Samford Debate Institute 11Asteroid Mining Neg

Samford Debate Institute ’11Asteroid Mining Neg

Asteroid Mining Negative

***Advantage Answers***

Rare-earth Shortage Answers

Resource Wars Answers

US-China War Answers

Military Superiority Answers

Terrorism Answers

Proliferation Answers

Solvency Answers

Solvency Answers- Robots fail

***Disadvantages***

Platinum DA

Platinum DA Uniqueness- Prices high

Platinum DA Links

Privates DA Answers

Politics Links- AT: Plan popular

Spending DA Links

***Counterplans***

Alaskan Mining CP

Space Colonization CP

Space Colonization CP- AT: Gravity unfit for humans

Privates CP- Solvency

Recycling CP

Recycling CP Solvency- Extensions

Prizes CP

LOST CP

Advantage Answers

Rare-earth Shortage Answers

Rare-earth shortage claims are exaggerated- we’re not near the breaking point

The Washington Times 4-11-11 [“U.S. urged to mine ‘rare earth’ minerals for high-tech devices,”

Although U.S. producers have pushed for greater domestic production, private analysts caution that panic stories regarding shortages are exaggerated, and that simply prospecting broadly in hopes of competing with China in the short term isn’t the answer. “The sky isn’t falling,” said Robert Jaffe, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “The world is a big place, and many of these elements haven’t been looked for the way we have looked for oil.” Mr. Jaffe said the day when global rare earth supplies are exhausted lies well into the future. “Mine, baby, mine,’ is not the solution,” he said.

We have more than enough REMs for over 100 years

Parthemore ’11 [Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,”

Central to this narrative is a conundrum for policymakers. Reserve estimates show that global supplies of almost all minerals are adequate to meet expected global demands over the long term, and for decades into the future for most minerals. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates, for example, that world supplies of rare earths will be adequate for more than 100 years. 13 These estimates, however, can be meaningless in the near term if supplies are insufficient, or if suppliers reduce exports or otherwise manipulate trade. For example, most experts project that global production of rare earths will likely be insufficient to meet the world’s demand over the next two to three years. The long-term sufficiency of supplies has no practical effect because it takes years and high capital costs to start up new mining and processing businesses for rare earths. Thus, the risks of inaction are high. A range of political, economic and geographic factors can disrupt supplies and cause price spikes that can create rifts in bilateral relations, trade disputes, accusations of economic sabotage and instability in countries that possess rare reserves of prized minerals. They can also give supplier countries extraordinary leverage that can alter geopolitical calculations, especially when single countries control most world supplies.

China doesn’t monopolize rare-earth elements- they don’t have much

Parthemore ’11 [Christine, Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, “Elements of Security: Mitigating the Risks of U.S. Dependence on Critical Minerals,”

Looking at the minerals examined in this report, in the past decade the most severe case of disruptions with national security implications involved rare earth elements, which are not particularly concentrated geographically. At least eight countries have known reserves, and unknown reserves are expected to be high. The media often refers to China as dominating the rare earths market because it produces and exports almost all of current world supplies, but it possesses only about half of known world reserves – not a terribly high concentration. 27The loss of a single major supplier such as China may therefore increase the costs of rare earths. However, it may not affect their longterm availability, as eventually supplies will be developed elsewhere.

Rare-earth elements are plentiful and the US doesn’t have resources to produce more

The Washington Times 4-11-11 [“U.S. urged to mine ‘rare earth’ minerals for high-tech devices,”

Despite their name, rare earth elements aren’t as hard to come by as many might think, said Cindy Hurst, an analyst with the Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office. “Indeed, rare earth elements aren’t rare,” she said. “They are found throughout the world’s crust.”The chemical process of turning rare earth materials into a product to put on the market is where the difficulty lies, said Molycorp’s Mr. Davis. One reason China dominates the industry is because the country has more than 6,000 rare-earth technologists compared with a couple of dozen in the U.S. Molycorpis working to keep the U.S. a player in the industry, with hopes of rivaling China’s production. The mining company recently acquired 90 percent of AS Silmet, a rare earth processing company based in Estonia, which will increase production significantly, Mr. Davis said. But the U.S. faces major obstacles in challenging China’s pre-eminence, Mr. Lifton said. “I don’t think we can produce these materials at a lower cost than they can be produced in China,” he said. “We are really in a pickle right now. You cannot re-create a supply chain in 15 minutes.”

Resource Wars Answers

Resource wars don’t escalate

Thomason ‘03 [James, THE RAREST COMMODITY IN THE COMING RESOURCE WARS, Center for Naval Analysis,

In the land of Oz, the tin woodman sets out to get a heart, the scarecrow a brain, the lion some nerve, and Dorothy a way home. One of the sweetest moments in the story,- at least to me, occurs when the wizard finally tells them they already have what they so desperately thought only someone else could give. The point is driven home once the good witch shows Dorothy how to get back to Kansas all by herself. The rarest commodity in recent hoopla about the "coming resource wars" may be just that sort of homespun common sense from the Wizard of Oz — what we can do for ourselves, if need be.U.S. consumers are surely better off with access to foreign goods and markets. Even a small price difference makes importing worth our while. But our economy is not doomed nor our national security in jeopardy even if we lose access to a foreign product for a while. Oil may be different. A major, protracted loss of Persian Gulf oil would be enormously expensive. We still need better policies to reduce the chances and costs of such disruptions. But oil is the exception. When top government officials suggest that without various exotic minterals from remote developing countries the U.S. would suffer economic calamity and be nearly unable to produce vital defense goods, they foster exaggerated fears and divert attention from far more pressing national concerns. I applaud the President's scrutiny of excess federal spending; it also ought to be vigorously extended to strategic mineral needs.

Resource shortages don’t cause war—leadership failures do:

Philippe Le Billon, Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia, ,no date cited, (

Each of these three dimensions of resource wars outlined above is not, in itself, anecessary or sufficient condition for armed conflict.Resource dependent countries are notthe only ones affected by war. Nor are ‘resources’ per se to be blamed. It does not followeither, of course, that wars in resource rich or resource dependent countriesstemprimarily from resource-related context or causes.5 As argued by a prominent Angolanjournalist jailed for denouncing the corruption and war fuelled by oil and diamonds in hiscountry: “It’s fashionable to say that we are cursed by our mineral riches. That’s not true.We are cursed by our leaders.” (Raphael Marques, cited in (Salopek 2000). Attributinggovernance failure solely or primarily to the abundance of resources, in other words, isprofoundly depoliticising (or ‘economising’) – insofar as this obscures the politicalstrategies and goals of belligerents.

Their evidence is overly deterministic and ignores alternate causes of wars:

Philippe Le Billon, Associate Professor at the University of British Columbia, no date cited, (

Resource dependence and the resource curse, and the risks and opportunities associatedwith resource extraction should not, in other words, be understood to deterministicallyincrease the chances of conflicts.

US-China War Answers

No US-China war over Taiwan- KMT victories

Desker 08 (Barry; Singapore’s Ambassador to Indonesia from 1986 to 1993. (CEO) of the Trade Development Board (1994-2000). He is currently the Co-Chair of the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP, graduated from the University of Singapore with a Bachelor of Arts (First Class Honours) degree and obtained his Masters degree from the University of London, “Why War is Unlikely in Asia: Facing the Challenge from China”, 6/4/08, FAK)

War in Asia is thinkable but it is unlikely.The Asia-Pacific region can, paradoxically, be regarded as a zone both of relative insecurity and of relative strategic stability.On the one hand,the region contains some of the world’s most significant flashpoints – the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan Strait, the Siachen glacier – where tensions between nations could escalate to the point of resulting in a major war.The region is replete with border issues, the site of acts of terrorism (the Bali bombings, Manila superferry bombing, Kashmir, etc.), and it is an area of overlapping maritime claims (the Spratly Islands, Diaoyutai islands, etc).Finally, the Asia-Pacific is an area of strategic significance, sitting astride key sea lines of communication (SLOCS) and important chokepoints. Nevertheless,the Asia-Pacific region is more stable than one might believe.Separatism remains a challenge but the break-up of states is unlikely.Terrorism is a nuisance but its impact is contained.The North Korean nuclear issue, while not fully resolved, is at least moving toward a conclusion with the likely denuclearization of the peninsula.Tensions between China and Taiwan, while always just beneath the surface, seem unlikely to erupt in open conflict (especially after the KMT victories in Taiwan.

No US-China war- Beijing is peaceful now

Beijing has greatly lowered the tone and rhetoric of its strategic competition with the United States, actions which have gone a long way toward reassuring the countries of Southeast Asia of China’s sincerity in pursuing a non-confrontational foreign and security strategy. Beijing’s approach is significant as most Southeast Asian states prefer not to have to choose between alignment with the US and alignment with China and have adopted ‘hedging’ strategies in their relationships with the two powers. Beijing now adopts a more subtle approach towards the United States: not directly challenging US leadership in Asia, partnering with Washington where the two countries have shared interests, and, above all, promoting multilateral security processes that, in turn, constrain US power, influence and hegemony in the Asia-Pacific.

Economic interdependence guarantees resilient relations – Obama will go out of his way to appease China

Turkish Weekly ‘09 (Obama Makes First China Tour As Economic Interdependence Grows.

Pres. Barack Obama departs White House South Lawn in Washington for trip to Fort Hood, Texas, 10 Nov 2009When U.S. President Barack Obama arrives in China later this month, he'll head first to its booming commercial capital Shanghai. U.S.-Chinese economic ties are increasingly important to the two countries' overall relationship, so much so, thatsome believe Washington purposefully avoids raising contentious issues with China in an effort to curry favor with its leaders.Most reliable customer From shopping malls in the United States, stocked with Chinese-made goods, to busy Chinese factories where the goods are made, it's evident the two countries rely heavily on each other. And despite the global financial crisis, the United States remains China's most reliable customer, and Beijing, the world's biggest buyer of U.S. government debt. Nicholas Lardy, an economist and senior fellow at the Washington-based Peterson Institute, says China's unwillingness to adopt derivative loans and other high-risk financial products helped to shield it from the impact of the world economic downturn. It also dramatically changed its relationship with the United States. "Now of course the Chinese are beginning to lecture us, about how we need to balance our budget, and preserve the value of the dollar and avoid inflation... So, in a sense the shoe is really on the other foot," he said. Key player A Chinese youth carries soft drinks she bought at American fast food restaurant McDonald's (R) in Beijing (File)This year, China's economy is expected to grow by more than eight percent, and its overall resilience to the global financial crisis, has brought with it increasing confidence in the international arena. Beijing is increasingly seen as a key player in dealing with global issues, be it helping to resurrect the global economy or combating climate change. With such growing clout, some believe the Obama administration has gone out of its way to avoid offending Beijing.Critics note that when the Dalai Lama recently visited the United States, President Obama delayed his meeting with the Nobel peace laureate until after his upcoming trip to China. They also say Washington has avoided the tough talk of previous administrations about the value of China's currency. "I think that they are taking a calculated risk and it is one that I would not advocate myself," said Randy Schriver, who heads the research group Project 2049, which focuses on issues in the Asian region and the rise of China. US approach may not pay off He says the Obama administration's approach may not ultimately pay off. "It's a presumption that these are obstacles to cooperation, which in fact I think China has enough of their own interests and equities in - for example the economic situation - to cooperate irrespective of what we do on some of these other issues," he said. A tourist displays Chinese yuan (File) The value of the Chinese currency has long been a divisive issue, with China frequently accused of undervaluing its yuan to make its exports cheaper. On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama accused China of currency manipulation. After stepping into office the Treasury Department has avoided harsher accusations and only expressed "serious concerns" about the "flexibility" of China's currency. Yet Nicholas Szechenyi of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says Washington's softer approach is not all soft. "It certainly seems, that the administration is trying to address issues of human rights a little less, to work more on economic issues, and other global issues such as climate change," he said. "On the other hand, you do have this strong push on tires and perhaps even steel on the trade front. So I think it is a question of balance. And what you choose to engage the Chinese on," he said.

Arms sales to Taiwan decimate US-China relations

Chase’10 [Michael Feb, 2010/ Selling Weapons to Taiwan Was the Right Decision]

Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Defense announced the approval of a major arms sales package for Taiwan. The $6.4 billion deal includes 114 Patriot advanced capability (PAC-3) missiles, 60 Blackhawk helicopters, and two Osprey-class mine-hunting ships, among other items. The Obama administration is still considering Taiwan's request for the F-16 C/Ds that it wants to replace some of its aging fighters. As it has in the past, Beijing quickly expressed its indignation through multiple channels. ForeignMinistry officials denounced the arms sales as interference in China's internal affairs and China's official media warned that the decision would "inevitably cast a long shadow on Sino-U.S. relations." Beijing also retaliated by suspending U.S.-China military-to-military relations, a move that was widely expected since military ties were also put on hold for about five months after the last major U.S. sale of weapons to Taiwan in October 2008. This time, however, an increasingly assertive China is warning of broader consequences for bilateral relations, including placing sanctions on U.S. contractors involved in the deal, some of whom have civilian contracts in China. Beijing's response may also include turning a cold shoulder to U.S. requests for cooperation on other international problems.

Military Superiority Answers

US cyberintelligence solves military superiority

Rashid 6-23-11 [Fahmida, Senior Writer at Ziff Davis Enterprise, “U.S. Military Expanding Arsenal of Cyber-Warfare Capabilities,”

The federal government is increasingly using cyber-tactics to defend its IT assets against attackers and to protect its interests. It’s about time, since enemies are already relying on an extensive arsenal of cyber-weapons, experts said. President Obama has signed executive orders outlining how far the United States military can go when launching cyber-attacks and other cyber-operations against enemies and as part of routine espionage activities, the Associated Press reported June 22. The orders, which were signed more than a month ago and cap a two-year Pentagon effort to draft rules for the U.S. military, detail when the military needs to seek presidential approval for a specific cyber-assault and how the Department of Defense will integrate cyber-capabilities into military strategy, defense officials said. The strategy document outlines some of the approved activities, such as planting a computer virus on adversaries' computers to launching attacks that bring down a target electrical grid or defense network.When under attack, the United States can defend itself by blocking cyber-intrusions and taking down servers in another country. And similar to a missile attack, the military can pursue attackers across national boundaries, the AP reported. "We must have the capability to defend against the full range of cyber-attacks," Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said. Terror groups will eventually learn how to launch crippling cyber-attacks, so the United States needs to be more aggressive in offensive and defensive countermeasures, he said. Many of the attacks on American businesses, critical infrastructure and defense systems are a "direct challenge" to our military superiority, Charles Dodd, a government consultant for cyber-defense and an adviser to the House of Representatives Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology, told eWEEK. State-sponsored attacks are going after military secrets without any fear of retaliation, he said. Cyber-attacks aren't always "money-making," but often a military tool, according to Dodd, noting that China built its networks with a tactical mindset. "It's only a matter of time before the attackers take any of this to the next level," Dodd said, noting that cyber-attacks are expected to escalate into much more serious threats. The Department of Defense and other federal agencies are preparing to meet the threat. In the "International Strategy for Cyber-Space" policy document released mid-May, the White House said the United States would respond to "hostile acts in cyberspace" in the same manner as any other threat against the country.