Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[13]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[23]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[13]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-10 23:51:16.836
	1	+2016-10-10 23:51:16.0

Caselist.CitesClass[23]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,17 @@
	1	+The space race is still ongoing in different forms – alien hunt proves. Barnato 4/1
	2	+Katy Barnato, 4-1-2016, "Europe, Russia hunt for alien life in new Space Race," CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/20/europe-russia-hunt-for-alien-life-in-new-space-race.html
	3	+A new Space Race may be underway, with the major spaceflight powers launching programs to hunt for signs of life on Mars and further afield. The battle between the then-Soviet Union and the U.S. to establish supremacy in space saw the former launch the first human into space on 1961 and the U.S. land Neil Armstrong on the Moon in 1969. Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing mission, was launched on 16 July 1969. SSPL | Getty Images Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing mission, was launched on 16 July 1969. Now, both Russia and Western Europe are leading players in the search for life within our own solar system and elsewhere in the galaxy. Here, CNBC takes a look at some of the region's ongoing space programs. Alpha Centauri Russian billionaire Yuri Milner and English celebrity physicist Stephen Hawking joined forces to announce a $100 million project to blast tiny spacecraft on a mission to "search for life in the Universe" on April 12. The destination of the multiple nanocraft would be Alpha Centauri, our nearby star system, where astronomers say there may be an Earth-like planet that can support human life. "55 years ago today, Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space. Today, we are preparing for the next great leap — to the stars," Milner said in a statement on the launch of the "Breakthrough Starshot" program. Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg is the third member of the program's board. Mark Zuckerberg and Yuri Milner. Getty Images Mark Zuckerberg and Yuri Milner. Alpha Centauri is 25 trillion miles away. The Breakthrough team hopes that by propelling the spacecraft with light beams, they could reach the star system in just over 20 years from launch. The nanocraft would travel at 20 percent of light speed — over 1,000 times faster than today's fastest spacecraft, according to Breakthrough. On arrival at Alpha Centauri, the spacecraft would take pictures of possible planets and collect other scientific data. Mars mission The European Space Agency (ESA) established the ExoMars program to answer one of astronomy's biggest questions — was there ever life on Mars? The agency launched its first mission to the Red Planet on March 14 this year, in collaboration with Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, and another is planned for 2018. A rocket carrying ExoMars spacecraft blasts off on March 14, 2016. Sergei Savostyanov | TASS | Getty Images A rocket carrying ExoMars spacecraft blasts off on March 14, 2016. "If life ever arose on the Red Planet, it probably did when Mars was warmer and wetter, sometime within the first billion years following planetary formation," the ESA said on its website. "Conditions then were similar to those when microbes gained a foothold on the young Earth. This marks Mars as a primary target for the search for signs of life in our Solar System." The 2016 mission will search for evidence of gases like methane on Mars that could have once helped support life. The 2018 mission will see a European rover scour the surface of Mars for life, using a drill to collect samples. Moon Village Last month, the ESA also offered further details of its plan to build the first permanent base on the Moon. The agency said the permanent "Moon Village" might allow tourists to holiday on the Moon, as well as provide opportunities for science and business. It hopes that space-faring countries outside the region, including Russia, the U.S., China, India and Japan will collaborate with the project. The European Space Agency's prospective Moon Village. ESA/Foster + Partners The European Space Agency's prospective Moon Village. "On the Moon Village, we would like to combine the different capabilities of space-faring nations, be it robotic or be it human, to look also for different activities, be it pure science, be it also business, even tourism or mining," Johann-Dietrich Woerner, the ESA's director-general, said in a video posted to the agency's website. Asteroid mining Meanwhile, Luxembourg has announced plans to kickstart the fledgling asteroid mining industry. A small but wealthy country in the euro zone, it plans to develop Europe's first legal and regulatory framework for asteroid mining, as well as invest directly in the sector. "Our aim is to open access to a wealth of previously unexplored mineral resources on lifeless rocks hurling through space, without damaging natural habitats," the country's deputy prime minister and minister of the economy, Etienne Schneider, said in a statement published online in February.
	4	+The US is losing. Ambrose 4/28
	5	+Jeffrey R. Ambroseoctober 1, 2016, 4-28-2016, "The New Space Race – Who Will Take the Lead?," No Publication, https://realtruth.org/articles/100709-003-international.html
	6	+Over a half-century ago, the world was stunned and Americans shaken. In a remote region of today’s Kazakhstan, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth. It was little more than a few pieces of metal with a transmitter and a battery strapped to the top of a missile. Yet it put the Soviets in the lead for the race to space. Pressured to catch up, United States President Eisenhower signed legislation to create NASA and to invest in science and math education for grade school students. This paved the path to President Kennedy’s bold statement in 1961—the U.S. would send a man to the moon and back before the decade was over. As daunting as this sounded at the time, the nation met that goal when Apollo 11 landed American astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface in July 1969. So began the original space race: a Cold War showdown between Washington and Moscow, the two largest powers left standing in the wake of World War II. Eyeing each other with suspicion, the two nations viewed the expanse of space beyond Earth’s atmosphere as the next front on which to assert global dominance. The collapse of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War and changed U.S. relations with Gorbachev-era Russia. But the space race did not end. While the United States dominated the Soviet Union in the race for over four decades, today it relies on its former archrival to get there. And while America’s ambition to explore is losing steam, today, more competitors than ever are setting their sights skyward. New Direction During his State of the Union Address on January 12, 2016, President Barack Obama spoke before a joint session of Congress: “Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there. We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. “We built a space program almost overnight, and 12 years later, we were walking on the moon.” Expand Image International mission: A crew with members from Russia, the United States, and the European Union wave farewell prior to boarding the Soyuz TMA-19M rocket in Baikonur, Kazakhstan. The team embarked on a six-month mission on the International Space Station (Dec. 15, 2015). Source: NASA/Joel Kowsky/Getty Images He also posed the question, “How do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?” Mr. Obama remarked that the same spirit of discovery that led to the moon landings is “in our DNA.” Although he used the principle to represent and reinvigorate the race to find a cure to cancer, this was not the first time the American president referred to the moon landings as America’s crowning achievement. During a speech at the John F. Kennedy Space Center in 2010, the president remarked that “leading the world to space helped America achieve new heights of prosperity here on Earth, while demonstrating the power of a free and open society to harness the ingenuity of its people.” Nevertheless, the United States remains on the cutting edge. To date, it is the only nation to have landed human beings on the moon. It is the only nation to have sent land rovers to Mars—one of which is still navigating the Martian surface 13 years after its landing. Currently, NASA is constructing a deep-space crew capsule that it purports will “usher in a new era of space exploration.” Dubbed the Orion, it will be capable of carrying humans to Mars. The spacecraft is on track for completion in the early 2020s. Despite these advancements, America’s space program no longer rates high on its list of priorities. This has resulted in several tell-tale signs of a waning space program: the cancellation of the shuttle in 2011 and funding cuts in 2017 to certain NASA projects. Buzz Aldrin, the second man to set foot on the moon, fears America’s waning interest and investment in space exploration could hurt the country’s morale and position of leadership. Mr. Aldrin juxtaposed today’s space race with the program of the 60s: “…I learned…that John F. Kennedy wanted us to go to Mars. But his engineers told him that going to Mars was a bit too hard and that going to the moon was a more realistic goal. Can you imagine? We can’t even get to the moon within the next decade at the current state we’re in” (Spear’s). The 86-year-old Aldrin also fears that “if we don’t start taking space more seriously we will fall far behind. We’re already getting behind. We don’t even have the capability to get our own astronauts into space—we have to rent rides from the Russians at $77 million per astronaut to get them to our space station. China is the only other country capable of getting humans into space right now” (ibid.). Politics of Space Why is staying ahead in the space race so important? The main reasons put forward are the advancement of science and opportunity to better understand the universe. Space experiments have yielded technology used in a wide variety of fields, from food safety to art restoration, surgery to hurricane forecasting. The telecommunications industry has also benefited greatly from the development of satellite technology. Expand Image China’s progress: A Long March 2F carrier rocket containing the Shenzhou X spacecraft stands at a launch pad in Jiuquan, China (June 3, 2013). Source: STR/AFP/Getty Images In addition, access to space provides key support to a nation’s military. For decades, the concept of “militarizing” space (sometimes called “weaponizing”) has gone hand-in-hand with its exploration. This is most commonly done through so-called spy satellites, equipped with very powerful cameras that can provide snapshots of the ground below. Some, called Keyhole Class satellites, have been in orbit for over three decades and can detect objects as small as six inches across. A number of these may be scanning any point on Earth’s surface at any given time. However, the political impact of a successful space program, if not equal to or more important than the scientific impact, must be counted as a close second. The 1969 moon landing helped firmly establish the United States as the preeminent superpower. By the beginning of the 1990s, the nation held this position undeniably. Regular space shuttle missions, in spite of periodic tragedy, bolstered American pride. At the same time, Russia struggled to complete its version of the shuttle, the Buran, which made only one unmanned flight before the entire effort was mothballed in 1993. This disappointing episode symbolized, and largely resulted from, the financially troubled times then facing the Russians. America’s fading interest in space exploration represents a similar decline, while it is also a clear signal for other countries to step into the void. Newcomers Before 2003, only the United States and the USSR/Russia had completed manned space flights. In October of that year, China became the third to do so with the launch of the Shenzhou 5. A number of other countries have followed the lead of these pioneers in exploring space. France, India, China and Israel have employed satellite surveillance, and many other countries have a space agency of some sort, from the United Kingdom to Brazil to Germany to the Ukraine to Spain. China’s space program has continued making strides since 2003. Its plans for the near future include sending a man to the unexplored “dark side” of the moon by the 2020s, a mission to send a rover to Mars, and creating its own system of satellites for GPS. The Asian nation has already made a giant leap toward its moon goal by landing an unmanned probe on Earth’s satellite. The Chang’e 3, as it is called, touched down in June and released a rover that conducted geological surveys. China also plans on replacing its space station, Tiangong-1, meaning “heavenly palace,” with a new, larger space lab—Tiangong-2—in 2016. The Tiangong-1 has been in orbit since 2011 and hosted several manned missions with Chinese astronauts, however, it has since expired. Tiangong-2 will replace it until the much larger Tiangong-3, which is planned for completion by the early 2020s, is constructed. Eric Hagt, China program director at the World Security Institute in Washington, D.C., stated: “Building a permanent presence in space has been a longstanding goal of China and is more than just another step in its program. It has the important symbolic value of staking a claim in low-earth orbit and illustrates China’s permanent interests and claims to develop and exploit space along with other space-faring powers” (Asia Times). The ascendant nation sees a space program as one hallmark of a superpower—and it is well on its way. The United Kingdom wants to put its own craft into space. This year, the queen unveiled the government’s plan to back the creation of a British space station. The rationale for such a development is to “secure low-cost access to space for our world-leading small and micro satellite industry,” the legislation for the spaceport stated. It has been 50 years since the UK attempted to reach space. The 21st century has seen a new phenomenon in the space race altogether—private companies developing their own space crafts—proving that anyone with ingenuity and enough cash can compete. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen “played an early role in stimulating what has come to be called the new space industry, partnering with aerospace company Scaled Composites’ founder Burt Rutan to pay for development of SpaceShipOne, the first and so far only privately funded spaceship to fly people beyond the atmosphere,” Reuters reported. SpaceShipOne conducted commercial flights after its release in 2003 on the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers’ first powered flight of an aircraft. Now, Mr. Allen is funding company Stratolaunch Systems to develop the “Roc,” planned to be the world’s largest plane that will launch satellites into orbit. Daily Mail reported: “With a gargantuan wingspan of 385 feet (117 m) and six engines, the plane is taking a new approach in the private space race, by launching satellites and spacecraft into orbit from high altitude. “The craft will be larger than Howard Hughes’ 1947 H-4 Hercules, known as the ‘Spruce Goose,’ and the enormous Antonov An-225, a Soviet-era cargo plane originally built to transport the Buran space shuttle that is currently the world’s largest aircraft.” Mr. Allen’s company is competing with other entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk, who commissioned SpaceX that is developing Falcon Heavy—slated to be the world’s most powerful rocket—and companies such as Virgin Galactic—part of Virgin Group—which crafted a spaceplane that could take passengers to the higher reaches of the atmosphere for $250,000 per flight. For some, America’s increasing reliance on entrepreneurial space programs represents a demise of national pride. Americans no longer care to see their tax dollars—or even their futures—go toward their nation’s place as the leader in space. The race is no longer exclusive to superpowers and the mega wealthy. India, a developing country, “successfully launched a mini shuttle in May 2016,” Inquisitor reported, “solidifying the Indian Space Research Organization’s position as a fierce competitor in the new space race. With the United States no longer in the reusable spacecraft business, the successful launch of India’s mini shuttle could eventually pit the country’s space program against private sector competitors like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos founder and CEO of online retailer Amazon. “The mini shuttle launched from India’s Sriharikota base, according to a release from ISRO. The successful launch sent the prototype to an altitude of about 40 miles before gliding back to earth. The mini shuttle splashed down into the Bay of Bengal about 13 minutes after the initial launch.” While the shuttle technically did not enter space, and would require years of development before it is capable of doing so, aerospace scientists marvel at the relatively low cost of the achievement. “The combination of lower costs and the successful launch of their mini shuttle shows how India could eventually make inroads into the $5.9 billion satellite launching industry.” Such developments were unheard of just decades ago. Some see it as a clear sign of America’s declining superiority.
	7	+
	8	+ASRGs are nuclear power generators that can win the space race – Russia has the plutonium market cornered – switch is needed now
	9	+Berger 2K9 – Staff writer for space news (Russia Withholding Plutonium NASA Needs for Deep Space Exploration, http://www.spacenews.com/civil/091211-russia-withholding-plutonium-needed-nasa.html)
	10	+WASHINGTON — Russia has reneged on an agreement to deliver a total of 10 kilograms of plutonium-238 to the United States in 2010 and 2011 and is insisting on a new deal for the costly material vital to NASA’s deep space exploration plans. The move follows the U.S. Congress’denial of President Barack Obama’s request for $30 million in 2010 to permit the Department of Energy to begin the painstaking process of restarting domestic production of plutonium-238. Bringing U.S. nuclear laboratories back on line to produce the isotope is expected to cost at least $150 million and take six years to seven years from the time funding is approved. U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a House Appropriations Committee member whose district is home to NASA’s planetary science-focused Jet Propulsion Laboratory, told Space News that Russia’s decision to withhold the promised plutonium is “certainly a concern” considering that the United States now will not be spending any money before 2011 to restart its own production. “Certainly, among other things, it would have helped our negotiating posture had funding been included and Russia could see that we were determined to move forward on our own,” Schiff said. NASA for decades has relied on plutonium-238 to fuel long-lasting spacecraft batteries known as radioisotope power systems that transform heat from the decaying plutonium into electricity. The Pluto-bound New Horizons probe was launched in 2006 with 11 kilograms of the material onboard, and the Mars Science Laboratory rover will carry 3.5 kilograms when it launches in late 2011. The United States stopped producing plutonium-238 in the late 1980s. While U.S. nuclear laboratories remain able to process and package the material for use in radioisotope power systems, the Department of Energy has been meeting NASA’s demand from a dwindling stockpile supplemented by periodic purchases from Russia’s shrinking supply. The Department of Energy would not say exactly how much plutonium-238 it has in inventory. But a National Research Council report released in May estimated that the amount available for NASA totals roughly 20 kilograms, about a fifth of which already has gone into the Mars Science Laboratory’s radioisotope power system. Radioisotope power systems are also used for unspecified national security purposes. The same report, “Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration,” said NASA needs about 30 kilograms of plutonium-238 for three planetary probes planned for launch by 2020. The most plutonium-hungry of those is a multibillion-dollar mission to Jupiter’s icy moon Europa. The flagship-class Jupiter Europa Orbiter requires 24.6 kilograms of plutonium-238 for the five Multi Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (MMRTGs) that will generate 700 to 850 watts of electrical power during the orbiter’s anticipated 14 years of operations. Jim Green, NASA’s director of planetary science, recently told scientists drafting the U.S. space agency’s next 10-year plan for robotic exploration of the solar system that the era of plutonium-powered missions could be coming to an end. He noted that not only had Congress denied Obama’s budget request for restarting plutonium-238 production, but that Russia’s Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation informed the Department of Energy this fall that it will not fulfill a 5-kilogram order of plutonium-238 that was expected to be delivered in 2010. Rosatom also said it would not accept a pending 5-kilogram order for delivery in 2011. According to Green’s Nov. 16 presentation to the Planetary Science Decadal Survey steering group, the Energy Department expects that negotiating a new agreement could delay the next delivery of Russian plutonium-238 until after 2011. Jen Stutsman, an Energy Department spokeswoman, confirmed that the department was notified in mid-September that Russia does not intend to fulfill the terms of its current contract and wants to negotiate a new deal. She told Space News in a Dec. 9 e-mail that the department is working with other U.S. government agencies “to develop a coordinated position on the appropriate next steps.” Efforts to restart a domestic production capability, meanwhile, cannot proceed until Congress approves funding, she said. Green told Space News in an interview that NASA is moving ahead on the assumption that the Energy Department will come through with the needed plutonium. “We are marching down a course in good faith with the Department of Energy to negotiate with the Russians to procure the plutonium that would provide what we need to the plan that we proposed,” he said. Green said a one-year delay in the delivery of the Russian plutonium should not cause problems for NASA. If the first delivery is delayed much beyond 2011, however, mission schedules could suffer because U.S. labs need a few years to prepare, package and load the plutonium into a finished power system. “We will get to some point down the road where indeed the plutonium readiness will be on the critical path,” Green said. “Once things are on the critical path, they affect schedule.” Despite the uncertainty, NASA went ahead Dec. 7 with the release of a draft announcement of opportunity for Discovery 12, inviting planetary scientists to propose a $425 million mission that would launch by 2016 and utilize a NASA-furnished radioisotope power system. NASA also continues to work with scientists on a Jupiter Europa Orbiter instrument mix that assumes a 2020 launch of a spacecraft equipped with five fully fueled MMRTGs. Ralph McNutt, a planetary scientist who co-authored the National Research Council’s radioisotope power system report and serves on the decadal survey’s steering committee, said Russia’s actions underscore how important restarting U.S. production is to NASA’s planetary science plans. “If you don’t do it, we are done. We are out of business,” he said. NASA’s projected long-term requirements — which as of 2008 still included more than 50 kilograms for manned lunar missions planned through 2030 — far exceed what the United States can expect to buy from Russia. Still, NASA needs the undelivered Russian plutonium to keep its planetary science plans on track. Without it, the Europa mission would have to wait until U.S. labs are brought back on line and producing sufficient quantities to make up for the Russian shortfall — a seven-year process that McNutt said cannot be significantly shortened even if the United States is willing to spend considerably more than $150 million on the effort. “We’re talking about 10 times more money” to accelerate the process, McNutt said. Without more plutonium, the only way NASA could fly the Europa mission would be to switch to more efficient — but not yet flight-proven — Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators (ASRGs). Like MMRTGs, Stirling systems convert heat from decaying plutonium into electricity. Where the two technologies differ is that the Stirling system has moving parts — vibrating pistons that make four times more efficient use of the rare and costly isotope. An ASRG-powered Europa orbiter, therefore, probably could get by on 6 kilograms of plutonium, according to McNutt. Several ASRG qualification units are undergoing longevity testing at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, and the company that built them, Denver-based Lockheed Martin Space Systems, is gearing up to produce two flight units in time for the planned 2016 launch of Discovery 12. Each ASRG weighs less than 30 kilograms and is capable of producing 140 watts of electricity from 0.88 kilograms of plutonium. McNutt said most engineers would consider a 2016 flight demo way too late for NASA to prudently consider ASRGs for a Europa mission launching in 2020. Green agreed. “We are not going to risk a multibillion-dollar flagship on technologies unproven,” he said. “We have a path which we are walking down to flight qualify the ASRG and we need to walk that path.”
	11	+Perception of space dominance means Russia will resort to asymmetric warfare in space to defeat the US
	12	+Smith 11 – 1st lieutenant Milstar Payload Engineer, 4th Space Operations Squadron and BA in Astronautical Engineering (Justin, The Age of Asymetric Warfare, http://www.schriever.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070906-083.pdf)
	13	+This notion came to stark relief on 11 January 2007, when China successfully tested an antisatellite (ASAT) weapon on one of its own satellites.3 Suddenly, space assets which had operated without credible threats for years suddenly had become potential targets. This test did more than demonstrate the ability of a foreign power to destroy on-orbit systems; it may have very well ended the golden age of undisputed space supremacy that America has enjoyed since the Cold War, demanding change to current doctrine and revealing a critical vulnerability in the realm of asymmetric space warfare. Sun Tzu’s quote (below) reveals a very simple, yet important lesson. The US has developed a certain sense of inevitable complacency over its unchallenged superiority to date in space. The comfort with our current posture is a product of many influences, but one is particularly significant. Consider our only credible enemy in the history of space warfare, the former Soviet Union. Early on, the USSR sought to win the space race, intending to attain the ultimate high ground and use it as a force multiplier to accomplish its regional and global objectives. Both the US and USSR researched and tested ASAT capabilities to thwart the other, but soon abandoned the programs due to cost and an important strategic fact: if satellites are blown into numerous pieces, they then become a hazard for all other satellites in nearby orbits. The kinetic ASAT is a discriminate killer; the debris it creates is not. Thus in the Cold War, space was determined to be too valuable of an asset to be rendered useless to all parties by cluttering it with harmful satellite remnants. The US evolved and adapted to these unspoken rules of space warfare. America had won the last competition in space after a very rocky start and spent several unchallenged years building further dominance. How, then, could any new threat even begin to challenge? Space adds significant value to our nation’s defense by allowing seamless integration of the joint application of force projected globally on any adversary. This global reach defines not only a space capability, but a wartime philosophy. No other military has the capability to take a fight and deliver combat effects anywhere in the world as quickly and effectively as the US Space bolsters this capability by allowing the warfighter to master unfamiliar terrain, to coordinate attacks down to the second, to gather valuable intelligence, to put bombs within inches of a target, and much more. In a sense, it maximizes efficiency allowing a relatively small force to inflict an awesome amount of damage in a very short time. Although highly valuable to military applications, space is also important for commercial use. The commercially driven global telecommunications industry alone earned an estimated $1.21 trillion in revenue in 2005. By 2010, US investment in space is expected to be $500 - $600 billion— approximately equal to all current US investments in Europe.4 The global positioning system (GPS) provides all weather targeting capability, but also provides timing that allows automatic teller machines to work. Imaging satellites scout enemy positions, but also survey hurricane damage allowing relief efforts to be concentrated accordingly. Weather satellites project forecasts for both air strikes and weekend vacations. Television, communications, and global commerce in general—all depend on space. Whether analyzed from a commercial or military perspective, space is a cornerstone on which modern day living in this country depends. With such an invaluable role for commercial and military application, why isn’t everyone occupying the ultimate high ground? At present, space is an elite club with a cover fee that only few nations can afford. In a battlefield without borders, naturally limited access based on cost and technical complexity, then, is a defense of its own. With only a few nations with the financial and technical prowess to put a system on orbit, space is, at least for now, naturally fortified. Furthermore, once on station, destroying an enemy’s satellite is potentially a death sentence for friendly satellites in nearby orbits. These two facts have been the general concept of defense in this arena for years, but no longer appear to hold true.
	14	+And, loss of credibility means the US-Russia war goes nuclear
	15	+Gray, 05 – Professor of International Politics and Strategic Studies, and Director of the Center for Strategic Studies, at the University of Reading (Spring 2005, Colin S., Parameters, “How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?” http://www.carlisle.army. mil/usawc/parameters/05spring/gray.htm)
	16	+6. Interstate War, Down but Far from Out Logically, the reverse side of the coin which proclaims a trend favoring political violence internal to states is the claim that interstate warfare is becoming, or has become, a historical curiosity. Steven Metz and Raymond Millen assure us that “most armed conflicts in coming decades are likely to be internal ones.”21 That is probably a safe prediction, though one might choose to be troubled by their prudent hedging with the qualifier “most.” Their plausible claim would look a little different in hindsight were it to prove true except for a mere one or two interstate nuclear conflicts, say between India and Pakistan, or North Korea and the United States and its allies. The same authors also offer the comforting judgment that “decisive war between major states is rapidly moving toward history’s dustbin.”22 It is an attractive claim; it is a shame that it is wrong. War, let alone “decisive war,” between major states currently is enjoying an off-season for one main reason: So extreme is the imbalance of military power in favor of the United States that potential rivals rule out policies that might lead to hostilities with the superpower. It is fashionable to argue that major interstate war is yesterday’s problem—recall that the yesterday in question is barely 15 years in the past—because now there is nothing to fight about and nothing to be gained by armed conflict. Would that those points were true; unfortunately they are not. The menace of major, if not necessarily decisive, interstate war will return to frighten us when great-power rivals feel able to challenge American hegemony. If you read Thucydides, or Donald Kagan, you will be reminded of the deadly and eternal influence of the triad of motives for war: “fear, honor, and interest.”23
	17	+.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-10 23:51:20.450

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Wheeler,OKrent,Bistagne

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harker SP

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+13

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Quarters

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Space Race DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Voices