2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

Table of Contents

tsNegative Introduction..............................................................................................3Affirmative Introduction...........................................................................................3How to Use this File..................................................................................................4Glossary & Key Terms...............................................................................................5How to Use the Templates.......................................................................................6

Extending Arguments.......................................................................................6Evidence Comparison.......................................................................................6Writing Overviews............................................................................................7

***Negative 1NC Shell 1/3***...................................................................................8***Negative 1NC Shell 2/3***...................................................................................9***Negative 1NC Shell 3/3***.................................................................................10Answer to Negative Arguments.............................................................................112NC Overview........................................................................................................11“They say: Wolf Amendment fails now”.................................................................12“They say China has been stealing tech for years”...............................................13“They say: Hegemony is not key to peace (1/2)”...................................................14“They say: Hegemony is not key to peace (2 / 2)”.................................................15Aff answers............................................................................................................162AC—We outweigh (MR. T).....................................................................................162AC—Wolf Amendment fails..................................................................................172AC— The DA is Non-Unique..................................................................................182AC—No impact to loss of leadership....................................................................19

Page 2 of 21

Page 2 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

Negative IntroductionThe purpose of this disadvantage is to highlight that in order for the affirmative to increase space cooperation with China the plan must overturn what is called the Wolf Amendment.

The Wolf Amendment states that no funds may be spent by NASA or OSTP, (Office of Science and Technology Policy) to "develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement or execute a bilateral policy, program, order or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company unless such activities are specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this act."

The story of the DA says that removing the Wolf Amendment allows China access to U.S. space information, which would allow China to accelerate its military – challenging U.S. primacy around the world (aka U.S. Leadership).

A multipolar world (multiple countries competing for who is the dominant country in the world) would risk both economic and military competition. In a unipolar world only one country really determines how other countries act. This is because that singular country controls both the institutions that set the norms for international relations and the armed forces to deter other powers from challenging their rule. There is a distinction here, smaller conflicts like civil wars could still occur – but in a unipolar, American-led world, those conflicts are less likely to spiral out of control.

Affirmative Introduction

The affirmative can make several answers 1. The Wolf Amendment is failing now—this argument says that the Wolf amendment fails at preventing China from accessing information.

2. China steals from the U.S. now—this argument is a bigger push on the link by saying China is already stealing now, that means China should have already stolen the information it needs.

3. No impact—Hegemony/U.S. Leadership is not key to peace. The argument here is that analysts have done studies of peace and U.S. Leadership and have found no correlation between the two.

Page 3 of 21

Page 3 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

How to Use this File

Added for additional help is a better template on how negative and affirmative teams should interact with each other’s arguments. This will hopefully help improve clash and argumentation.

You see things like this – for the negative:

<Insert overview—explain what the Disad says and why the impact is bigger than the affirmatives impact>

<Insert a reason why their evidence is bad><extend your original evidence that answers their argument—see page 6 for how to extend original evidence>

And, this for the affirmative:

<Insert overview—explain what the affirmative impacts are larger than the disad impacts>

Page 4 of 21

Page 4 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

Glossary & Key TermsA disadvantage consists of three parts:

1. Uniqueness – a positive or negative fact about the world. In a really good disadvantage, that fact is currently true, but its future is uncertain.

2. Link – how the plan changes that fact. Additional links, called internal links, connect that change to the impact.

3. Impact – the result of the fact being changed.

For this disadvantage, those parts take these forms:1. Uniqueness – the Wolf Amendment protects US space technology now.2. Link – the plan allows China to access that space technology.3. Internal link – giving China space technology collapses U.S. Leadership.4. Impact – the loss of U.S. Leadership causes nuclear conflict.

GLOSSARY

Armageddon – A dramatic and catastrophic conflict, especially one seen as likely to destroy the world or the human raceEspionage – the practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information.Hegemony – leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others.Multi-polar – a distribution of power in which more than four nation-states have nearly equal amounts of military, cultural, and economic influence.Roscosmos – the governmental body responsible for the space science program of Russia and general aerospace research.Sino – Chinese or relating to China. Wolf Amendment – A U.S. budgetary stipulation on NASA’s & the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) budgets that forbids involvement by NASA and the NSF in any bilateral program or forum with China. The amendment is named after former Congressman of Virginia, Frank Wolf, the drafter of the amendment.

How to Use the TemplatesExtending Arguments

Page 5 of 21

Page 5 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

When you make a good argument early in the debate, chances are you'll want to bring it back up again later in the debate. An “extended” argument is an argument made earlier in a debate that's made again in a team's next speech. An argument can be extended from the 1AC to the 2AC, the 2AC to the 1AR, the 1AR to the 2AR, the 1NC to the 2NC/1NR, or the 2NC/1NR to the 2NR.

How is extending an argument different from repeating yourself? Good extensions contain three elements: an explanation, an impact, and a rebuttal of the other team's arguments.

Explanations are a summary of a previous argument you've made. The best explanations include both a claim/assertion (what is our argument?) and a warrant/reasoning (how do we know that argument is true?).

“Impacting” an argument means explaining how that argument affects the debate as a whole. When impacting an argument, ask yourself: if we're right about this argument, how does it tie back to our central point?

Rebutting the other team's arguments can take several forms as follows:o Challenging the date of the evidence (has the status quo changed since their

evidence was produced?)o Challenging qualifications of the author (is this person qualified to speak on

this subject or does this piece of evidence come from a qualified source?).o Challenging the warrants/reasoning made by your opponent (explain why

your evidence is good and why the other team's evidence is flawed. You can also argue that the other team's argument or evidence doesn't apply to your original argument).

Evidence Comparison

After your constructives, you’ve likely entered a fairly substantial amount of evidence into the debate round. Often, a card you read will directly contradict with evidence that the other team has read. If only one of those arguments can be true, how can you make sure the judge is on your side at the end of the round?

The answer is evidence comparison. It can greatly increase your speaker points if done correctly, and it doesn’t take too long to do. Instead of just extending a piece of evidence, you can explain why your argument should be preferred. There are many standards by which one piece of evidence can be better than another, and here are some examples:

Post-dating. If your evidence makes a claim the other team’s author would disagree with, it’s important to look at when the articles you are debating about were published. If your card is more recent, it post-dates the other card, which is a reason why a judge could prefer your argument. However, if the difference is only a few days, or the cards are not about a topic that changes much over time, a post-date claim would be less

Page 6 of 21

Page 6 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

convincing and could be easily answered by the other team. Qualifications. It’s also important to compare the experience of those

writing the evidence being debated about. If, for example, the other team reads a newspaper article about why a war with China could go nuclear, and you read an excerpt from an expert’s book that says it couldn’t – you can explain that the judge should prefer the more-qualified source. However, a writer may often cite experts within their text, so it’s important to look beyond the qualifications after the author’s name.

Writing Overviews

An overview is an explanation of your argument that usually occurs before you answer the other team’s arguments specifically. An overview should provide a brief explanation of your argument’s story, be it your affirmative or your disadvantage, along with impact analysis. “Impact analysis,” also known as “impact comparison,” is the process of comparing reasons why the plan is good with reasons why the plan is bad. For instance, the affirmative might argue that the plan is that increased P.E. is good for students and the country in the long-run. At the same time, the negative might argue that the plan would be bad for country in the long-run because students don’t learn academics and are less prepared to start a career. Which is more important: a healthy country or staying competitive in the global job market? Since whoever wins this argument will have a big advantage in the debate, impact analysis is a vital part of rebuttals.

There are four general reasons why one impact might be more important than other:

Magnitude – how big is an impact? This includes both how many people an impact affects and the way in which it affects them.

Risk – how likely is the impact to occur? Do we know that the impact is going to happen (maybe because it's already happening), or is a hypothetical future problem?

Timeframe – in how long will the impact occur? Impacts that happen farther into the future may be less likely to occur, since it's often more difficult to make predictions over the long term.

Turns the impact/Solves the impact – how does your impact interact with the other team's impact? For instance: the affirmative might say: “without a healthy lifestyle, preparing for a long career is pointless since life expectancy will continue decrease.”

The acronym MR. T can help you to remember impact analysis:

Page 7 of 21

Page 7 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

Magnitude, Risk, and Timeframe.

Page 8 of 21

Page 8 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

***Negative 1NC Shell 1/3***A. Uniqueness: Current ban on Sino-American space research

prevents espionageDickerson 15 Kelly Dickerson was a science reporter for Tech Insider, covering space and physics news. “Here's why NASA won't work with China to explore space,” Tech Insider, 19 Oct 2015, http://www.techinsider.io/nasa-china-collaboration-illegal-2015-10 – SY

The reason is because, in 2011, Congress passed a spending bill that expressly forbids NASA from working with China, citing a high risk of espionage.¶ What's more, it doesn't sound like the attitudes of US lawmakers toward the People's Republic of China are changing anytime soon.¶ A 2015 report from the University of California called "China Dream, Space Dream" concludes that: "China's efforts to use its space program to transform itself into a military, economic, and technological power may come at the expense of U.S. leadership and has serious implications for U.S. interests."¶ It will take a big policy shift to change that sentiment and foster collaboration between NASA and the China National Space Administration (CNSA).¶ One of the biggest collaborative projects in which NASA is involved is the International Space Station (ISS). It's a space station built and maintained by the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada.¶ China, however, is banned from involvement in the ISS, thanks to US lawmakers.¶ But CNSA seems to be doing just fine on its own. Since its founding in 1993, the Chinese space agency has launched 10 people and a small space station into orbit, among other missions.

Page 9 of 21

Page 9 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

***Negative 1NC Shell 2/3***

B. Link: China is lagging behind the US in space power – Allowing China access to U.S. space info crushes U.S. LeadershipPollpeter et al 15 [Kevin Pollpeter¶ Eric Anderson¶ Jordan Wilson¶ Fan Yang; A report prepared for theU.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission; Monday, March 2, 2015; China Dream, Space Dream¶ China’s Progress in Space Technologies¶ and Implications for the United States; http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/China%20Dream%20Space%20Dream_Report.pdf//TPBChina’s position in the world has been evolving. It seeks increased influence and independence from¶ foreign powers with the ultimate goal of preserving China’s sovereignty, independence, territorial¶ integrity, and political system. Over the long term, China seeks to transform the international system to better suit its interests, but seeks to integrate itself into the existing international system over the short term with the goal of reshaping the Asia-Pacific political environment into one in which its interests must be given greater attention. China’s pursuit of space power is intended to support this strategy. China views the development of space power as a necessary move for a country that wants to strengthen its national power. Indeed, China’s goal is to become a space power on par with the United States and to foster a space industry that is the equal¶ of those in the United States, Europe, and Russia. China takes a comprehensive, long-term approach to this goal that emphasizes the accrual of the military, economic, and political benefits space can provide. By placing much of its space program in a 15-year development program and providing ample funding, the Chinese government provides a stable environment in which its space program can prosper. Although China is probably truthful when it says that it is not in a space race, such statements mask the true intent of its space program: to become militarily, diplomatically, commercially, and economically as competitive as the United States is in space. For China’s military, the use of space power can facilitate long-range strikes, guide munitions with precision, improve connectivity, and lead to greater jointness across its armed forces. Economically, space¶ technologies can create markets for new technologies and result in “spin-off” technologies for commercial¶ uses that will make its industry more competitive. Politically, space power provides “carrots and sticks” that China can use to influence the international situation. Internally, China’s rise as a space power is¶ designed to demonstrate to the Chinese people that the Chinese Communist Party is the best organization to lead the country. In examining China’s use of its space program to advance its national security, economic, and diplomatic interests, this study finds that China has made much progress, particularly in serving its national security interests, but that its goals of using space to advance its economic and diplomatic interests remain underdeveloped. As a result, China is a “partial space power”; that is, a global actor that has yet to translate its power into comprehensive influence. This conclusion should not be unexpected, however. China is a latecomer as a serious space power. China’s rapid progress in space technology, although impressive, is also the result of starting from a low base and a reliance on the pioneering work of the United States and Russia. The United States remains the world’s leading space power, and Chinese space technologies still lag behind the United States. Nevertheless, China’s efforts to use its space program to transform itself into a military, economic, and technological power may come at the expense of U.S. leadership and has serious implications for U.S. interests. Even if U.S. space power continues to improve in absolute terms, China’s rapid advance in space technologies will result in relative gains that challenge the U.S. position in space. At its current trajectory, China’s space program, even if not the equal of the U.S. space program, will at some point be good enough to adequately support modern military operations, compete commercially, and deliver political gains that will serve its broader strategic interest of again being a major power more in control of its own destiny.

Page 10 of 21

Page 10 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

***Negative 1NC Shell 3/3***C. Impact: Leads to a domino effect ending in the apocalypse Varisco 13 [Andrea E. Varisco 13, Ph.D. candidate at the Post-War Reconstruction and Development Unit of the University of York, holds a Master in International Affairs, Peace and Conflict Studies specialisation from the Australian National University and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo and a Master in Politics and Comparative Institutions from the University of Milano, 6/3/13, “Towards a Multi-Polar International System: Which Prospects for Global Peace?,” http://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/03/towards-a-multi-polar-international-system-which-prospects-for-global-peace/ ]

A return to multi-polarity will therefore imply more instability among great powers. But great power rivalry will not be the only source of possible instability for the future multi-polar world. The current distribution of power allows not only great powers but also middle, small powers and non-state actors to have military capabilities that could threaten the global security. In particular, the presence of nuclear weapons constitutes a further reason of concern and implies that the future world could carry not only the potential instability of multi-polarity and great powers rivalry, but also the dangers entailed in nuclear proliferation. The future multi-polar world will thus be potentially more unstable than all the other multi-polar periods history has experienced until nowadays: for the first time in history, the world could become both multi-polar and nuclear. While some scholars argue that nuclear deterrence “could reduce the war-proneness of the coming multi-polar system” (Layne, 44-45), the majority of them consider the presence of nuclear weapons as a source of instability (McNamara; Rosen; Allison). In particular, regional powers and states that are not great powers armed with nuclear capabilities could represent a cause of concern for global security. A nuclear Iran could for example attack – or be attacked – by Israel and easily involve in this war the rest of the world (Sultan; Huntley). A war between Pakistan and India, both nuclear states, could result in an Armageddon for the whole Asia. An attack from the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK) on Japan or South Korea will trigger an immediate reaction from the US and “a nuclear proliferation ‘domino effect’ in East Asia” (Huntley, 725). Terrorists armed with nuclear weapons could wreak havoc and target the heart of the most powerful countries of the world (Bunn and Wier). Iran, Pakistan, DPRK, terrorist groups will rarely be great powers or poles in a future multi-polar world. Nevertheless, the effects of their actions could easily reverberate all over the globe and represent another cause of potential instability. For the first time in history, the stability of the future world will therefore depend not only on the unpredictable effects of the rivalry among great powers, but also on the dangerous potential of middle and small powers and non-state actors armed with nuclear weapons.

Page 11 of 21

Page 11 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

Answer to Negative Arguments

2NC Overview

<Insert overview—explain what the Disad says and why the impact is bigger than the affirmatives impact>

Steps for writing an overview—answer these 3 questions:1. What is the story or overall point of the DA?

2. Why is the impacts of the disad outweigh the affirmatives impacts?a) pick one from “MR.T” or use all three but explainb) make sure you mention all the impacts from all the advantages

3. Why does the Disad impacts cause or prevent the affirmative from sol-vency its impact.

Page 12 of 21

Page 12 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

“They say: Wolf Amendment fails now”1. <Insert a reason why their evidence is bad i.e.>(Does their evidence lack warrants/reasoning? Does the evidence assume changes in the status quo? Are their authors not qualified or not as qualified as your authors? Etc.)

2. <Extend your original evidence that answers their argument—see page 6 for how to extend original evidence>

3. Ban on Sino-American space cooperation prevents espionage and protects national securityFernholz ’13 (Tim Fernholz covers state, business and society for Quartz. “The US and China may work together in space now that this guy is retiring,” Quartz, 19 Dec 2013, http://qz.com/159570 – SY)

Last week, when a US Navy destroyer narrowly avoided a collision with a Chinese naval vessel, there was at least something of a protocol in place for the two ships to communicate with one another. The same thing can’t be said of the two countries’ space programs. But that may change with the imminent retirement of US Congressman Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican who served for 17 years.¶ Since 2001, Wolf has either led or played an important role on the funding committee for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), where he put the kibosh on any cooperation with China’s space program. Wolf objected to Chinese political repression and forced abortions due to China’s one-child policy (“Would you have a bilateral program with Stalin?” Wolf once asked). He also feared China might exploit the relationship to gain secret information about US space technology like it did after a failed launch in 1996, as Zach Rosenberg explains.¶ By blocking any kind of cooperation between the two nations, Wolf’s stand against China contributed to the International Space Station being built without Chinese help. Nonetheless, the US cooperates with Russia on that project and other space initiatives, despite the country’s strategic differences with the US and its tarnished human rights record.¶ With its attempts to join in the ISS project quashed by Wolf’s ban, China went ahead with its own space station project, launching the Tiangong 1 station in 2011. Since then, it’s been steadily gaining on the Russian space program in terms of both capability and willingness to invest. That’s one reason why Wolf’s replacement might want to consider relaxing his predecessor’s ban on China cooperation, though it might come with security risks. Experts note

Page 13 of 21

Page 13 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

that China’s space program is much more tightly intertwined with its military and much more opaque than Russia’s Roscosmos.

Page 14 of 21

Page 14 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

“They say China has been stealing tech for years”1. <Insert a reason why their evidence is bad>

2. <Extend your original evidence that answers their argument—see page 6 for how to extend original evidence>

3. Current US pressure is stopping China from stealing tech through hacksMcMillan ’16 Robert, reports and writes about computer security, hackers and privacy, “China-Based Hacking Incidents See Dip, Cybersecurity Experts Say”, 06/20/16, Nasdaq, http://www.nasdaq.com/article/chinabased-hacking-incidents-see-dip-cybersecurity-experts-say-20160620-01037 – MC

Chinese hacking of corporate and government networks in the U.S. and other countries appears to be declining, according to computer-security experts at companies hired to investigate these breaches. The drop-off is stark and may date back two years. Hackers operating out of China were linked to between 50 and 70 incidents that the cybersecurity company FireEye Inc. was investigating on a monthly basis in 2013 and the early part of 2014, said Laura Galante, the company's director of global intelligence. Starting in October 2015, however, this tally dropped below 10 incidents and hasn't recovered, she said. "We saw this decline start in 2014 and then another dip in 2015," she said. "I would not necessarily assume that this is a long-term trend," he said. FireEye thinks the decline started earlier and resulted from multiple factors, including public scrutiny and pressure from the U.S. government. The U.S. government has long accused Chinese hackers of widespread espionage into both corporate and government networks. In 2013, security researchers at Mandiant, later acquired by FireEye, published a report detailing a widespread computer-espionage campaign, called "APT1," that the company linked to the Chinese military.

Page 15 of 21

Page 15 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

“They say: Hegemony is not key to peace (1/2)”1. <Insert a reason why their evidence is bad>

2. <Extend your original evidence that answers their argument—see page 6 for how to extend original evidence.>

3. Chinese space advancements cause Chinese hegemonyPollpeter et al 15 [Kevin Pollpeter¶ Eric Anderson¶ Jordan Wilson¶ Fan Yang; A report prepared for theU.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission; Monday, March 2, 2015; China Dream, Space Dream¶ China’s Progress in Space Technologies¶ and Implications for the United States; http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/China%20Dream%20Space%20Dream_Report.pdf//TPB]

Although China is probably truthful when it says that it is not in a space race, such statements mask the ¶ true intent of its space program : to become militarily, diplomatically, commercially, and economically as¶ competitive as the United States is in space. Despite Chinese statements that it is not in a space race,¶ China’s space program has generated concern both in the United States and in Asia. As Clay Moltz of the¶ Naval Postgraduate School writes, “There is a space race going on in Asia, but its outcome―peaceful¶ competition or military confrontation―is still uncertain.” He concludes that although “there are still¶ reasonable prospects for avoiding negative outcomes in space…Asia is at risk of moving backward,¶ motivated by historical mistrust and animosities and hindered by poor communications on security¶ matters.”¶ 633 As a result, China’s progress in space technologies, whether in relative or absolute terms, has ¶ implications for the United States and its neighbors. As China’s space program increases in capability, it¶ can be expected to wield this power in ways that, according to Bonnie Glaser, not only “persuade its¶ neighbors that there is more to gain from accommodating Chinese interests” but also “deter countries¶ from pursuing policies that inflict damage on Chinese interests.”¶ 634

Page 16 of 21

Page 16 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

“They say: Hegemony is not key to peace (2 / 2)”

4. Chinese hegemony causes great power warMearsheimer ’14 [John, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, “Can China Rise Peacefully?”, The National Interest, 10/25/14, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/can-china-rise-peacefully-10204 – MC]Offensive realism offers important insights into China’s rise. My argument in a nutshell is that if China continues to grow economically, it will attempt to dominate Asia the way the United States dominates the Western Hemisphere. The United States, however, will go to enormous lengths to prevent China from achieving regional hegemony. Most of Beijing’s neighbors, including India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia, and Vietnam, will join with the United States to contain Chinese power. The result will be an intense security competition with considerable potential for war. In short, China’s rise is unlikely to be tranquil. It is important to emphasize that my focus is not on how China will behave in the immediate future, but instead on how it will act in the longer term, when it will be far more powerful than it is today. The fact is that present-day China does not possess significant military power; its military forces are inferior to those of the United States. Beijing would be making a huge mistake to pick a fight with the U.S. military nowadays. Contemporary China, in other words, is constrained by the global balance of power, which is clearly stacked in America’s favor. Among other advantages, the United States has many consequential allies around the world, while China has virtually none. But we are not concerned with that situation here. Instead, the focus is on a future world in which the balance of power has shifted sharply against the United States, where China controls much more relative power than it does today, and where China is in roughly the same economic and military league as the United States. In essence, we are talking about a world in which China is much less constrained than it is today.

Page 17 of 21

Page 17 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

Aff answers

2AC—We outweigh (MR. T)1. <Insert overview—explain what the affirmative impacts are larger

than the disad impacts> (Explain why the impacts of the affirmative either outweigh (magnitude), or

are more likely to occur (Risk), or happen faster (timeframe). (You can also say “why does the affirmative SOLVES the impacts to the

Disad”)

Page 18 of 21

Page 18 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

2AC—Wolf Amendment failsWolf Amendment does not work nowBeldavs 15 (Vid Beldavs, Founding Member at International Lunar Decade Working Group (ILDWG), 12/7/15, “Prospects for US-China space cooperation,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2878/1 // MH) Clearly sensitive technologies need to be protected. But, protecting US intellectual property is not known to be a domain where the House Appropriations Committee of the US Congress has recognized expertise or where it has been invested with any specific authority. Additionally, NASA is a relatively tiny domain in the vast territory of advanced technology under development by the US. The Wolf Amendment, in fact, offers no protection of American technology but instead empowers members of a Congressional committee with no relevant expertise or authority to play a foreign policy role. Congressman Culbertson clearly recognizes that space technology is key to addressing major challenges facing not only the US, but the entire world community. To bar the United States from participation in global initiatives in the peaceful uses of outer space because China is also involved is, at best, is an overemotional response to the potential for illicit technology transfer with a totally inappropriate instrument. Far more relevant to US national interests would be for Rep. Culbertson to support developing more effective strategies to advance US commercial interests in space. Otherwise, the Chinese, not bounded by ineffective legislation, will eat our lunch. No one has yet developed the technologies for ISRU whether on the Moon, the asteroids, Mars, or beyond. Yet ISRU technologies are central to the whole idea of asteroid and lunar mining. If the Chinese can work with everyone else on the planet, but the US can only work with a short list as approved by the Appropriations Committee, it should be expected that the Chinese, drawing on the knowledge base of the entire world, will advance more quickly. We have no lead in ISRU, and our lead in other domains of space technology may not be particularly relevant to this challenge. It is time for Congress to wake up to the emerging commercial space future and work to fully unleash our commercial space potential rather than complaining about a very high level meeting in Beijing where common challenges in the peaceful uses of outer space were discussed with NASA experts present.

Page 19 of 21

Page 19 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

2AC— The DA is Non-UniqueChina has been stealing US space technology for yearsWalcott 12 (John, National Security and foreign affairs correspondent for Bloomberg. “Chinese Espionage Campaign Targets U.S. Space Technology” 4/18/12 Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-04-18/chinese-espionage-campaign-targets-u-s-space-technology – LP)

China is stealing U.S. military and civilian space technology in an effort to disrupt U.S. access to intelligence, navigation and communications satellites, according to a report from the State and Defense Departments. “China’s continuing efforts to acquire U.S. military and dual-use technologies are enabling China’s science and technology base to diminish the U.S. technological edge in areas critical to the development of weapons and communications systems,” the report released yesterday found. “Additionally, the technologies China has acquired could be used to develop more advanced technologies by shortening Chinese R&D cycles.” Two U.S. intelligence officials said that while the Chinese military isn’t preparing to fight a major land war, its goal is to deny the U.S. military access to the other four arenas in which a war might be fought -- the seas around China, the airspace surrounding the country, space, and cyberspace. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because intelligence matters are classified. Because China’s closed political system discourages the independent thinking that spawns innovation, the Chinese rely heavily on stealing and reverse-engineering new technologies from Europe and America, both officials said. “Economic espionage, supported by extensive open-source research, computer network exploitation and targeted intelligence operations also enables China to obtain technologies to supplement indigenous military modernization efforts,” the State and Defense departments said in an appendix to yesterday’s report. The agencies said China should be excluded from recommendations they made to ease restrictions on exports of communications and remote-sensing satellites and equipment. Chinese Denial Chinese officials have denied their government is behind cyber espionage or hacker attacks on computer systems, calling such assertions a “Cold War ghost.” Citing the Pentagon’s Defense Security Service, the U.S. departments said yesterday that “countries from the East Asia and Pacific region” are focusing their efforts on information systems technology used in military command, control, communications, and computers, as well as in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance applications. In one episode cited, Chi Tong Kuok from Macau, China, was convicted in September 2010 of conspiring to export U.S. encryption technology used by U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces to China through Hong Kong. ‘Blind and Deafen’ The U.S. Departments of Commerce and Justice also have identified at least 26 major cases since 2006 in which China has tried to acquire power amplifiers with military applications, space-launch technical data and services, Delta IV rockets, information on cruise-missile design and military grade accelerometers, which are used in designing and testing aircraft, missiles, and other military equipment, according to the report. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s goals are clear, according to the report, which cited PLA writings about the necessity of “destroying, damaging, and interfering” with reconnaissance and communications satellites in order to “blind and deafen the enemy.” The same PLA analysis of U.S. and allied military operations says that “destroying or capturing satellites and other sensors ... will deprive an opponent of initiative on the battlefield and (make it difficult) for them to bring their precision-guided weapons into full play,” according to the U.S. report. Navigation Satellites In designing its constellation of navigation satellites, the PLA is using the same downlink frequencies as Europe’s Galileo Global Navigation System, according to the report, which said that doing so will enable China to jam the common satellite communications channels and global-positioning system (GPS) receivers. Thanks in part to its successful espionage efforts, which included obtaining the plans to America’s now-retired space shuttle, China has made a great leap forward in space, the report found. China had a national record of 15 space launches in 2010, compared with 14 by the U.S., including nine new remote-sensing satellites that can be used for both military and civilian purposes. This year, China is expected to complete work on the Wenchang Satellite Launch Center on the southern Hainan Island, the U.S. departments said. Beyond space technology, China has been cited by the U.S. as a center for computer hacking to steal information or compromise corporate and government systems. Two Chinese nationals were charged by the U.S. for illegally exporting technology to their home country and pirating software from U.S. companies including Agilent Technologies Inc., federal officials said yesterday. Xiang Li, 35, and Chun Yan Li, 33, a married couple from Chengdu, China, were indicted by a federal grand jury in Wilmington, Delaware, according to a statement by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Page 20 of 21

Page 20 of 21

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League Espionage Disadvantage (Neg & Aff Answers)

2AC—No impact to loss of leadershipHegemony isn’t key to peaceFettweis 11 Christopher Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316–332, EBSCO

It is perhaps worth noting that there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative

level of U.S. activism and international stability . In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible “peace dividend” endangered both national and global security. “No serious analyst of American military capabilities,” argued Kristol and Kagan, “doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too

far to meet America’s responsibilities to itself and to world peace.”52 On the other hand, if the pacific trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races , and no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern,

despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, even if it is true that either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends, then at the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment and suppose that there is in fact a level of engagement below which the United States cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined. Grand strategic decisions are never final; continual adjustments can and must be made as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled. If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least

pose a problem. As it stands, the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more restrained United States suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S. military spending. Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite effectively without the presence of a global policeman. Those who think otherwise base their view on faith alone.

Page 21 of 21

Page 21 of 21