it's not difficult for weaker adversaries to create debris fields in space." The United States should seek a halt to "destructive ASAT tests," he said. Satellites may be disabled without creating debris by using lasers, microwave and cyber weapons, MacDonald said. China is believed to be developing those in addition to its capability to destroy satellites with missiles. It is unclear what kind anti-satellite technology Russia intends to pursue. In early March, Gen. Valentin Popovkin, a deputy defense minister, was quoted as saying Russia is developing ASAT capability because "we can't sit back and quietly watch others doing that." In February 2008, the missile launched from a U.S. Navy ship destroyed a U.S. spy satellite that was about to fall out of orbit. The U.S. ASAT demonstration followed China's 2007 missile shot that destroyed a dead Chinese satellite. The Chinese shot created more than 1 million pieces of debris. More debris was created Feb. 10 when a deactivated Russian communications satellite collided with an operational U.S. Iridium 33 over Siberia. "Our primary enemy is debris,"

Krepon said. If

it continues to accumulate, debris will threaten manned space operations, he warned. Even small bits of debris can be deadly in space. In low-Earth orbit, "space debris travels at 10 times the speed of a rifle bullet," Krepon said. "A piece of debris the size of a child's marble could strike a satellite with approximately the same energy as a 1-ton safe dropped from a five-story building." Krepon called for an international treaty that bans destructive activity in space that adds to debris .

Plan Text
The United States federal government acting jointly with N.A.T.O. should substantially increase its deployment of space-based military assets in low-earth orbit beyond the Earths mesosphere.

Contention 3 Solvency
Space Militarization gives Military Commanders more Options, Enhancing Deterrence. and help leaders deal more intelligently, even more diplomatically, with surprises. Also Space Militarization will allow for enhanced missile defense against opposing nations such as China
Lambakis 07 [Steven Lambakis, Writer for Hoover Institution, 2/1/2007, Missile Defense from Space http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6124]

Yet given the efficiencies space offers, and given the unpredictable, catastrophic, and global nature of threats we expect to face, it makes sense to explore the possible benefits of taking other combat missions to space. Once the benefits of active space defense programs and operations are made plain, the support of the American people will be forthcoming. There are several space combat mission areas of interest to the future defense of the United States, including space control, offensive strike, and ballistic missile defense. Each combat mission offers very different operational and strategic possibilities, and each should be evaluated separately and judged
independently. Recognizing that weapons that leverage Earth orbits can make different contributions to national defense strategy, lumping them together in order to draw a general conclusion about the prudence of deploying weapons in space makes little sense. Our progress in this area will depend greatly on our ability to mature our rhetoric so that we can make meaningful distinctions. So I will focus here on the possible advantages of adding a space-based layer leveraging hit-to-kill interceptors to the newly deployed

Highly effective missile defenses would appear to offer a very significant payoff over the long term when one takes threat and international vulnerability to catastrophic attack into consideration
U.S. missile defense system.

The Plan Locks-in U.S. Hegemony and ENDS all war and threat of Terrorism
Dolman 03 (Everett, PhD and Professor of Comparative Military Studies @ US Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies and Recipient of Central Intelligences Outstanding

Intelligence Analyst AwardSPACE WEAPONS Are They Needed? pg online @ http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/Security_Space_Volume.Final.pdf //sdi-ef)
A Simple Space Weaponization Policy By

using its current and near-term capacities, the United States and N.A.T.O. should endeavor at once to seize military control of low-earth orbit. From that high ground vantage, near the top of the Earths gravity well, space-based laser or kinetic energy military assets could prevent any other state from deploying weapons there, and could most effectively engage and destroy terrestrial enemy ASAT facilities. Other states should still be able to enter space relatively freely for the purpose of
engaging in commerce, in keeping with the capitalist principles of the new regime. Just as in the sea dominance eras of the Athenians and British before them, the military space forces of the United States would have to create and maintain a safe operating environment (from pirates and other interlopers, perhaps from debris) to enhance trade and exploration. Only those spacecraft that provide advance notice of

N.A.T.O's control of lowEarth orbit would be for all practical purposes a police blockade of all current spaceports, monitoring and controlling all traffic both in and out.
their mission and flight plan would be permitted in space, however. The United States would concurrently have to announce the policy that it will tolerate no launch of a missile (cruise or ballistic), no crossborder incursion of aircraft, no hostile and illegal position of unwanted naval forces within the twelve-mile limit of national territory. Any

transgressions anywhere in the world would be stopped, immediately by force from space. States will complain that their sovereignty has been infringed, but the United States will be on the highest moral ground. Under no condition can a state initiate cross-border violence, and therefore no state can credibly claim that it is defending itself. Thus the complaints of the state whose forces have been dispatched by space weapons will ring hollow. Yes, perhaps the United States had no international right to shoot down the nuclear or chemically tipped missile launched at a traditional adversary, but the launching state will have a hard time justifying its prior right to start such a war. Over time, and this is the key factor to make such a policy work for international stability and peace (which are at
least intervening factors in the rise of global prosperity), the United States must rigidly enforce this policy without discrimination. It must not make any terrestrial military incursions of its own. It must act decisively and openly, and completely without bias. There will be cries

of dismay that the United States is acting as an empire, but since the only limitations made on another states rights are on those to make war, eventually the loudest outbursts will ebb. People will get used to
having American weapons flying overhead. They wont like it, to be sure, but it will seem a waste of time to protest something that has brought so much good to the world. States will begin to cut back on traditional military forces, as they are less

useful in a world where they cannot be used offensively, and unnecessary so long as the United States can guarantee state borders. And so it would. Complete domination of space would give the United States and N.A.T.O. such an advantage on the terrestrial battlefield that no state could openly challenge it. Traditional war would be effectively over. An idealist vision would be secured by realist means. Strategic dominance of space would further force the United States to maintain the industrial and technical capacity to keep it at the forefront of hegemony for the foreseeable future. Nontraditional war, especially terrorism, would not be over, but it could very well be mitigated.42 The current dominant use of space for military matters is in the areas of observation and
monitoring. These are the tools of effective police organizations, and have already been adapted in counter-terrorism plans. The details would be worked out in time, but the strategy clearly has benefits for the United States and the world.

U.S. hegemony is key to solve nuclear proliferation Kornberg 10 (Josh Kornberg, columnist. Problems Without Passports, your vox. 10/18/10, NP, http://www.yourvox.org/news/ViewArticle.php?id=51 DM) Throughout the next 20 years, the confluence of this fear for survival and Americas newfound role as the single hegemon in a unipolar world will greatly increase international efforts to stop proliferation. Although an American campaign to prevent nuclear proliferation will be more difficult now
than it would have been before the Iraq War (because states may be skeptical of American intelligence or motivation), the threat of nuclear warfare is still grave enough, the risk of inaction is still high enough, and the United States is still powerful enough to coerce and bribe foreign governments into engaging in collective anti-proliferation efforts. Indeed, President Musharraf claims that the United States recently threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age should he fail to fight terrorism. American military expenditures remain higher than those of all other nations combined. US space militarization solves global space arms race and secures heg Dolman 5 (Everett, PhD and Professor of Comparative Military Studies @ US Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies and Recipient of
Central Intelligences Outstanding Intelligence Analyst Award, US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space, September 14th, http://www.eparl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20&%20Space.pdf, )

Seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now, while the U.S. is unchallenged in space, would do much to stabilize the international system, prevent an arms race is space, and secure US hegemony. From low-Earth orbit (LEO), the enhanced ability to deny any attempt by another nation to place military assets in space, or to readily engage and destroy terrestrial ASATs capacity, and makes the possibility of large scale space war and or military space races less likely, not more. Why would a state expend the effort to compete in space with a superpower that has the extraordinary advantage of holding securely the highest ground at the top of the gravity well? So long as the controlling state demonstrates a capacity and a will to use force to defend its position, in effect expending a small amount of violence as needed to prevent a greater conflagration in the future, the likelihood of a future war in space is remote.

Expanding NATO missions key to solve terrorism Dr. Jamie Shea, Director of Policy Planning in the Private Office of the Secretary General of NATO, 2005 [BSIS Journal of International Studies Vol. 2, NATO Going Global]
The advantages that NATO has to be at the centre of such a network are still impressive: the link between North America and Europe the experience and expertise in all areas of military education, interoperability and capability development the attractiveness of the Alliance as a means to identify common responses and to allow countries to leverage the contributions to common security tasks in a way that makes those contributions more effective than if they were to be made in isolation. NATO remains the best organization to package

peace support operations and to help to stabilize those countries on the strategic front line of the fight against terrorism whether through crisis management deployments or the establishment of longterm partnerships focused on security sector reform and capability building. All of this suggests that NATO in the 21st century could be
an even more significant actor on the international scene than it was in the second half of the 20th but only if it is able to muster the political will and the concrete capabilities to support of its everexpanding ambitions

Laser Ablation is great feasible and long term catch all solution Campbell 03 (Jonathan W Campbell is a NASA astrophysicist and research scientist at the National Space Science and Technology Center; Phipps, Claude; Smalley, Larry; Reilly, James; Boccio, Dona. AIP Conference Proceedings, May 13 2003, Vol. 664 Issue 1, Pg 512-513. EBSCOhost. TDA) Many issues and engineering solutions need to be addressed in order to land on a NEO and place nuclear devices or other trajectory altering systems there. Although the cost of any NEO protection system will likely be significant, any system requiring a deep-space rendezvous would also require sufficient warning of an impact to be implemented. Additionally, a failure of such a defense system may not allow for a second mitigation effort to be attempted before the object impacts the Earth. A better system would be one that is "on station" and could be used routinely to shape asteroid orbits over long periods of time so that they do not pose a potential threat. The system should also be able to handle the wide range of materials and sizes that constitute the NEO population (current or yet to be discovered). Phased Array Laser Systems (PALS) could be developed and placed in space, either orbiting or lunar based. Space-based laser constellations (SBL) are presently under development and will be flown during the next decade. The feasibility for a PALS based system is discussed below. Laboratory experiments using a 20 kW pulsed laser have shown that the impulse imparted to aluminum targets due to the ejected plasma cloud gives an average surface pressure p = 6,5 x 10' N/amz, or equivalently, an acceleration a = 1.25 x l0" m/sz. Thus, with present technology, an array of laser beam directors can be aimed at an asteroid, meteoroid, comet, space debris, satellites, or many other N.E.O. and L.E.O objects, providing sufficient power to ablate its surface. It is simply a matter of putting in place a sufficient number of lasers to accomplish the mission.

Net Benefits

heg- Us dollar stenghten leads to stronger us econ

china- increase co-op with us china leads to economic growth research and exploration neo- increased research and econ