Copyright 2021 by Champion Briefs, LLC

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or by an information storage or
retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the
copyright owner and the publisher.
The Evidence Standard March 2021

The Evidence Standard

Speech and Debate provides a meaningful and educational experience to all who are involved.

We, as educators in the community, believe that it is our responsibility to provide resources

that uphold the foundation of the Speech and Debate activity. Champion Briefs, its employees,

managers, and associates take an oath to uphold the following Evidence Standard:

1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information.

2. We will never knowingly distribute information that has been proven to be inaccurate,

even if the source of the information is legitimate.

3. We will actively fight the dissemination of false information and will provide the

community with clarity if we learn that a third-party has attempted to commit

deception.

4. We will never knowingly support or distribute studies, news articles, or other

materials that use inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point.

5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of

information that we distribute.

6. We will actively contribute to students’ understanding of the world by using evidence

from a multitude of perspectives and schools of thought.

7. We will, within our power, assist the community as a whole in its mission to achieve

the goals and vision of this activity.

These seven statements, while simple, represent the complex notion of what it means to

advance students’ understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators.

Champion Briefs 5
Letter from the Editor March 2021

Letter from the Editor

The resolution for Public Forum Debate for March 2021 will be, “Resolved: On balance,
the benefits of creating the United States Space Force outweigh the harms.” This topic
represents an exciting chance to talk about the Space Force, something that has largely been
considered a joke by many. The impacts of space development, research, exploration, and
militarization are immense, and should provide debaters with a ton of fun potential arguments
to write and explore. As a Public Forum debater, one of my all-time favorite resolutions was the
October 2011 topic, “Resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is
preferable to public sector investment.” My partner and I had a ton of fun with that resolution,
and this one feels similar in that regard. For that reason, I’m excited to see what teams come up
with on this topic – space is always a fun subject to discuss, and I’m sure Public Forum debaters
will find new and interesting angles to approach the matter.
Analyzing the resolution briefly, debaters are tasked with considering a top-down view
of all potential impacts of creating a Space Force. Impacts to the United States can be argued to
be more important, but broader societal impacts and those to other countries certainly can’t be
disregarded. The resolution’s breadth in that regard is what will allow debaters to consider
potential tradeoffs and long-term impacts that may stem from developing a military branch
specific to controlling space. Personally, I’m partial to some of the more “far-out” arguments,
including: space-based solar power, space elevators, and deep-space exploration. For those of
you who like to run contentions with convoluted link-chains leading to unusual impacts (much
like I did), this will be a truly epic resolution.
Ultimately, in a very strange debate season, this is a strange but fun topic. Debating a
resolution about space as a senior in high school was a highlight of debate for me, and I hope
you’re all able to find arguments you find interesting and fun to talk about in your preparation.
As always, I wish you the best of luck, and happy researching.
Michael Norton
Editor-in-Chief

Champion Briefs 6
Table of Contents March 2021

Table of Contents

The Evidence Standard ....................................................................... 5

Letter from the Editor ........................................................................ 6

Table of Contents ............................................................................... 7

Topic Analyses.................................................................................. 10
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook ..................................................................................... 11
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda.................................................................................................... 23
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke ................................................................................................. 30

General Information ......................................................................... 43

Pro Arguments ................................................................................. 54
PRO: Space Force establishes diversity norms ......................................................................... 55
PRO: Space Force would let the US serve as a police force ...................................................... 60
PRO: Space Force expands US hegemony ................................................................................ 65
PRO: Space Force is crucial for further space research ............................................................ 69
PRO: Space Force improves the economy ................................................................................ 74
PRO: Space Force stops satellite warfare ................................................................................. 78
PRO: Space Force improves military readiness ........................................................................ 83
PRO: Creation of the Space Force improves other branches of the military ............................ 87
PRO: Space Force decrease potential conflict .......................................................................... 92
PRO: Space Force protects military logistics............................................................................. 96
PRO: Space Force defends against ASATs ...............................................................................100
PRO: Space Force balances against Russia .............................................................................104
PRO: Space Force balances against China ..............................................................................108
PRO: Space Force allows US to enforce the OST ....................................................................112
PRO: Space weapon development can help solve space debris .............................................115

Champion Briefs 7
Table of Contents March 2021

Pro Responses to Con Arguments ................................................... 119

A/2: Space Force trades off with other military functions .....................................................120
A/2: Space Force hurts the environment ...............................................................................123
A/2: Space Force is bad for the economy ...............................................................................126
A/2: Space Force escalates tensions with Russia ...................................................................129
A/2: Space Force escalates tensions with China.....................................................................132
A/2: Space Force protects military logistics............................................................................135
A/2: Space weapons create collateral damage ......................................................................138
A/2: Space weapons are too expensive ..................................................................................142
A/2: Space Force will create a space weapons arms race ......................................................146
A/2: Space weapons have a high chance of miscalculation ...................................................149
A/2: Space weapons have no international regulations .........................................................153
A/2: Space Force will increase quality and threat of space debris .........................................157
A/2: Creating a space force is a violation of the Outer Space Treaty .....................................161
A/2: Creation of the Space Force undermines the Air Force ..................................................164
A/2: Creating a Space Force will lead to monopolization of space ........................................169

Con Arguments .............................................................................. 173

CON: Space Force trades off with other military functions ....................................................174
CON: Space Force hurts the environment ..............................................................................178
CON: Space Force is bad for the economy .............................................................................182
CON: Space Force escalates tensions with Russia ..................................................................186
CON: Space Force escalates tensions with China ...................................................................190
CON: Space Force protects military logistics ..........................................................................194
CON: Space weapons create collateral damage .....................................................................198
CON: Space weapons are too expensive ................................................................................201
CON: Space Force will create a space weapons arms race .....................................................205
CON: Space weapons have a high chance of miscalculation ..................................................209
CON: Space weapons have no international regulations .......................................................213
CON: Space Force will increase quantity and threat of space debris .....................................217
CON: Creating a space force is a violation of the Outer Space Treaty....................................220
CON: Creation of the Space Force undermines the Air Force ................................................224
CON: Creating a Space Force will lead to monopolization of space .......................................229

Champion Briefs 8
Table of Contents March 2021

Con Responses to Pro Arguments ................................................... 234

A/2: Space Force establishes diversity norms ........................................................................235
A/2: Space Force would let the US serve as a police force .....................................................239
A/2: US hegemony in space ....................................................................................................243
A/2: Space Force is crucial for further space research ...........................................................248
A/2: Space Force improves the economy ...............................................................................252
A/2: Space Force stops satellite warfare ................................................................................256
A/2: Space Force improves military readiness .......................................................................260
A/2: Creation of the Space Force improves other branches of the military ...........................264
A/2: Space Force decrease potential conflict .........................................................................269
A/2: Space Force protects military logistics............................................................................273
A/2: Space Force defends against ASATs ................................................................................276
A/2: Space Force balances against Russia ..............................................................................279
A/2: Space Force balances against China ...............................................................................282
A/2: Space Force allows US to enforce the OST .....................................................................285
A/2: Space weapon development can help solve space debris ..............................................289

Champion Briefs 9
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook March 2021

Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook

Resolved: On balance, the benefits of creating the United States Space Force outweigh

the harms.

Introduction

Space, the final frontier. This topic dives headfirst into an area that debaters have been

writing "joke contentions" about for years. Strangely enough, this deep-dive is warranted as

space becomes more and more important to our daily lives than we understand right now. With

that being said, let's start by breaking down the wording of the topic itself and then talk about

space. The first thing to notice about this topic is that it is a value resolution. This means that

when analyzing this topic, we do not get to put on our magic policymaking hats and pretend we

are changing anything by affirming the resolution. I like to think of value resolutions as weighing

debates; the objective is not necessary to prove your opponent wrong but rather to show that

your arguments are more important. Now you might be thinking: this is just the objective in

every debate round. The difference is that in rounds with policy resolutions there will be a clear

right and wrong to every argument, i.e. this policy will either increase or decrease poverty. Your

job is to prove first that your argument is the true one. In a value debate, you are faced with a

scenario where opposing arguments can both be true. For example, the Space Force could in

some ways increase tensions with other countries and in other ways decrease them. Both of

those claims can be true; you have to now show that yours matters more.

Champion Briefs 11
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook March 2021

Let's talk about the creation of the U.S. Space Force. The founding of the Space Force in

December of 2019 was not the first space-focused military initiative. The first Air Force space

programs started during the Cold War in 1945, with the first dedicated space organization

within the U.S. Armed Forces being founded in 1954, known today as the Space Force's Space

and Missile Systems Center. Different space initiatives were unified under Air Force Command

in 1982. Despite our limited knowledge of the effects space has on warfare, U.S. space forces

supported operations in Vietnam, Grenada, Libya, and Panama. Interestingly enough, 2019 was

not the first time a separate Space Force was proposed; the 2001 Space Commission argued for

the creation of a Space Corps between 2007 and 2011 with a bipartisan proposal that would

have created a Space Corps in 2017. This piece of the topic is especially useful as teams might

find it insightful to look into the reasoning for why that bill did not pass. Finally, in 2019, the

United States Space Force Act relocated the Air Force Space Command to a new independent

military service, the U.S. Space Force. This creates a complication in the topic. Though changes

are resulting from the specific relocation of the Space Force, the particular missions and roles of

the Space Force will largely remain. This makes it incredibly important for teams to specifically

link their arguments to the creation of the independent Space Force in 2019 rather than just

space operations in general. Alternatively, some teams may choose to take a wider definition of

creation and argue that the topic is actually about the practical creation of the Space Force, i.e.

all of the space operations that the Space Force performs regardless of whether that started

before or after it was established as a separate branch. While I will say this is probably not the

intended interpretation of the topic, it is an argument that can be made and thus one team

should be prepared for. In this case, either the scope of the round would widen to include all

Champion Briefs 12
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook March 2021

space operations, or the debate would revolve around which interpretation of the topic is fairer

or more educational for the round.

What does the Space Force do?

Now after understanding the founding of the Space Force and its implications of the

topic you are probably wondering: What does the Space Force do? First, we need a bit more

context. The United States has spent the past fifty or more years putting satellites into space.

These satellites are now integral to most parts of our daily lives, including but not limited to:

agriculture, television, phone, internet, and weather reports. In the military field, drones, naval

ships, missile warning systems, and smart bombs all rely on satellite data. When this project

began years ago, there were little to no threats involved with maintaining and using satellites,

meaning there was no need for more than a section of the Air Force to be dedicated to Space.

As of 2019, eleven countries now can send satellites into orbit. Even more so, there is only one

military-related treaty regarding space. Referred to as the Outer Space Treaty, it essentially

establishes that countries are not allowed to use nuclear weapons in space. Otherwise, space is

essentially seen as free reign. We will discuss the specific threats in space later on. With that

background, the Space Force is not a new initiative designed to explore new worlds or fight new

adversaries as is true in shows like Star Trek. The U.S. Space Force is limited to supporting

current projects. More specifically, the Space Force is challenged with maintaining, protecting,

and expanding the U.S. fleet of advanced military satellites that form the backbone of military

operations.

Champion Briefs 13
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook March 2021

An immediate thought should be: Haven't we been doing this ever since the satellites

were sent into orbit? The answer to this is yes, so now I want to outline some of the changes

that resulted from the Space Force becoming its branch. The Space Force requested over 15

billion dollars for 2021 and likely may get even more. Space investments are also 15% higher

than last year. As per usual, budgeting topics always draw in issues related to the national debt.

Even more so, it is a fun exercise to ask the question of where the money would have gone

otherwise. I would argue that the answer, in this case, is probably not as exciting. It is likely that

regardless of whether the Space Force was a separate entity, Congress still would have given

the same amount of money to space operations. One counter-argument to this would relate to

perception; because the Space Force is its own entity, Congress is likely to perceive it as more

important and thus award it more funding.

The second change that resulted from the creation of the Space Force is with

bureaucracy. As we know by now, the Space Force was previously part of the Air Force.

Separating the two not only makes it harder for collaboration between the different projects,

but also creates potential inefficiencies like new training, new schools, and new bases. Even

more so, the Space Force will likely use technological advancements as the reason that they

should be exempt from the normal federal acquisition system. Though teams likely do not need

to understand the intricacies of how federal acquisition works, they should know that this

means that the Space Force will get large increases in funding to go towards new technology

that often ends up failing, whereas in the Air Force they are subject to more standard

procedures. One such example of this failure is the Missile Defence Agency. It was a mission to

create a ballistic missile shield where the agency was allowed exemptions from the regulations

Champion Briefs 14
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook March 2021

of the acquisition system. The result was a useless system that cost taxpayers 2.2 billion dollars

and the Missile Defense Agency even more due to the lack of oversight that often accompanies

new projects and technologies. At the same time, an argument can be made that these

exemptions and freedom from the Air Force bureaucracy are necessary to truly advance space

protection. Research and development after all always contain many failures before discovering

the next large breakthrough.

Why Space is Important

Lastly, let's talk about the reason why this topic is important. The reason why space is so

critical builds off of something we have already discussed: the importance of satellites to

almost everything we do. This also makes satellites an ideal target for attack because knocking

out or interfering with a satellite can cause so much damage so quickly. The UN now recognizes

over 90 countries who are somehow in space, many developing or already having capabilities to

destroy other satellites. In November of 2019, one of Russia's satellites released another

satellite which ended up next to a U.S. spy satellite by January of 2020. Russia did pull their

satellites away after the U.S. addressed them diplomatically, but in July a U.S. general

confirmed that one of Russia's satellites fired a projection into space. This is the first time the

U.S. has accused another country of a weapons test in space. It makes sense that space warfare

could become the most strategic form of warfare in the next decade. Knocking out a satellite

could have varied effects based on what the satellite is used for, but the range of effects

includes knocking out power or spying capabilities, destabilizing the U.S. navy, or stopping an

adversary from being able to respond to any sort of attack. This is both more and less risky than

Champion Briefs 15
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook March 2021

other forms of warfare: riskier because of the sheer magnitude of the effect, but less risky

because the U.S. likely lacks the most advanced detection and protection capabilities needed to

stop an attack before it happens. Even more so, the cost of conflict is seemingly low to leaders.

No immediate human lives are being put at risk compared to any sort of "boots on the ground"

conflict. The rise of cyber-attacks we have seen over the past few years likely precedes the rise

of space-related attacks coming shortly. What does this mean for the topic? This forms the

basis for many of the military based arguments on either side. Your analysis should focus on

whether the Space Force worsens or improves the situation with regards to the rising threats in

space. You, of course, can disagree with me and argue that space attacks will not rise over the

next decade. With that approach, you would want to pivot the round to other benefits or harms

of the Space Force that are not related to the conflict.

Affirmative Argumentation

The first main Affirmative argument teams can make is one regarding protecting the

satellites and how the Space Force improves our capability to do so. There are a few ways

teams can make this argument. First and foremost, there are practical ways in which the Space

Force may be better at protecting satellites than they were a part of the Air Force. This ties into

both the funding and bureaucracy points we discussed in the introduction. When the Space

Force has billions of dollars specifically directed into its program, it has the flexibility to decide

how to allocate that. As part of the Air Force, space operations would likely take a backseat if

some other pressing issue required a large percentage of funding, and the space operations

sector would have to apply for and get approval for specific projects to receive funding for

Champion Briefs 16
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook March 2021

them. The Space Force is also no longer under the direction of the Air Force meaning that they

can pursue seemingly riskier projects that the Air Force may have not been willing to entertain.

Both of these things could enhance the research and development of new technologies that

would help us better protect satellites.

There are also perceptual ways in which the Space Force could deter conflict. Creating a

new branch of the military signifies to other countries like China, Russia, etc. the U.S's

commitment to preventing and responding to space conflict. This could deter attacks from

adversaries because they know that either the U.S. can respond, or that the U.S. will stop the

attack before it happens. Even more so, teams can make arguments related to

counterbalancing. There are theories on every military-related topic that countries like China

should be considered "revisionist". What this means is that their primary objective is to expand

influence. This does not always happen via taking territory or picking on neighboring countries

but can also relate to economic or perceptual dominance. The argument here would be that

different adversaries are using space to assert global influence over other countries. That is,

even if they never fire any sort of weapon, the number of satellites they have in space as well as

their capability to destroy others will keep other countries at bay out of fear of being attacked.

With this being said, teams on the Affirmative side can make the argument that the U.S. needs

to have a dominant presence in space to "counterbalance" China and Russia's influence.

Though most of the arguments on this topic will be militarily related, there are some

other interesting paths to go down regarding other projects the Space Force is executing. One

example regards solar power. The Space Force is currently building and testing a spacecraft that

will beam solar power to earth. The implications to this are obvious as renewable energy

Champion Briefs 17
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook March 2021

produced at a higher level could help shift dependence away from fossil fuels and reduce

carbon emissions. The tricky part about this argument will be establishing that something about

it is unique to the creation of the Space Force specifically as the project was started before the

Space Force was founded. Ultimately, there are plenty of reasons why the project could be

more successful based on the new funding and freedoms in the creation of the Space Force.

Additionally, the creation of the Space Force could further this type of project and create more

renewable energy in the future which is probably a project that would not seem super

important to the Air Force. If you don't feel inclined to read arguments related to conflict, I

would encourage you to look into different ongoing projects the Space Force is conducting and

make arguments about those.

Negative Argumentation

Again, let's start with some of the military-related arguments on the Negative side. First,

I think there will be some logistical arguments to make regarding the specific creation of the

Space Force. Namely, that the Space Force would be less effective without Air Force oversight

via losing essential collaboration with other Air Force projects or access to further expertise

from a much older program. This argument assumes that the projects being undertaken by the

Space Force are good but rather that the creation of the Space Force as an independent agency

will hinder their effectiveness.

Conversely, teams on the Negative side could make an argument regarding Space Force

projects and objectives. The first is a perceptual argument regarding great power competition

and its ramifications. This is the antithesis of the Affirmative argument about counterbalancing.

Champion Briefs 18
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook March 2021

The argument here is that when the U.S. intensifies its influence in space via the Space Force,

Russia, China, and other adversaries will follow suit and continue to test out weapons, develop

more advanced defense systems, etc. Teams can draw similar conclusions with other arms

races or instances where both countries somehow end up intervening economically or militarily

in the same area. This could be disastrous as increasing presence not only increases the

possibility of different countries developing weapons for space but also increases the risk of

miscalculation. As mentioned earlier, decades ago people believed that space was too big for

conflict, meaning that since space is so large the possibility of some sort of collision between

smaller objects is infinitely small. Nowadays there are over 2000 satellites in space with more

likely in the works, meaning that the possibility of accidents especially when space weapons are

involved increases. Any sort of conflict would be devastating because of how much not only the

U.S. but also other countries rely on satellites. External from miscalculation, just the

procurement of weapons through a pseudo-arms race could lead to conflict as military buildups

often lead both sides to believe that the other is advancing against them. Teams should also

look to what effect the Space Force may have on our allies. The development of weapons by

Russia or China could potentially have more consequences for allies who do not have the same

capabilities as they would for the U.S.

There is also some potential for teams to make an argument about funding, i.e. that

funding the Space Force will trade-off with other uses for that funding or will just overall

increase the national debt. My concern about this argument is that it may be hard to prove that

the creation of the Space Force as a separate branch necessarily was the catalyst of increasing

funds. It would be easier to argue that funds would have been allocated to the Air Force as a

Champion Briefs 19
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook March 2021

whole and that Air Force projects, which teams on the Negative would argue are good, are

losing money. As military spending increases, we also see similar arguments from other topics

about the national debt. This includes spending tradeoffs, potential negative economic effects

like crowding out, or the effect our debt has on other countries' economies. These arguments

will likely have weaker links into the creation of the Space Force specifically but can become

good supporting arguments and can be useful when trying to avoid lengthy debates about

whether tensions increase or decrease.

Conclusion

This will likely be a fun topic! I think that space is really interesting and that this topic

will both introduce new ideas and carry some of the same themes as topics we have seen

before. I have a couple of final pieces of advice for this topic. First, teams should pay extra

attention to linking their argument specifically to the creation of the Space Force rather than

just what the Space Force does. Many projects conducted by the Space Force existed when it

was still part of the Air Force and thus, on the face, have nothing to do with the point of this

topic. Secondly, draw on literature that is outside of the space realm especially when talking

about some of the military topics. Though space is a new frontier, many of the arguments

relating to the conflict we have seen before in other areas. Teams should look into historical

evidence that describes phenomena like great power competition, deterrence, arms races and

look specifically to the expansion and creation of new types of warfare throughout history. I

hope you have a great month and I hope this was helpful!

Champion Briefs 20
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook March 2021

Works Cited

“10 ways that satellites helped you today.” Canadian Space Agency. 8 Feb 2018.

https://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/everyday-lives/10-ways-that-satellites-

helped.asp

“Space Force: Inside America’s Newest Military Branch.” TIME. 23 Jul 2020.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmSdl4yheeg

Barbier, Reid. “The Purpose and Mission of the Space Force.” American University School of

International Service. 23 Jul 2020. https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/security-

technology/the-purpose-and-mission-of-the-space-

force.cfm#:~:text=The%20primary%20mission%20of%20the,military%20can%20hardly%

20be%20overstated.

Delbert, Caroline. “The Air Force Is Building a Spacecraft That Will Beam Solar Power To Earth.”

Popular Mechanics. 30 Dec 2020.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a35092898/air-force-solar-power-

beaming-

spacecraft/#:~:text=The%20Air%20Force%20Is%20Building,Beam%20Solar%20Power%2

0to%20Earth&text=Solar%20power%20from%20space%20could,which%20will%20launc

h%20in%202024.

Grazier, Dan. “Space Force: A Historical Perspective.” Project on Government Oversight. 16 Oct

2018. https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2018/10/space-force-a-historical-perspective/

Champion Briefs 21
Topic Analysis by Sara Catherine Cook March 2021

Maucione, Scott. “DoD asks for $705B for 2021, gives Space Force more than $15B.” Federal

News Network. 10 Feb 2020. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-

main/2020/02/dod-asks-for-705b-for-2021-gives-space-force-more-than-15b/

About Sara Catherine Cook

Sara Catherine Cook is from Birmingham, Alabama, and competed for The Altamont School for
three years in Public Forum Debate. She was one of the first teams from her school to qualify
for the Tournament of Champions and NSDA Nationals, being the only team from her state to
qualify to the TOC in the 2018-2019 season. She now attends Dartmouth College in Hanover,
New Hampshire, where she plans to study Mathematics.

Champion Briefs 22
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda March 2021

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

Resolved: On balance, the benefits of creating the United States Space Force outweigh

the harms.

Introduction

The Space Force is one of the least understood elements of the United States military. It

operates in a domain that few are familiar with, has unclear jurisdiction and authority, and is

responding largely to threats that have not yet materialized. While it is easy for the average

American to understand the need for a navy or air force, the space force is different altogether.

America has not yet been attacked by space, and it is difficult to think of what threats could

target us from that domain. Nevertheless, the essence of military strategy is the strength to

imagine new and yet unseen threats. This topic promises to force debaters to think about

uncharted territory and reward creative argumentation.

The job of debaters will be to clearly explain to judges why the space force exists and

justifies (or does not justify) its budget. This requires teams to be able to break down complex

ideas about military strategy, space technology, and bureaucratic politics in an easily digestible

format for judges. By some measures, this is a very difficult task. Debaters must explain

interstate rivalries, how those rivalries affect space, and how a space force could address those

issues. There are so many new and unfamiliar links in even the simplest argument.

This burden to explain nuanced and complex ideas to judges will reward teams who do

their research and delve into the intricacies of the topic. Even more important is the ability to

Champion Briefs 23
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda March 2021

break down complex language into common parlance. Judges must be convinced that these

esoteric and distant conversations about abstract national security issues are worth their time

and attention. The topic will also have a special resonance with judges because the resolution

affects their tax dollars, and debaters will have to justify the money which comes out of their

paychecks being spent on the Space Force. The art of marrying research with rhetoric will set

teams apart in March.

Strategic Considerations/Framing of the Debate

For national security topics, thinking of compelling arguments can be difficult. Cases

often devolve into standard and abstract conversations about “national interests” and

“conflict.” But these points are as vague as they are unpersuasive. Judges wonder what the

tangible real-world effects of affirming or negating the resolution. Judges will also always vote

off of a concrete impact that they can visualize over some esoteric harm that is weighed but

never fully explained. This creates an imperative for debaters to invest heavily in their

argument generation process before writing cases.

To create the best arguments on this topic, debaters should focus on points that have

well-defined impacts which are specifically triggered by the resolution. These two imperatives

can be summarized as "clarity" and "brink." Clarity is the idea that the judge should understand

what your impact means to them, in the real world. It should be associated with clear actions

and consequences that ideally materially impacts their life. Many impacts on this topic will be

unclear, such as "increasing tensions." Judges do not understand what "increasing tensions"

Champion Briefs 24
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda March 2021

with other countries means materially. This is a problem because even if the judge is inclined to

think tension is important to focus on, they will almost certainly lack a rational basis for

weighing the impact of increasing tensions against other impacts that your opponent may bring

up.

On the other hand, brink impacts are those which are specifically triggered by the

resolution. Many impacts on this topic will be scalar – a slight increase in a certain probability or

an incremental reduction in spending. Judges have a hard time voting off of these impacts

because it is unclear if enacting the resolution would make much of a difference. This makes it

very easy for opponents to say impacts are non-unique – even if some part of the impact is

specially generated by the Space Force, the overall impact may exist regardless of the

implementation of the resolution. Debaters must do their best to isolate the Space Force as the

discreet cause of the impact, as opposed to one-of-many causal contributors.

The best arguments have both clarity and brink. This means that the judge can associate

the impact with specific high-impact phenomena and that they can be sure that the Space

Force is the unique cause of those phenomena. These arguments will intuitively come first in a

judge’s mind when thinking about the topic. They will gravitate to these arguments and

prioritize them when weighing out the unresolved claims in the round.

How can debaters think about which arguments satisfy the dual criteria of “clarity” and

“brink.” One test is to think “If the space force did not exist, [INSERT IMPACT] would not

happen anymore." This test forces debaters to consider whether their impacts leave a material

impact on the world and whether the resolution is singularly responsible for that impact. If the

Champion Briefs 25
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda March 2021

statement is true, then the impact may be strong, if the statement sounds strange then the

argument may be too vague.

One point which many debaters will make is that the space force will reduce

international tensions with China. We can apply our test here to see if the point is clear and has

brink. "If the space force did not exist, [international tensions with China] would not happen

anymore." This statement sounds absurd – it is unclear what impact of "international tensions"

would disappear. It is intuitively wrong because international tension existed before the space

force existed. It is also unclear what "international tensions" means in this context because it is

not a defined thing. Thus, the point does not have a clear impact, nor does it achieve the brink.

Debaters should be wary of arguing points like this because judges will have a hard time

weighing them.

On the other hand, this test can help identify arguments that may be strong. For

instance, imagine testing the point that the space force trades off with a particular spending

program. The statement would look like "If the space force did not exist, [spending reductions

for a certain welfare program] would not happen anymore.” This sentence seems reasonable

and compelling. It presents the judge with a defined picture of what will happen without the

space force and seems compelling.

Strong teams will run arguments that have both clarity and brink. Prioritize these criteria

when planning your arguments.

Champion Briefs 26
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda March 2021

Affirmative Argumentation

The affirmative should stary by considering basic arguments about how the Space Force

will improve specific important economic innovations and streamline military logistics. These

arguments can be centered around specific discreet outcomes that provide debaters the base

for effective weighing. Most debaters will have some blocks to these points – the solution is to

get more specific. For instance, the more specific a team is about which innovations the space

force enables, the more difficult it will be for general blocks to be responsive.

The space force has the potential to catalyze many important economic areas. Space

technologies intersect telecommunications, electronics, and robotics. These are all critical

emerging technologies that will form the backbone of our future economy. For example,

telecommunications technologies such as 5G are "bedrock" innovations will which allow other

technologies to be built such as self-driving cars and AI applications. Thus, early investments in

telecommunications can pave the way for better innovations in the future.

One reason this argument is powerful is that it can be grounded in historical reality for

the judge. There are plenty of examples of technologies that exist as a direct result of the space

race with the Soviet Union during the cold war. This means that judges will be already familiar

with the concept at work and be able to wrap their heads around the impact. Use examples

such as satellite communications and microwaves as technologies that shape our world today

and were only possible because of federal funding of space-based research and development.

Affirmative teams should ground their arguments in tangible examples to make their

impacts seem more real to their judges. In this topic, it is very easy to get wrapped up in

Champion Briefs 27
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda March 2021

nebulous impacts that do not resonate. But by appealing to past precedent, teams can make

the impacts of the space force real and material.

Negative Argumentation

The negative should also think about starting their topic research by looking at points

that are intuitively familiar to judges. This means using examples from similar programs in the

past and sticking to explicit tradeoffs. Some points like this include looking at funding tradeoffs

with specific welfare programs and initiating conflicts over specific flashpoints.

The negative should avoid broad arguments such as “the space force will increase

international tensions” or “the space force is expensive” because these arguments are difficult

to weigh and to conceptualize. Instead, these points should be reformulated around specific

events or turning points. For example, “increases tensions with Russia” could be replaced with

“harms Russo-American joint spaceflight programs.” The latter is much more tangible and can

be tied to specific impacts. This in turn makes it weighable.

One avenue that negative teams should consider is to pick specific welfare programs

and argue that the space force budget will trade off with them. This means that the billions of

dollars we spent on the space force could have gone to a far more productive investment which

more directly benefits the lives of average Americans. This argument is potentially strong

because there is a long list of welfare programs that are instantly recognizable to judges which

can stand in as powerful impacts – think of food stamps or the section 8 housing program.

Teams that want to look into welfare arguments need to be sure to adequately warrant

the inherency of the tradeoff. There must be a reason provided that the Space Force budget

Champion Briefs 28
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda March 2021

comes from the pile of money allocated to welfare and not from deficit financing or some other

mechanism.

This topic is vast and offers a wide range of debates on topics ranging from security

issues to political ones. Debaters will be forced to research deeply and cover a breadth of issues

and explain them to judges who are unfamiliar with them. The topic will reward those who

diligently research and think creatively. Concentrate on well thought out research and simple

but high impact contentions. Good luck and have fun!

About Jakob Urda

Jakob grew up in Brooklyn, New York. He attends the University of Chicago, where he

will receive a BA in Political Science, and is interested in security studies and political economy.

Jakob debate for Stuyvesant High School where he won Blake, GMU, Ridge, Scarsdale,

Columbia, the NCFL national championship, and amassed 11 bids. He coached the winners of

the NCFL national tournament, Harvard, and Blake.

Champion Briefs 29
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke

Resolved: On balance, the benefits of creating the United States Space Force

outweigh the harms.

Introduction

With the "regular season" of Public Forum debate wrapping up in February, we arrive at

one of the stranger months of the debating calendar: March. Several states have no

tournaments in March, with many others having their state championship tournaments and

NSDA district qualifiers as well. After the notoriously intense and competitive months of

January and February, teams may be feeling a bit fatigued when it comes to research and

preparation, and those planning on competing in the months following March may also want a

bit of a break. Luckily, the month of March is ripe for collaboration! Since the vast majority of

tournaments in March are intra-state, (or even intra-district) teams should lean on the

connections and friendships that they've made throughout the year to collaborate on research.

This is not an excuse for teams to skimp out on doing their work completely, but collaboration

can lighten the load and expose teams to a diverse set of arguments. Additionally, for teams

feeling fatigued by the intense rote research of the prior months, the topic committee has

provided them with what promises to be a fun, more light-hearted debate this month, as the

topic is "Resolved: On balance, the benefits of creating the United States Space Force outweigh

the harms." With that, let's get into the strategies and arguments that will dominate the

coming month of debate!

Champion Briefs 30
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

Strategic Considerations

The NSDA/CFL qualifying tournaments, as well as state championship tournaments,

often look and feel very different than normal regular-season tournaments. Qualifying

tournaments are often set up in a single or double elimination format, running as many rounds

as are needed until the qualifying teams remain, while state championship tournaments are

structured like normal tournaments, but are usually choc full of excellent teams. Thus, in each

of these tournaments, debaters are not afforded any easy warmup rounds, as every round

promises to be challenging and high-stakes. For that reason, debaters must get into round one

ready to go, and keep their energy and enthusiasm high throughout the entire day while also

maintaining their focus, which is no easy task while on Zoom. Furthermore, these tournaments

often have judging pools with mixed experience levels, and qualifying tournaments often start

having panels very early on, making it as important as ever for teams to make sure their

debating style can appeal to judges of all types. This means as little jargon as possible, speaking

at a reasonable speed, and focusing on warranting and weighing. Teams cannot afford to drop a

round because they were "too technical."

In many ways, this topic poses the opposite challenges for communicating effectively

with judges than the prior month. Where West African Urbanization was dense, esoteric, and

even boiling the key parts of it down into an argument that any judge could understand was

difficult, this topic, due to the dominant perception of the Space Force, may seem silly to some

judges. Thus, teams will have to manage the severity of their language, especially in their

weighing, such that it shows judges that there are actual stakes involved in the topic. This is

especially true for pro teams, who need to make the space force sound as legitimate and

Champion Briefs 31
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

important as is reasonably possible. There are real substantive impacts on both sides of this

debate, even as the topic initially seems rather lighthearted to many judges. Teams that can

strike the proper balance between acknowledging the perception the judge likely has about the

Space Force while still treating the debate seriously are likely to be very effective and be

rewarded with high speaker points.

Even with a topic as straightforward as this one, there are a couple of phrases in the

wording of the resolution that is important to think about. For the second month in a row, the

resolution starts with "On balance" meaning that the debate will be judged under a

straightforward cost-benefit analysis framework. Furthermore, the specification of looking at

"the benefits" of its creation should help to focus the debate on the actual impacts of the

agency, rather than the charade around its creation. This means that even if, as critics posit,

President Trump came up with the idea on a whim to please his supporters, and made lots of

decisions about the creation of the program unilaterally, which many see as a regrettable way

to make policy on principle, so long as the pro can prove that the creative force itself does more

good than harm, they'll be able to win the round.

Affirmative Argumentation

In addition to showing the tangible benefits of a Space Force, pro teams will first have to

overcome the likely perception of the Space Force in the minds of many of their judges. Many

people, especially the general political lean of people at debate tournaments, will likely think of

Space Force in the context of seeing a clip of people chanting it at President Trump's rallies, the

agency being made fun of on a late-night comedy show, or the Netflix sitcom of the same name

Champion Briefs 32
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

satirizing the agency. Even people who support the agency will likely not be able to name its

core responsibilities. It is therefore essential for pro teams to spend time in their case

explaining what exactly Space Force does, and giving background on the state of the military

and space operations to show why Space Force needed to be created. When given only four

minutes to make their case, debates are often hesitant to spend that precocious time on

anything other than warrants and impacts, and while that's a very understandable impulse,

teams should rethink it in this instance. After all, many rounds may come down to whether or

not the judge walks out of the room believing that space force is a legitimate, necessary

government agency whose purpose and duties they can understand, so the sooner pro teams

start establishing that idea, the better. Just as the government, in the words of Time magazine,

must convince “the American public that the Space Force is not an unnecessary vanity project

for [President Trump] but an idea that has been under consideration for decades,” pro teams

need to do the same for their judges.1 For that reason, I also recommend that debaters try

talking to friends and family about their reactions when they think of the Space Force, and then

reading their case to them and seeing how effectively it moves that perception. I know that it is

not a traditional way to think about case writing but it may prove very useful for this topic. With

that, let’s try to tackle the issues above: why do we now have a Space Force, and what does it

do?

The first key piece of context that pro teams should look to establish is that the idea of a

Space Force did not come out of nowhere. As public intellectual and science communicator Neil

1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmSdl4yheeg

Champion Briefs 33
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

Degrasse Tyson has explained, the United States already functionally had a Space Force, called

the United States Space Command, which is under control of the Air Force. That department

launches satellites, including the ones that run the Global Positioning System (GPS) as well as

military spy/surveillance satellites.2 Banks, hospitals, naval ships, drones, phones, and gas

pumps are just a few of the technologies and organizations that rely on these satellites. The

responsibility for the control of these satellites will now just shift over to the Space Force.

So once pro teams have established what exactly the Space Force will do and why their

responsibilities are important, the next question they must answer is why shifting these

responsibilities over to an entirely new branch of the military is necessary. Intuitively, along

with an independent branch of the military comes more attention and funding, which means

that pro teams can spend much of their time discussing why the key responsibilities of the

Space Force require increased attention compared to what they’ve been getting in the past. So

in addition to establishing that the Space Force did not come out of nowhere, pro teams also

must show that the Space Force gives more resources to space projects than existed under its

prior status. What new information or developments would warrant this new attention?

The first one that comes to mind is space operations from the adversaries of the U.S. As

mentioned above, tons of critical aspects of security and society rely on satellites, so the

disruption or destruction of those satellites by a foe could be disastrous. Just last year, U.S. and

UK intelligence officials made the first-ever accusation towards Russia of firing an "in orbit anti-

satellite weapon," (though Russia claims they were using the technology to perform checks on

2 https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/neil-degrasse-tyson-space-force-colbert-722935/

Champion Briefs 34
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

their equipment).3 China and Russia are both thought to have the weaponry to make these

attacks as The Diplomat notes that “Chinese and Russian capabilities could potentially include

cyber and electromagnetic attacks, jamming operations, and ground-based lasers as well as

anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles.”4 The consequences of such an attack would be dire, as, given all

of the functions of satellites found above, it should come as no surprise that a major attack

(cyber or physical) on these satellites could put millions of lives in danger.5

This is where the Space Force comes in. Just about all of the writers/experts in the

articles referenced above discuss the fact that the U.S. is, on the whole, underprepared for

these satellite attacks (though they disagree on how underprepared they are). As Axios

explains, one of the main duties of the Space Force is to “shore up national security interests in

space.”6 It can accomplish this first and foremost by developing new technologies to defend

U.S. satellites in space, something that they would likely treat as a priority and that will get

significant funding, which may not be the case if the Space Force had remained a smaller

division of the Air Force. In addition to developing these more defensive technologies, the

Space Force plays a key role in deterring conflict from adversaries, both by developing new

offensive technologies to, as The Diplomat puts it, "make clear that no adversary will gain the

advantage they seek in space," and by just signaling to other countries that these are threats

the U.S. takes seriously and is prepared to defend itself against (another unique benefit of

3 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-
53518238#:~:text=Russia%2C%20the%20UK%2C%20the%20US,in%20orbit%20or%20in%20space.
4 https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/us-admiral-warns-of-chinas-and-russias-growing-space-weapons-
arsenal/
5 http://interactive.satellitetoday.com/the-growing-risk-of-a-major-satellite-cyber-attack/
6 https://www.axios.com/space-attacks-us-vulnerable-russia-satellites-3f169464-0abe-4ceb-aab9-
7b5f2db29a0a.html

Champion Briefs 35
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

having the Space Force as its branch of the military).7 At the end of the day, pro teams that

want to design their case in this way have to think about the two things they must accomplish

to make this a round-winning argument: first, that threats from space are a real, serious

problem, and second, that the Space Force leaves the U.S. better able to handle those threats.

That being said, while both of those components are important, I suspect that in many rounds,

if the pro team can successfully make the judge worry about satellite threats, they will be very

well-positioned to win the round, even if they only prove a marginal benefit from the creation

of the Space Force compared to its operations. For that reason, pro teams should strongly

consider a strategy centered around security and deterrence when designing their cases.

A second possible route for pro teams concerns an ancillary, yet crucial, benefit of the

military work: research and development. In addition to helping with security, the research that

goes into these satellite defense mechanisms will create new products and technologies that

will benefit massive numbers of people. Looking broadly at space research, there was a study

done on the UK Space Agency which found that the private benefit of R&D to innovators was 3-

4x the public expenditure put in, and spillover benefits to the broader public were “significantly

larger.”8 This should come as no surprise, the military has a history of contributing to useful

technologies as a result of their research, such as microwaves, GPS, and the entire internet.9

Moreover, there is a laundry list of inventions that have come as a result of space research.10 It

7 https://thediplomat.com/2016/01/us-admiral-warns-of-chinas-and-russias-growing-space-weapons-
arsenal/
8 https://www.ukspace.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Spillovers-in-the-space-sector_March2019.pdf
9 https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/16/15-commercial-products-invented-by-the-
military/39465501/
10 https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/08/space-race-inventions-we-use-every-day-were-
created-for-space-exploration/39580591/

Champion Briefs 36
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

can seem difficult to make arguments about the importance of technologies that do not exist

yet, so teams that are considering this argument should try to find out as much as they can

about the specific research done by the Space Force and which industries it may be able to

help. The potential impacts of this innovation in the real world are massive, and teams have

successfully made arguments about research and innovation on prior topics, so it certainly can

be done. That said, designing an entire case around this argument may be a bit tricky. After all,

many judges intuitively would not think that research into some new technologies justifies the

creation of an entirely new branch of the military, especially one that they may well think is a

vanity project from Trump. It may therefore be strategic to pair this argument with other claims

about the need for increased security. Teams that want to go all-in on this argument, however,

should do so by paying careful attention to the wording of the resolution, which, as mentioned

earlier, only looks to compare the net benefits or harms of the creation of the space force.

Thus, clever teams can effectively make the argument that even if the creation of a brand new

military branch was not necessary if there are even one or two major innovations that spillover

from the Space Force, the benefits of its creation will have outweighed the harms. So even if

the judge does not like Trump, is not inclined to support his projects, and has seen the late-

night comedy shows that have raked Space Force over the coals, they can still believe all of

those things and conclude that it will do more good than harm. That weighing can be very

effective, but its mileage will vary with different judges and circuits, so teams should think

about the flavor of their circuit to determine the efficacy of this argument. Hopefully, debaters

that came into this thinking that the Space Force or the topic itself was silly now see the

Champion Briefs 37
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

potential benefits of the force and the intrigue of this topic. With that said, let's look at the con

side.

Negative Argumentation

While the negative side has many possible routes of argumentation, in contrast to the

pro arguments, which can complement each other, many of the potentially effective negative

strategies will operate from differing worldviews. This is something that gets overlooked a lot

when teams are building their case, as they make two arguments, each of which relies on

different fundamental premises about the issue at hand. This often goes overlooked when

teams are designing their cases, and when clever opposing teams point out the tension in the

case, most debaters will try to get out of it by simply saying they're making an "even if"

argument. While that will be sufficient in some cases, especially with technical judges, the fact

remains that when crafting a narrative for a case, having internal consistency is a great benefit.

Importantly, this topic comes down to a couple of major questions including Do Russia and

China pose real threats to U.S. security in space? Is the U.S. currently unprepared to face those

threats? Is the Space Force uniquely good at bolstering U.S. military capabilities? When

brainstorming cases, one useful tactic can be to consider the different ways one might answer

those questions, and doing so will naturally create arguments and anticipate what the debate

may come down to at the end of the round. With all that in mind, let's look at how some con

teams may answer those questions, and what their strategies would be accordingly.

One con strategy could be to agree that the Space Force is effective at increasing the

capabilities of the U.S. concerning satellites and space, but that those capabilities are not

necessary because Russia and China are not currently posing threats, and this would only serve

Champion Briefs 38
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

to spark an arms race. The benefit of this argument is that, while the terrain is different, the

warrants are nearly the same as arguments about the conventional or nuclear arms race.

Before the Space Force, the Air Force handled the satellite security and military capabilities, and

our capabilities were about in line with Russia and China, meaning that there is an equilibrium.

By creating the Space Force, the United States has raised the bar for space weaponry and

security, which will force Russia and China to work to meet and exceed that bar, causing an

arms race in space. There may already be signs of this happening, as the reported firing of a

satellite weapon by Russia came after the creation of the U.S. Space Force, and given that space

weaponry is a new field, an arms race right now could be uniquely catastrophic.11 There are, of

course, numerous studies that show that arms races increase tensions and increase the

likelihood of conflict.12 Even if conflict never happens, increased tensions can disrupt trade,

which hurts the economy and prevents people from getting access to jobs and affordable

goods, and even the fear that comes from an arms race has adverse impacts on people’s health.

This is a viable argument, but there are a couple of things that teams should keep in

mind when making it. On the plus side, many teams have likely made arguments about arms

races on other topics, and since many of the warrants and impacts are similar, they will likely be

able to effectively explain and weigh the argument. That said, the same applies for the teams

they will be debating against, many of whom likely have go-to responses for an arms race. This

need not deter people from running it, but they should make sure they have good frontlines

11 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-
53518238#:~:text=The%20US%20and%20UK%20have,%2Dsatellite%20weaponry%22%20as%20concerni
ng.
12 https://www.jstor.org/stable/29777471?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Champion Briefs 39
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

prepared. Secondly, this argument does concede that the Space Force will bolster the security

of U.S. satellites compared to a world without them (there would not be a unique link into an

arms race otherwise). Teams should be aware that their case makes that concession, and just

be sure to hammer home why the risk of conflict or a security breach was low before the Space

Force, and why the arms race it sparks makes the situation far worse.

Another option for teams that do not want to agree to that assumption is to argue that

the Space Force is ineffective. This strategy agrees that Russia and China pose threats to

satellite security, but maintains that the United States Space Command that existed before the

Space Force was sufficient to handle those threats and that the Space Force is less effective. As

Deborah Lee James, former head of the Air Force, explains that in the past, "space was already

a critical domain for [the Air Force] and for the joint force" and that the creation of the Space

Force does not help, since "inherent in every organization is bureaucratic thrashing… it's just an

extra thing out there that will take away time, attention, and money."13 Indeed, con teams

interested in making this argument can agree with a lot of what pro teams say about the need

for security in space, and try to frame the debate as simply a comparison between having the

Space Force be part of the Air Force or its entity. As the quotation above explains, there are real

reasons why the increased bureaucracy that comes from having the Space Force be

independent can hamper its efficacy, especially in conjunction with evidence about the amount

of money that gets wasted in the Pentagon each year.

13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmSdl4yheeg&t=1s

Champion Briefs 40
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

This argument is also a place where con teams can bring up the public perception of

Space Force, including the late-night comedy jabs, the Netflix series, and all the other gripes.

The fact that satellite security is so important is exactly why it is so bad to have the branch of

the military that deals with it be tied to a radically controversial and unpopular president, as

well as a joke to much of the public. It means that government officials are less likely to take it

seriously (as recently happened in a White House press conference), Democratic politicians are

less likely to want to publicly show support for it due to its reputation and ties to Trump and are

even less likely to spend money on it. Furthermore, the reputation of the Space Force may

make it harder to recruit people to join, making them lose out on top talent. All of those are

unique harms that come from the Space Force being its own entity, all of them hamper the

efficacy of space-based operation, and none of them would be an issue if the control of satellite

security remained under the United States Space Command.

Thus, as you can see, con teams have multiple very viable options for strategy, spending

on how they answer the fundamental questions of the round. Efforts to combine these

arguments will likely cause trouble since it is just difficult to argue both that a Space Force will

cause an arms race and that it is less effective at weapons development than the United States

Space Command. Whichever route they pick, this promises to be an interesting topic that poses

very unique challenges compared to the topics of the prior months. Good luck!

Champion Briefs 41
Topic Analysis by Tucker Wilke March 2021

About Tucker Wilke

Tucker is from Westchester, New York, where he attended the Hackley School. He is

now attending Brown University, where he debates for the Brown Debating Union and studies

English and Economics. Over the course of his career, Tucker amassed 8 bids to the Tournament

of Champions. In addition, he reached the Quarterfinals at Bronx, Glenbrooks, UK, Ridge and

Princeton, Semifinals at Penn and Columbia, and championed the Scarsdale Invitational. He was

ranked as high as 7th in the country in his senior year. As a coach for Hackley, his students have

reached semifinals at Blake and Quarters at Penn.

Champion Briefs 42
General Information March 2021

General Information

Resolved: On balance, the benefits of creating the United States Space Force outweigh
the harms.

Foreword: We, at Champion Briefs, feel that having deep knowledge about a topic is just as
valuable as formulating the right arguments. Having general background knowledge about the
topic area helps debaters form more coherent arguments from their breadth of knowledge. As
such, we have compiled general information on the key concepts and general areas that we feel
will best suit you for in- and out-of-round use. Any strong strategy or argument must be built
from a strong foundation of information; we hope that you will utilize this section to help build
that foundation.

Champion Briefs 44
General Information March 2021

The history of space militarization

In the most recent meeting of the National Space Council on Oct. 23, officials discussed
how to implement a proposed new branch of the military called the Space Force. And over and
over, they've pointed to the long history of American military leadership in space as justification
for the organizational need.
It's a history that some space fans don't even realize exists. But when, for example, U.S.
Vice President Mike Pence argues for the Space Force by saying that space has always been a
military realm, he's portraying history accurately and isn't confessing to a violation of
international treaties.
Let's start from the beginning — literally, with the earliest days of space exploration.
When the U.S. launched its first satellites, there was no NASA. Instead, the Army, the Air Force
and even the Navy were all thinking about space. "The bottom line point is that the military has
been involved in space activities since there were space activities," John Logsdon, a space
historian at George Washington University, told Space.com. To reduce interbranch bickering,
President Dwight D. Eisenhower established the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) to oversee all military space work. [What Is the US Space Force?]
But Eisenhower was also talked into creating a separate civilian agency — what became
NASA. And if you've heard plenty about NASA's work, even its geopolitical Apollo program,
but not so much about DARPA's, that's not surprising. "Well, in a sense it was on purpose, to
have on one hand an open civilian agency doing things that the country could brag about, while
at the same time on the other side you were doing national security things that you didn't talk
about," Logsdon said. "NASA was a very effective way of shifting the attention to the civilian
side."
Instead, it's designed to pull together all the work different branches of the military do
in space, from watching for missile deployments to monitoring spacecraft put into orbit. "Space
has from the start been militarized, but so far not overtly weaponized," Logsdon said. "There is
maybe not a bright bold red line, but a somewhat fuzzy line that has not yet been crossed."

Champion Briefs 45
General Information March 2021

Champion Briefs 46
General Information March 2021

Trump’s Space Force

When President Trump signed a $738 billion defense spending bill on Friday, he officially
created the Space Force. It's the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Services, and the first new
military service since the Air Force was created in 1947.

"Space is the world's newest war-fighting domain," President Trump said during the
signing ceremony. "Amid grave threats to our national security, American superiority in space is
absolutely vital. And we're leading, but we're not leading by enough. But very shortly we'll be
leading by a lot."

The idea was widely mocked when it was first floated, providing fodder for late night
hosts, newspaper cartoonists and comedy writers. Senior military officials have previously
raised concerns about what it will cost, and former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis warned
against rushing into creating the force without clearly defined goals.
"This is not a farce. This is nationally critical," Gen. John Raymond, who will lead the Space
Force, told reporters on Friday. "We are elevating space commensurate with its importance to
our national security and the security of our allies and partners."

Raymond acknowledged it would take time to develop the force. "It's going to take
some time to grow this, but we are moving out with due diligence to make sure that we do this
right," he said.

About 16,000 Air Force active duty and civilian personnel are being assigned to the
Space Force. There's still a lot to figure out, including the force's uniform, logo, and even its
official song.
The Space Force will fall within the Department of the Air Force, but after one year it
will have its own representation on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to the text of the law
that created it. That makes it similar in structure to the Marine Corps, which is a part of the
Department of the Navy but has its own seat on the Joint Chiefs.

Champion Briefs 47
General Information March 2021

Champion Briefs 48
General Information March 2021

The economic interests

America needs a Space Force for the same reason it needed a Navy: to secure American
interests, especially commerce upon the great ocean that is space. In the 19th century,
America realized the tremendous benefits that would be possible were it to become a seafaring
nation. With the desire to be seafaring came a need for a Navy to secure its citizens, their
property and their transport far from American shores.

Today, America is likewise waking up to the vast potential of space commerce in the
inner solar system. Tech billionaires lead the way with personal investments to create access to
an expanding and diverse space economy. Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX has developed and is
developing reusable rockets to make humanity multi-planetary. The world’s richest man,
Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is spending his personal fortune to begin a multi-generational mission
ultimately to enable trillions of people living and working in space and to move heavy industry
off Earth to protect the Earth’s environment. They are not alone. A tremendous and well-
financed ecosystem of private start-ups is pursuing everything from air-launched rockets to
lunar and asteroid mining.

We are in the midst of a space industrial revolution — a revolution in transportation,

mining and manufacture that will unlock a billion-fold greater resources than on Earth, and
ultimately lead to an economic expansion larger even than what the New World became for
Europe.

In space are stupendous amounts of accessible metals — far, far more than has ever
been mined (or could be mined) on Earth. This includes rare and valuable metals like
platinum. We now have the technology to 3-D print those materials into factories in space, and
to produce orbital power stations to light the entire world with constant green energy. Space
solar power satellites are a game changer, allowing the entire world to develop without
environmental impact. The leader of that industry will command the century ahead.

Champion Briefs 49
General Information March 2021

There will be a need to secure those interests. There will be threats both from natural
hazards and from human hazards. Wherever there is profit there is likely to be conflict.

Champion Briefs 50
General Information March 2021

Barriers to Space Development

In 2010, the United Nations developed the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines on the
Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. This guide sets out the guidelines for debris mitigation including
steps like limiting debris released during normal operations as well as minimizing the potential
break-ups during operational phases and limiting the probability of accidental collisions in
orbit. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) and the UN Committee on
the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) have both attempted to tackle the issue of post-
mission disposal of space debris, but since these rules are not binding, many states do not follow
them.
Unfortunately, since across both domestic and international bodies there has been a lack
of focus on the importance of preventing space debris, the space junk issue has only been more
aggravated. Even though the United Nations has committed to keeping space clean, many
individual nations have not followed in the path of prevention and clean up. For instance, in 2007,
a Chinese anti-satellite test (ASAT) created over 2,000 new pieces of debris in low-earth orbit. In
the year 2000, there were approximately 7,500 debris and objects in space and by the year 2020,
this count has risen to over 23,000.
In 2019 the U.S. government recommitted its support for the space program with its
passage of S.1790, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. Subtitle D of this
Act includes the creation of the Space Force, reestablishing America’s commitment to outer
space. Along with the new Space Force, this Act recognized the risks of space debris, and
established a congressional committee report to outline plans and recommendations to
remediate risks caused by space debris.
Through the creation of the U.S. Space Force, the U.S. government is increasingly shifting
toward space as a critical government sector. With the importance of space flight to the U.S.
government’s initiative, the United States cannot afford to take risks of flight delays or shuttle
damages due to space debris. With the upsurge of debris and lack of measures by nations with
space and satellite capabilities, the U.S. program faces many risks that non-space faring nations
do not. With the lack of binding international treaties dedicated to reducing space debris, this

Champion Briefs 51
General Information March 2021

puts U.S. national security and the U.S. Space Force at risk before it has even gotten off the
ground.

Champion Briefs 52
General Information March 2021

Works Cited

Bartels, Meghan. “Space has always been militarized, just not weaponized – not yet anyway.”
Space.com. 11/1/18. https://www.space.com/42298-space-weaponized-already-
military-history.html
Diniums Nib. Space Infographic. Diniums Nib. 8/30/11. http://diniums-
nib.blogspot.com/2011/08/space-infographic.html
Eige, Katie. “Confronting Space Debris with the Space Force.” National Security Law Brief.
3/13/20. https://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/2020/03/13/confronting-space-debris-
with-the-space-force
Garretson, Peter. “The purpose of a Space Force is a spacefaring economy.” The Hill. 6/26/19.
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/450519-the-purpose-of-a-space-force-is-a-
spacefaring-economy
Kennedy, Merrit. “Trump created the Space Force. Here’s what it will actually do.” 12/21/19.
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/21/790492010/trump-created-the-space-force-heres-
what-it-will-do
Tabouli, Julie. “Space Waste”. 12/18/11. Daily Infographic.
https://www.dailyinfographic.com/space-waste-infographic
“The Militarization of Space.” Visually.
https://visual.ly/community/Infographics/technology/militarization-space
“The Space Economy” Infographic Labs. 5/8.12. https://infographiclabs.com/news/the-space-
economy/

Champion Briefs 53
Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force establishes diversity norms

Argument: Because the space force is a totally new branch of the military, it can establish a
precedent for diversity norms.

Warrant: The military has historically been unrepresentative

Bishop Garrison, 8-12-2020, "Challenges to Improving Racial Representation in the

Military," Center for a New American Security.
https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/challenges-to-improving-racial-
representation-in-the-military

Though the U.S. military appears as one of the true meritocracies in our society, many
unaddressed legacies from the nation’s past regarding race and equity linger.
Unresolved racial stress impacts all aspects of society, consistently leading to unequal
treatment and tragic death for civilians and imbalances within the military. Nationwide
protests demanding change have initiated dialogue across all levels and communication
platforms in American society, giving many hope our country will finally address
generations of inequity rather than merely have another moment of speeches and little
action. While the scope of this movement may finally lead our country to address
systemic racism and inequality, structural limitations and public perception will
continue to affect the military’s ability to recruit and retain top tier, diverse talent. If
military leaders are serious about their desire to improve overall diversity and
inclusion efforts in the services—and many have recently conveyed their support—
they must address head on several issues of race and representation in the military.
Leadership should consider how representation is reflected in all levels of leadership;
how and where young, diverse talented is recruited; how to speak on and engage U.S.
policies that may have a detrimental impact on recruiting and retaining talent; and how

Champion Briefs 55
Pro Arguments March 2021

to address the issue of generational family service that often does not include diverse
families.

Warrant: The Space Force has put out a plan to address inequalities

Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs. 7-8-2020, "Department of the Air Force stands
up Diversity and Inclusion Task Force," United States Space Force. 8 Jul. 2020.
Web. 5 Feb. 2021.
https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2268049/department-of-the-air-
force-stands-up-diversity-and-inclusion-task-force/

The Department of the Air Force, in support of both the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space
Force, stood up a special task force June 9, to address the issue of racial, ethnic and
other demographic disparities and their impact on the forces. Also, on June 2,
Secretary of the Air Force Barbara M. Barrett and service chiefs, Air Force Chief of Staff
Gen. David L. Goldfein and USSF Chief of Space Operations Gen. Jay Raymond, directed
the Inspector General to independently review the service’s record on military discipline
as well as leader development opportunities for Black/African American Airmen and
Space Professionals. The task force is charged with identifying and changing policies,
procedures, barriers and other practices that may be unfairly impacting
underrepresented Air and Space Professionals. It is postured to identify near-term
problems and solutions that will have immediate benefits for members, with a focus on
policies particularly impacting minority members. It has been tasked to be mindful of
not impacting or assuming results from the IG’s review, and is therefore focused on
immediate actions versus identification and action toward longer-term systemic and
cultural issues the IG might identify. “Clearly we have to acknowledge our Air and
Space Forces are not immune from racism and the challenges of inequity. As a force
that depends on unity, inclusion, and a common strength of purpose, we are
committed to being better every day until all within our ranks feel a true sense of

Champion Briefs 56
Pro Arguments March 2021

belonging that allows them to maximize their talents,“ said Lt. Gen. Brian Kelly, deputy
chief of staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services. “This is why we stood up the task
force, to move out quickly and deliver immediate improvements for our services.”
Capitalizing on continuous feedback from the force and the momentum from current
national events, the task force is an agile cross-functional team of military and civilian
Air and Space Professionals that represent communities within the services that bring
subject matter expertise to the changes being considered.

Warrant: The newness of the Space Force allows for diversity to be fundamental

Dan Boyce, Colorado Public Radio Via The Ap, 09-06-2020, "Space Force aims to set
standard for diversity, inclusion in the military," Air Force Times. 6 Sep. 2020.
Web. 5 Feb. 2021. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-
force/2020/09/06/space-force-aims-to-set-standard-for-diversity-inclusion-in-
the-military/

And she pointed to several different efforts: outreach initiatives targeted to recruiting
women and people of color, mentoring panels to help those service members advance,
and a “heavy emphasis” on training senior officers to recognize unconscious bias. She
said the Space Force is fostering a culture where a warfighter can speak to superiors
about their concerns without fear of retribution. “Inclusion is not a zero-sum game,”
Baker said. “By leveraging our diverse talents, no one is going to be left out. The pie
does not get smaller. It gets bigger.”

Champion Briefs 57
Pro Arguments March 2021

Impact: Inequality in military branches leads to less efficiency

Jason Lyall. 7-28-2020. “Why is Diversity Important in the Military.” The Washington
Post. 28 Jul. 2020. Web. 5 Feb. 2021.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/28/military-is-making-
changes-response-black-lives-matter-protests-thats-good-fighting-wars/

Why is inequality in the military so harmful? Inequality erodes battlefield performance

in four specific ways. First, shutting certain groups out of senior decision-making robs
the army of diverse thinking, reinforcing a “group think” mentality that tends to lead to
deadly conservatism on the battlefield. By excluding certain voices, militaries saddled
with high inequality become locked into predictable, usually second-best, tactics and
approaches that leave them vulnerable to enemies. Second, inequality means different
ethnic groups have varying status, and this sows tensions and erodes trust among
soldiers. In turn, this can hobble cooperation and coordination on chaotic battlefields.
Third, soldiers drawn from targeted ethnic groups may suffer a loss of morale, making
them less likely to fight for a government they distrust — and more likely to surrender.
Fourth, prior exposure to government-directed discrimination or violence builds strong
bonds among soldiers within the same ethnic group. Those who feel discriminated
against may use these ties to organize escape or otherwise subvert military
authorities. Military commanders may then be forced to devote greater resources to
policing their own soldiers, creating new vulnerabilities that enemies could potentially
exploit.

Impact: More diverse militaries are more effective

Champion Briefs 58
Pro Arguments March 2021

Jason Lyall. 7-28-2020. “Why is Diversity Important in the Military.” The Washington
Post. 28 Jul. 2020. Web. 5 Feb. 2021.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/28/military-is-making-
changes-response-black-lives-matter-protests-thats-good-fighting-wars/

Removing the structural barriers to inclusion will be one important area of focus.
Nonwhite personnel continue to be underrepresented at senior levels, a problem that
worsens as one advances up the ranks. Women and nonwhite personnel also
experience slower rates of promotion. Progress toward inclusion has also proceeded in
fits and starts. Since 1945, the U.S. military has launched at least a half-dozen initiatives
to stamp out racial inequalities.
For the U.S. military, investing in its people, not just military hardware, and
redoubling a commitment to meaningful inclusion would bolster the war-fighting
advantages of diversity.

Analysis: This argument is best used by teams who are familiar with cases about improving race
relations and who genuinely care about reform of discriminatory systems. Teams unfamiliar
with cases like these or teams seeking to capitalize on recent social movements will find it hard
to convince judges and competitors they are not being performative. Teams interested in this
argument should attempt to establish both the importance of the space force in the coming
decades along with researching the potential spillover of positive change in one military branch
to the other. Another tip would be to frame the round in terms of fighting inequalities.

Champion Briefs 59
Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force would let the US serve as a police force

Argument: The space force would allow the US to become the unofficial police of outer space,
something important considering current abuses happening in space.

Warrant: Currently, countries abuse the freedom of space.

Denise Chow, 5-5-2020, "Chinese rocket debris passed over NYC, LA as it fell to Earth,
scientists say," NBC News. 5 May, 2020. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/chinese-rocket-debris-passed-over-n-
y-c-l-it-n1206311

A 20-ton piece of a Chinese rocket passed over New York City and Los Angeles before
it crashed to the Earth this week, scientists tracking its descent say. The debris, which
came from a rocket that was launched in early May, is the fifth-largest piece of space
junk to plunge uncontrolled through Earth's atmosphere, according to experts who
track space debris and satellites. It's the largest object in nearly three decades to
plunge to Earth unexpectedly, demonstrating the potential danger of such large
objects as they make uncontrolled re-entries from low-Earth orbit. The U.S. Space
Force's 18th Space Control Squadron, which tracks space junk and re-entries from
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, confirmed that the rocket stage passed through
Earth's atmosphere Monday at 11:33 a.m. ET as it was flying over the Atlantic Ocean.
About 15 to 20 minutes before that, the debris sailed over New York City, according to
Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Warrant: Space needs a police force

Sarah Scoles. 06-19-2018. “Space Really Does Need Traffic Cops.” Wired. 19 Jun. 2018.

Champion Briefs 60
Pro Arguments March 2021

Web. 8 Feb. 2021. https://www.wired.com/story/space-really-does-need-traffic-

cops/

Right now, most of what's up there isn't even functional---it's more than 90 percent
space junk. For that reason, the directive signed by Trump recommends "active
removal," in which debris is taken out rather than left to decay downward at its own
pace. This is not a new idea, and Obama's 2010 National Space Policy exhorted the US
to dig into active removal, but little forward movement has happened there. Perhaps
because it's a fraught prospect. Any active remover—be it a harpoon, or a net, or a
robotic arm—could peacefully deorbit a defunct American satellite, or it could mess
with a foreign sat. That is, perhaps, why Trump's policy says the US should develop
standard protocols for "rendezvous and proximity operations.” Under the new directive,
the Defense Department will continue to track and catalog space debris and functional
satellites. It already keeps watch over more than 20,000 objects using the Space
Surveillance Network, a system of optical and radar equipment spread around the
globe. A new "Space Fence" will soon come online that can see smaller space bits. The
DOD will now provide the "releasable" part of its (vast) catalog to the Department of
Commerce. Which, in turn, will be expected to incorporate other orbital and safety
data—from other agencies, from the private sector, from other countries—and take
the lead in creating an open orbital-data repository. With its multitude of information,
the Commerce Department will now be responsible for telling satellite operators
when they're in trouble and what to do about it. Obviously, the directive gives some
guidance about how to deal with the traffic jams already happening. Which is good. But
better is that it also aims to function like that highway patrol cop parked on the side of
the interstate—preemptively slowing down troublemakers barreling down the
turnpike.

Warrant: US could serve as the space police

Champion Briefs 61
Pro Arguments March 2021

Talal Husseini. 03-29-2019. “US military space force: what do we know so far.” Airforce
Technology. 29 Mar. 2019. Web. 5 Feb. 2021. https://www.airforce-
technology.com/features/us-military-space-force/

“Not having rules and engagement is worrisome, so how people test and develop
technology is important, but how we share this critical domain — I would expect anyone
who tests does not put at risk anyone else’s assets. There are certain basic principles.”
The initial role of the US military space force could be to act as a kind of space police,
using its authority to tell other states what they can and cannot do in space, and
reinforcing US rules on space with its military might. How that will go down with Russia
and China remains to be seen, of course. However, one person that remains sceptical
over the necessity of a US space force is the Project on Government Oversight military
analyst Dan Grazier. He told Space News: “History shows that the creation separate
military service will add bureaucratic barriers and largely serve its own ends, making it
more difficult for the other branches to get the support they need to achieve their
missions on Earth.”

Warrant: America already holds some authority in space

George Long. 2017. “NASA Space Police Wield Full Force of Law.” Space Journal of
Asgardia. 2017. Web. 8 Feb. 2021. https://room.eu.com/article/nasas-space-
police-wield-full-force-of-law

What is not generally known is that the US employs a similar zero tolerance stance for
unlawfully possessing what is now known as an ‘extracted space resource’. This zero
tolerance regime, like the war on drugs, has its roots in the late 1960s, is still in force,
and engages in zealous seizure operations. Unlike the war on drugs, the supply source
for extracted space resources is extremely limited thereby making transactions in
minuscule amounts very lucrative. While the supply source may change in light of the US

Champion Briefs 62
Pro Arguments March 2021

law allowing for the commercial extraction of space resources by licensed private
ventures, it is doubtful that the zero tolerance regime will dissipate. A glance at the
current deployment of the policy may offer a glimpse into a potential space age
American law enforcement regime. In 2015 the United States enacted a law defining
‘space resource’ to mean an ‘abiotic resource in situ in outer space’, which includes but
is not limited to water and minerals. This definition is considered to include abiotic or
non-biotic resources located on the Moon, planets and other celestial bodies. There was
no legal definition for ‘space resource’ prior to 2015, but that does not mean space
resources were non-existent. Between 1969 and 1972, the Apollo programme
conducted six crewed Moon missions that garnered about 382 kilograms of rocks, core
samples, pebbles, sand and dust extracted from the lunar surface. The US has
consistently maintained that it owns all lunar material collected during the Apollo
missions unless it knowingly transferred title to another. It does not base its ownership
claim on a specific unambiguous law passed by Congress, but instead asserts its title
claim through a series of administrative directives issued by NASA. Apparently, no
foreign government has ever protested or objected to the United States claiming
ownership over the extracted lunar material.

Impact: The US being in space and serving as the police force would create long term norms

Joe Moye, 12-11-2020, "Bad Idea: Disestablishing the Space Force," Defense360. 11 Dec.
2020. Web. 5 Feb. 2021. https://defense360.csis.org/bad-idea-disestablishing-
the-space-force/

However, Space Command is not like Special Operations Command, nor should it be.
There is an important difference between force generation and force employment.
Space Command is and should remain focused on force employment in coordination
with other combatant commands. Given the scope of their responsibilities, we should
not burden Space Command with also serving as the primary advocate for disparate

Champion Briefs 63
Pro Arguments March 2021

space capabilities spread across multiple services. Additionally, having both Space
Command and the Space Force expands our nation’s influence in establishing positive
norms and standards for conduct in space.

Analysis: This argument echoes past arguments about how America has a role as a global police
force. The argument is familiar: when order is needed, a country or group needs to take charge
and ensure that there are rules and regulations on what can be done. Space is possibly the
region most easily discussed in this conversation as it is the current moment that brings up the
issue of space policing for the first time since countries are newly able to increase their
exploration. Teams interested in this argument should try to create a narrative about the
current and imminent threat to safety if space goes unpoliced.

Champion Briefs 64
Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force expands US hegemony

Argument: Since space is a new frontier, it is an open arena for countries to display dominance
and expand their influence.

Warrant: Space is the new frontier once again

Goldman Sachs Team, 7-11-2016, "What if I Told You... Space Is Once Again the New
Frontier," Smithsonian Magazine. 11 Jul. 2016. Web. 5 Feb. 2021.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/sponsored/what-if-i-told-you-space-once-
again-new-frontier-180959457/

The space race is reigniting, catalyzing changes in the new space economy. The
industry stagnated after the major scientific and commercial achievements of the 20th
century, but new players and technology are reopening space as the next frontier.
Noah Poponak, the senior Aerospace and Defense analyst at Goldman Sachs Research,
describes space as becoming “smaller, closer, and cheaper” as the industry reinvents
itself. Poponak explains that diminishing barriers to entry—combined with geopolitical
tensions—have led to a renewed focus on space activity, with major implications for
scientific research, defense, and communications. Launch-to-orbit costs, the greatest
hurdle for new entrants, have fallen to less than 10 percent of what they were five years
ago and are likely to continue dropping as new technologies like reusable rocketry are
introduced, opening space to new applications, technologies, and competitor

Warrant: Whichever country holds power in space challenges American dominance

Robert Burns, 1-28-2021, "Biden seen likely to keep Space Force, a Trump favorite," AP
NEWS. 28 Jan. 2021. Web. 5 Feb. 2021. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-
space-force-edcb01683ab38e740ae87530c49ecd4e

Champion Briefs 65
Pro Arguments March 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — To the last moments of his presidency, Donald Trump trumpeted
Space Force as a creation for the ages. And while President Joe Biden has quickly
undone other Trump initiatives, the space-faring service seems likely to survive, even if
the new administration pushes it lower on the list of defense priorities. The reason
Space Force is unlikely to go away is largely this: Elimination would require an act of
Congress, where a bipartisan consensus holds that America’s increasing reliance on
space is a worrying vulnerability that is best addressed by a branch of the military
focused exclusively on this problem. The new service also is linked to an increasing U.S.
wariness of China, which is developing capabilities to threaten U.S. satellites in space
and which has become, in the minds of some, the singular national security challenge.
Russia, too, stands accused by Washington of seeking to challenge American
dominance in space. “They’re building capabilities to use space against us. We have to
be able to respond to that,” Gen. John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
told the National Security Space Association, an advocacy group, last week, referring to
Russia and China.

Warrant: China is actively in pursuit of hegemony

Maj. Liane Zivitski, 6-23-2020, "China wants to dominate space, and the US must take
countermeasures," Defense News. 23 Jun. 2020. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/23/china-wants-
to-dominate-space-and-the-us-must-take-countermeasures/

China is determined to replace the U.S. as the dominant power in space. While
proclaiming its peaceful intentions, Beijing’s doctrine considers space a military
domain, and it is investing heavily in space infrastructure designed to secure both
economic and military advantages. To ensure that it continues to compete from a
position of strength, the U.S. must invest sufficient resources in preparing its new Space

Champion Briefs 66
Pro Arguments March 2021

Force to defend America’s national interests and security in space. Beijing’s rapidly
improving capabilities are clear to see. On May 5, China successfully launched the Long
March-5B rocket designed to eventually transport astronauts into space. This was the
first successful launch of any Long March rocket this year after failed attempts to launch
the Long March-3B in April and Long March-7A in March. Three weeks later, China
completed back-to-back launches from two separate launch facilities placing Earth-
imaging and technology demonstration satellites into orbit. China plans to launch more
than 60 spacecraft in over 40 launches in 2020, and has led global launches over the
past two years.

Warrant: US hegemony in space means that allies and enemies don’t feel like the US is backing
down

Joe Moye, 12-11-2020, "Bad Idea: Disestablishing the Space Force," Defense360. 11 Dec.
2020. Web. 5 Feb. 2021. https://defense360.csis.org/bad-idea-disestablishing-
the-space-force/

Yet we do not need to wait for tomorrow: threats exist today. Even now, our lives are
unquestionably dependent on our unfettered ability to use space. General Raymond
recently said that the Space Force was created due to “the compelling case our
competitors have created for us.” Chinese and Russian space capabilities and
counterspace threats are well-documented. China’s rapidly maturing space program is
increasingly becoming the pace setter in this domain. Dr. Mir Sadat, a former policy
director for the U.S. National Security Council, has argued that we are in “a race for
dominance over cislunar access, operations, and resources.” Stagnating the Space
Force, or rolling it back into the Air Force, would send mixed signals to our partners
and allies on the priority of space — especially those following our lead to bolster
their own space forces. Some argue that the solution is to mirror special operations by
making United States Space Command “service-like” and retaining the actual capability
within the traditional services.

Champion Briefs 67
Pro Arguments March 2021

Impact: US hegemony prevents wide scale conflict

Alex Ward, 08-22-2014, "Only US Can Prevent Great Power War," The Diplomat. 22 Aug.
2014. Web. 5 Feb. 2021. https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/only-us-can-prevent-
great-power-war/

But Gilpin’s preconditions shouldn’t be misconstrued as predictive or fatalistic. Indeed,

the United States, as the hegemon, has the capability (and responsibility) to preserve
the international order and lead the world out of this mess. By keeping good relations
with partners and allies, deterring adversaries, reversing the perception of its decline,
and leveraging technological capabilities for global good, there is a decent chance that
the U.S. can make the great-power-war-incubation period fade away. Should the United
States not seize this moment, and ensure that China is a responsible partner in the
current global system alongside it, then the chance of a great power war cannot be
dismissed, however remote.

Analysis: This argument is similar to arguments about global affairs and conflicts where
American hegemony is thought to be a deterrent/ beneficial to establishing and maintaining
order. Teams running this argument must prove that either US hegemony is a good thing in
space or set up a comparative between China and America and prove that American hegemony
in space is preferable. Teams should look into whether or not hegemony would lower the
possibility of space conflict by establishing a main power that can influence potential tense
situations in space.

Champion Briefs 68
Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force is crucial for further space research

Argument: Exploring and gaining knowledge about space is critically important and the Space
Force will benefit outer space research

Warrant: Space exploration is important to the future

James Hataway, 7-20-2019, "The future of space exploration," UGA Today. 20 Jul. 2019.
Web. 9 Feb. 2021. 2=https://news.uga.edu/roger-hunter-future-space-
exploration/

“We are, by nature, explorers. We are descended from those who dared to leave the
caves, and to see what was beyond the horizon. Our cave-dwelling ancestors painted,
among other things from their world, the heavens on their cave walls. Thousands of
years later, our curiosity led us to better understand our world and those points of light
in the night sky beyond that graced those crude drawings. Exploring brings out the best
in us; it also represents, in my mind, a willingness to leave something behind for our
descendants. I recall reading an article by a former NASA administrator who was also
answering a similar question. He spoke of ‘deferred gratification’ as a compelling notion
that drives exploration. There may not be an instant realization of ‘return on
investment’ but the investment, intuitively, answers a call from our nature—to leave
behind something better and to advance our civilization.”

Warrant: Space exploration will lead to a better earth

Ethan Siegel, 10-26-2017, "Why Exploring Space And Investing In Research Is

Non-Negotiable," Forbes. 26 Oct. 2017. Web. 9 Feb. 2021.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/26/even-while-the-
world-suffers-investing-in-science-is-non-negotiable/?sh=b343d0716470

Champion Briefs 69
Pro Arguments March 2021

Among all the activities which are directed, controlled, and funded by the American
government, the space program is certainly the most visible and probably the most
debated activity, although it consumes only 1.6 percent of the total national budget,
and 3 per mille [less than one-third of 1 percent] of the gross national product. As a
stimulant and catalyst for the development of new technologies, and for research in the
basic sciences, it is unparalleled by any other activity. In this respect, we may even say
that the space program is taking over a function which for three or four thousand years
has been the sad prerogative of wars. How much human suffering can be avoided if
nations, instead of competing with their bomb-dropping fleets of airplanes and rockets,
compete with their moon-travelling space ships! This competition is full of promise for
brilliant victories, but it leaves no room for the bitter fate of the vanquished, which
breeds nothing but revenge and new wars. Although our space program seems to lead
us away from our earth and out toward the moon, the sun, the planets, and the stars,
I believe that none of these celestial objects will find as much attention and study by
space scientists as our earth. It will become a better earth, not only because of all the
new technological and scientific knowledge which we will apply to the betterment of
life, but also because we are developing a far deeper appreciation of our earth, of life,
and of man.

Warrant: American space research is currently not moving fast enough

Dirk Schulze-Makuch, 11-13-2013, "Think Space Exploration Isn’t Moving Fast Enough?
You’re Not Alone.," Air & Space Magazine. 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 9 Feb. 2021.
https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/think-space-exploration-isnt-
moving-fast-enough-youre-not-alone-180947680/

Another possibility is that we really are running out of ideas. “You’re the ones who’ve
been slacking off!” said Michael Crow, president of Arizona State University, addressing

Champion Briefs 70
Pro Arguments March 2021

science fiction writers at the Future Tense Conference a couple of years ago. Good
science fiction not only helps us set goals, but also shows ways to reach the envisioned
technological future. According to writer Neal Stephenson, implementing new
technologies on a heroic scale is no longer the childish preoccupation of a few nerds,
but is the only way for the human species to escape from its current predicaments. One
outcome of the Future Tense Conference was the proposal to produce an anthology of
new science fiction, referred to as the Hieroglyph Project, to show new pathways to
invention and discovery. Finally, two years later, one of the major academic science
publishers took up this idea and came out with a new Science and Fiction book series.
Just envisioning the future won’t take us there, however. Maybe it’s just me, but I miss
the cowboy mentality of the 1960s. We decided to go to the Moon and we did it – even
if it seemed dangerous, reckless, even insane. Now we’re on a much more timid
course, exploring from our safe, computer-generated virtual environments. Perhaps
this is the true solution of the Fermi Paradox – the reason why we haven’t met other
spacefaring civilizations. It’s time to turn things around.

Impact: Space Tech contributes to many real work important developments

Iutech, 2-27-2018, "Why Space Technology Is Important to Everyone on Earth," Indiana

Tech, 27 Feb. 2018. Web. 8 Feb, 2021.
https://blogs.iu.edu/iutech/2018/02/27/why-space-technology-is-important-to-
everyone-on-earth/

That all sounds good in theory, but what actual results have we seen from pursuing
space-related advancement? Arthritis improvement. In one recent study, Rush
University paired up with the National Institutes of Health to make space travel easier
on astronauts’ joints. Because microgravity conditions take a toll on astronauts’
bodies, scientists need a way to compensate for that damage. Their insights have

Champion Briefs 71
Pro Arguments March 2021

broader implications for arthritis and joint pain, and could lead to new treatments and
technologies to ease that pain.
Infrared ear thermometers. When was the last time you had your temperature checked
at a doctor’s office? Chances are, you used an infrared ear thermometer. This
commonplace technology was supported by NASA back in 1991, as it relied on the same
temperature-taking technology used to measure the temperature of stars and planets.
Artificial limbs. In an effort to improve the capabilities of its robotic and extravehicular
activities, NASA helped fund Environmental Robots Inc.’s breakthrough artificial
muscle systems, which also used robotic sensing and actuation. These technologies
were used for space exploration, but have also been revolutionary in creating more
comfortable, functional prostheses for individuals.
Baby formula. Baby formula seems removed from space exploration entirely, but it
actually arose from a NASA research attempt to determine how microalgae could be
used as a nutritional supplement on long trips. This work resulted in the invention of
Formulaid, which is now a critical component of most baby formulas.
Invisible braces. If you’re thinking NASA invented invisible braces to help keep
astronauts’ teeth aligned, you’re way off base here. The reality is, the material primarily
used for invisible braces began life as a component for an advanced missile tracking
(transparent polycrystalline alumina—TPA). The material’s ability to absorb light, it’s
high strength (stronger than steel), and its smoothness makes it perfect for both
applications.
Water filters. Water and similar supplies present a massive challenge to space
travelers. Even in the early days, NASA knew the best way to solve the problem was to
recycle water that was being excreted or otherwise wasted—hence water filters,
which have since been adopted by commercial companies and further developed for
residential use.

Analysis: This argument could be run very effectively, but teams should be aware of a few
things they must establish before gaining significant offense off of it. Teams should focus

Champion Briefs 72
Pro Arguments March 2021

heavily in developing this argument on establishing the status quo of American failure to
expand space research at an aggressive rate and also in establishing that efficacy of space
research. Once these two things are established, the narrative becomes easy to communicate
to judges. This is also an argument where teams may consider running two different impact
scenarios based off of the experience of the judge.

Champion Briefs 73
Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force improves the economy

Argument: creating a Space Force improves the economy

Warrant: Space Force is needed to secure American economic interests

Peter Garretson,, 6-26-2019, "The purpose of a Space Force is a spacefaring economy,"

TheHill, https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/450519-the-purpose-of-a-space-
force-is-a-spacefaring-economy

The purpose of a Space Force is a spacefaring economy © needs a Space Force for the
same reason it needed a Navy: to secure American interests, especially commerce
upon the great ocean that is space. In the 19th century, America realized the
tremendous benefits that would be possible were it to become a seafaring nation. With
the desire to be seafaring came a need for a Navy to secure its citizens, their property
and their transport far from American shores. Today, America is likewise waking up to
the vast potential of space commerce in the inner solar system. Tech billionaires lead
the way with personal investments to create access to an expanding and diverse space
economy. Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX has developed and is developing reusable
rockets to make humanity multi-planetary. The world’s richest man, Amazon’s Jeff
Bezos is spending his personal fortune to begin a multi-generational mission
ultimately to enable trillions of people living and working in space and to move heavy
industry off Earth to protect the Earth’s environment. They are not alone. A
tremendous and well-financed ecosystem of private start-ups is pursuing everything
from air-launched rockets to lunar and asteroid mining. We are in the midst of a space
industrial revolution — a revolution in transportation, mining and manufacture that
will unlock a billion-fold greater resources than on Earth, and ultimately lead to an
economic expansion larger even than what the New World became for Europe.

Champion Briefs 74
Pro Arguments March 2021

Warrant: Space has access to precious metals

Peter Garretson,, 6-26-2019, "The purpose of a Space Force is a spacefaring economy,"
TheHill, https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/450519-the-purpose-of-a-space-
force-is-a-spacefaring-economy

In space are stupendous amounts of accessible metals — far, far more than has ever
been mined (or could be mined) on Earth. This includes rare and valuable metals like
platinum. We now have the technology to 3-D print those materials into factories in
space, and to produce orbital power stations to light the entire world with constant
green energy. Space solar power satellites are a game changer, allowing the entire
world to develop without environmental impact. The leader of that industry will
command the century ahead. There will be a need to secure those interests. There will
be threats both from natural hazards and from human hazards.

Warrant: Space could be home to conflict, mandating a Space Force to protect industry

Peter Garretson,, 6-26-2019, "The purpose of a Space Force is a spacefaring economy,"

TheHill, https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/450519-the-purpose-of-a-space-
force-is-a-spacefaring-economy

Wherever there is profit there is likely to be conflict. While America opened the moon,
our “eighth continent,” we will not be alone in space. Many capable nations are already
spacefaring, and many more will be. The most capable are the great powers. American
history warns us not to be dependent on the largess of foreign powers. A formative
experience for our early nation were the demands of the Barbary states for tribute and
safe passage, and later when the British Navy would impress our sailors. Autocratic
powers are not kind to traders who don’t have navies. We can expect the same in
space. But nations will not be the only actors. Even now a few U.S. corporations have
space programs that would have been the envy of superpowers in the Cold War. They

Champion Briefs 75
Pro Arguments March 2021

will soon be joined by corporations from a diversity of nations. Eventually, some may
choose to break the law, with or without the encouragement of their home state.
Whether as pirates or privateers Americans and their interests far from our shores will
be at risk. As our interests develop — and they will develop fast — we cannot leave
them unprotected. With such a vast frontier before it, we should seek to ensure it is a
domain of liberty for ourselves, our posterity and anyone who wishes to participate
under our umbrella. Merchant, pioneers and settlers have always required guardians to
make secure the frontier.

Warrant: Space Force headquarters will bring economic growth

Peter Suciu, 7-13-2020, “Economic Impact of the Future Space Force Headquarters,”
ClearanceJobs, https://news.clearancejobs.com/2020/07/13/economic-
Impact:of-the-space-force-headquarters/

While the future HQ will be on a far smaller scale than other current U.S. military
commands, it is the economic impact that comes from corporate investment that is
driving communities across the country to compete. Economic Impact is the Draw “The
economic impact of the new Space Command headquarters will be huge, and it will be a
driver for new private sector corporate investment,” explained John Boyd, principal of
The Boyd Company and site selection expert. “It is estimated that the HQ will employ
1,500 highly paid workers and is estimated to approach $1 billion in construction
costs,” Boyd told ClearanceJobs. “On top the salaries for the 1,500 workers, the
economic benefit to the selected region will be enormous when factoring in new tax
revenue and the bump it will give the housing and retail markets. There will also be a
stimulus related to increased corporate travel and tourism revenue and opportunities
for philanthropic, advertising and sponsorship opportunities for regional programs.”
Supplier and STEM Magnet The Space Command HQ could have other impacts as well.
It will likely be a magnet for suppliers in aerospace, avionics, IT, and even the

Champion Briefs 76
Pro Arguments March 2021

telecommunications industry. There will also be the “prestige” of housing the

headquarters. That in itself could attract STEM related industries to the region. “Space
equals innovation and star power,” added Boyd. “Think about the world’s most high
profile celebrity CEO’s – Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson, along with director
James Cameron and Google’s Larry Page‘s asteroid mining project – they all are in the
space business. This ‘star power’ brings a lot of extra ‘sizzle’ to this dynamic industry.”

Impact: economic growth helps people through government programs

Tejvan Pettinger, 11-28-2018, "Pros and cons of an increase in economic growth,"

Economics Help,
https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/macroessays/evaluate-
benefits-growth/

Higher investment in public services. With higher GDP the government will be able to
collect more taxes; this is because people as incomes rise and people spend more they
will pay more income tax and VAT. This is beneficial because the government can use
this increased revenues to reduce the level of government borrowing and/or spend
more on public services and investment in the country infrastructure. This investment
in public services can help improve the long-term performance of the economy. For
example, better infrastructure enables a lower cost of trade. Therefore, growth can
cause a virtuous cycle of higher investment leading to higher growth – which enables
more investment.

Analysis: This argument is useful as it has a higher probability than many of the conflict based
narratives of this topic. Furthermore, it allows the pro to make a strategic concession when the
con raises the cost of the Space Force by conceding then saying economic growth outweighs.
Finally, if teams find addition evidence on rare earth minerals in space they can use this
evidence to boost that argument.

Champion Briefs 77
Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force stops satellite warfare

Argument: Space Force protects satellites from attacks

Warrant: Space Force consolidates information on Satellites

W.J. Hennigan, 11-26-2019, "America Really Does Have a Space Force. We Went Inside
to See What It Does," Time, https://time.com/5869987/spaceforce/

Another reason for Space Force’s creation is that national satellites are currently
controlled by multiple services and agencies, which can lead to excessive secrecy and
the lack of information sharing known in the intelligence world as
hypercompartmentalization. During the Obama Administration, it once took officials
four months to assemble a briefing on U.S. space capabilities for then Vice President Joe
Biden because information was scattered among so many top-secret classifications
and few officials had access to all of them, recalls Robert Cardillo, former director of
the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
Warrant: China and Russia developing technology to challenge U.S. satellites

John Venable, 11-17-2020, "U.S. Space Force," Heritage Foundation,

https://www.heritage.org/2021-index-us-military-strength/assessment-us-
military-power/us-space-force

Both China and Russia have developed doctrine, organizations, and capabilities to
challenge U.S. access to and operations in the space domain. Concurrently, their use of
space is expanding significantly. Both nations regard space access and denial as critical
components of their national and military strategies9 and are investing heavily in
ground-based anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles and orbital ASAT programs that may
deliver a kinetic strike capability,10 as well as co-orbital robotic interference that can

Champion Briefs 78
Pro Arguments March 2021

alter signals and mask denial efforts, or even pull adversary satellites necessary for
surveillance, navigation, and targeting out of orbit.11 These nations have
demonstrated the capability to put American space assets at risk, and until very
recently, the United States had not taken steps to protect those systems, much less to
develop its own warfighting capability in that domain.

Warrant: Space Force Satellites detects incoming missiles

Sandra Erwin, 3-6-2020, "Space Force’s 2021 budget plan is heavy on satellites and
launch," SpaceNews, https://spacenews.com/space-forces-2021-budget-plan-is-
heavy-on-satellites-and-launch/

Missile warning satellites The Space Force is requesting $2.3 billion in 2021 to continue
the development of the Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared (Next-Gen
OPIR) constellation. These satellites provide initial missile warning of a ballistic missile
attack on the United States, deployed forces and allies. The first Next-Gen OPIR
constellation, known as Block 0, will have three geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) and
two Polar satellites. The prime contractors are Lockheed Martin for the GEO satellites
and Northrop Grumman for the polar satellites. The Next-Gen OPIR system will augment
and eventually replace the existing Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellites. The
two final spacecraft in the SBIRS constellation, made by Lockheed Martin, are scheduled
to launch in 2021 and 2022. The Air Force in 2017 decided to end the production of
new SBIRS satellites and transition to Next-Gen OPIR which was designed to be more
survivable against electronic and cyberattacks. The first Next-Gen OPIR GEO satellite
will be delivered in 2025 and the first Polar satellite in 2027, according to budget
documents. All five Block 0 satellites are expected to be on orbit by 2029. The budget
includes $498 million for the Next-Gen OPIR ground system, also known as Future
Operationally Resilient Ground Evolution (FORGE). Raytheon was selected in January
to develop the FORGE operating system for data processing.

Champion Briefs 79
Pro Arguments March 2021

Impact: Space Force Satellites can assist conventional conflict

Nathan Strout, 9-15-2020, "US Space Force confirms Space Based Infrared System
detected missile attack in January," C4ISRNET,
https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2020/09/15/space-forms-
confirms-space-based-infrared-system-detected-missile-attack-in-january/

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Space Force confirmed that its Space Based Infrared
System satellites were used to detect more than a dozen Iranian missiles aimed
at U.S. war fighters in Iraq in January, giving Americans and their partners crucial
warning. On Sept. 15, Chief of Space Operations Gen. John “Jay” Raymond
specifically credited space professionals assigned to the 2nd Space Warning
Squadron at Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado, with providing that early warning,
saving the lives of American and coalition forces. “They operated the world’s best
missile warning capabilities and they did outstanding work, and I’m very very
proud of them,” he said during prepared remarks at the virtual Air Force
Association 2020: Air, Space and Cyberspace Conference.

Impact: Satellites are key for a variety of things

Union of Concerned Scientists, 2-13-2014, "What Are Satellites Used For?,"

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/what-are-satellites-used

Satellite-based navigation systems like the Navstar Global Positioning Systems (known
colloquially as GPS) enable anyone with a handheld receiver to determine her location
to within a few meters. GPS locators are increasingly included in in-car direction services
and allow car-share services like Zipcar to locate their cars. GPS-based systems are used
by civilians and the military for navigation on land, sea, and air, and are crucial in
situations like a ship making a difficult course in a harbor in bad weather or troops lost

Champion Briefs 80
Pro Arguments March 2021

in unfamiliar territory, where other navigation tools may not exist. Business & finance
Communications satellites have the ability to rapidly communicate between a number
of widely dispersed locations. This is an important tool, allowing big manufacturing
companies and department stores to perform inventory management, provide instant
credit card authorization and automated teller banking services to even small towns,
pay-at-the-pump gas at freeway gas stations, and video conferencing for international
corporations. Weather Satellites provide meteorologists with the ability to see
weather on a global scale, allowing them to follow the effects of phenomena like
volcanic eruptions and burning gas and oil fields, to the development of large systems
like hurricanes and El Niño. Climate & environmental monitoring Satellites are some of
the best sources of data for climate change research. Satellites monitor ocean
temperatures and prevailing currents; data acquired by satellite-borne radars were
able to show sea levels have been rising by three mm a year over the last decade.
Imaging satellites can measure the changing sizes of glaciers, which is difficult to do
from the ground due to the remoteness and darkness of the polar regions. Satellites can
determine long-term patterns of rainfall, vegetation cover, and emissions of greenhouse
gases.

Impact: Satellites key to stop global warming

Environmental Defense Fund, 12-1-2019, "This space technology can cut climate
pollution on Earth," https://www.edf.org/climate/space-technology-can-cut-
climate-pollution-earth

MethaneSAT, being developed by EDF affiliate MethaneSAT LLC, will provide global
high-resolution coverage, exceeding anything in orbit or on the drawing board today.
The technology driving the satellite will fill gaps left by other satellite systems. Because
it will focus only on methane, MethaneSAT will be quicker and less expensive to launch
than the complex, multi-function satellites built by government space agencies, so we

Champion Briefs 81
Pro Arguments March 2021

can get data sooner. We're sharing the data to drive action MethaneSAT is designed to
map and measure oil and gas methane emissions worldwide, including roughly 50
major oil and gas regions accounting for more than 80 percent of global production. It
will also have the ability to assess emissions from agriculture, landfills and other
human-made sources. Like EDF’s efforts using technological innovation to drive
environmental change, the MethaneSAT mission is about turning data into action.

Analysis: This primarily provides impacts that can be used with several other arguments. It is
advisable that teams have a satellite contention with multiple links and impacts. This will
diversify the paths to the ballot

Champion Briefs 82
Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force improves military readiness

Argument: Creating a Space Force improves military readiness

Warrant: Development of new technology will improve readiness

Scott Maucione, 2-10-2020, "DoD asks for $705B for 2021, gives Space Force more than
$15B," Federal News Network, https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-
main/2020/02/dod-asks-for-705b-for-2021-gives-space-force-more-than-15b/

The Defense Department is requesting $705.4 billion in 2021 in a budget it says will
focus on dominance across the air, sea, land, space and cyberspace by investing in joint
programs that bring the domains together. “Future wars will be waged not just in the
air, on the land or at sea, but also in space and cyberspace; dramatically increasing the
complexity of warfare,” Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist said Monday during a
briefing at the Pentagon. “This budget reflects that challenge by pulling together all of
the pieces of the National Defense Strategy that have been built over the past two
years.” The budget, which is largely flat compared to last year’s $718 billion request,
will focus on modernizing current systems, building space and cyber programs,
accelerating innovation in emerging technologies and builds onto the military’s
readiness gains, Norquist said.

Warrant: Space Force has made significant progress in improving readiness

Dr. Mark T. Esper, 10-15-2020, "Secretary Esper Discusses Readiness and Modernization
at the Heritage Foundation," U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/2384489/se
cretary-esper-discusses-readiness-and-modernization-at-the-heritage-
foundation/

Champion Briefs 83
Pro Arguments March 2021

The Air Force and Space Force have also made significant progress in rebuilding
readiness across multiple aircraft fleets, satellite constellations, and mission sets,
while actively pursuing the development of integrated systems such as the Advanced
Battle Management System. Key in this effort has been our investment in Weapon
System Sustainment, with a nine percent funding increase yielding tangible
improvements in aircraft availability and training opportunities. And, as the priority for
manning, “first to fight” front-line units have seen increased readiness as high as 45
percent over the past two years.

Warrant: creating the space force improves space readiness

Philip Neri, 11-5-2020, "Ready or Not? A Proposal for a Readiness Framework," No

Publication, https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/ready-or-not-proposal-
readiness-framework

The joint force mix is simply how a military determines the desired amount of forces per
service. While that sounds simple enough, the services are primarily interested in
readying their own forces. The underlying assumption to this approach is that each
service can pursue its own readiness interests and, when conflict arrives, align to
produce a joint mix of synergistic capabilities able to defeat an opponent. The inverse
is incorporating diverse sets of capabilities into a single service to manage their
readiness. The underlying assumption in that logic is that the services will prioritize and
resource all capabilities adequately. On December 20, 2019, President Donald Trump
signed into law the creation of the United States Space Force.[8] Similar to the US Air
Force’s separation from the US Army to focus on the air domain, the administration
determined that the US should adjust the joint force mix to avoid assuming the latter
risk by establishing a force solely oriented on the space domain. This is not to make the
case for or against the US Space Force. Rather, it is to demonstrate that the joint force

Champion Briefs 84
Pro Arguments March 2021

mix, whatever its makeup, has an influence on readiness in general and force structure
in particular.

Warrant: Space Force improves infrastructure readiness

Lifford M. Theony, 4-20-2020, "Infrastructure Readiness In The United States Space
Force," OTH, https://othjournal.com/2020/04/20/infrastructure-readiness-in-
the-united-states-space-force/

The USSF Civil Engineer Division and Civil Engineer Squadrons are tackling a growing
challenge to provide mission assurance for evolving space platforms by improving the
construction and sustainment of resilient infrastructure systems linked to critical space
mission sites worldwide. The USSF focuses on three complementary lines of effort: 1)
creating improved standards that align infrastructure capabilities (including resilience)
with space mission assurance requirements; 2) creating decision-quality risk
management data to inform investments in critical infrastructure, and the ability to
operate, maintain, and sustain the infrastructure supporting those space missions; and
3) creating an accountability process and mechanism for effective communication of
infrastructure readiness and status for distinct mission assurance requirements. These
lofty goals are a considerable challenge; nevertheless, progress in these efforts is
absolutely essential to meet the intent of the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS).

Impact: Readiness is key to winning battles

Mark F. Cancian and Seamus P. Daniels, 4-18-2018, "The State of Military Readiness: Is
There a Crisis?," No Publication, https://www.csis.org/analysis/state-military-
readiness-there-crisis

Readiness is important because it increases the chances that forces will be successful
in conflicts. Although many factors determine success on the battlefield—leadership,

Champion Briefs 85
Pro Arguments March 2021

tactics, sophistication of equipment, and numbers—history clearly shows that high

readiness forces are more likely to be successful. A classic example of readiness risk is
Task Force Smith, which was deployed from Japan to Korea in June 1950 to stem the
North Korean invasion of the south. Occupation forces in Japan had been maintained at
a very low level of readiness. The assumption had been that another conflict would be
preceded by a long period of mobilization such as had occurred in World War II. Task
Force Smith, poorly trained and hastily thrown together, was badly defeated. Its
experience showed that future wars might be “come as you are” and that forces needed
to be kept at higher readiness levels in peacetime than had been the case earlier in U.S.
history. There are secondary benefits that derive from high readiness. Troops that
train extensively and have all the equipment they need will have higher morale and
confidence. This benefits retention. No one joins the military to sit in the barracks.
They join to go to the field, to fly aircraft, or to sail at sea.

Analysis: military readiness is an important issue when considering if we are prepared for a
conflict. Even without a conflict, readiness may act as a deterrent and fit well in a sub point.
Furthermore, there are arguments about the role private military contractors play in military
readiness that must be considered.

Champion Briefs 86
Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Creation of the Space Force improves other branches of the

military

Argument: creation of the Space Force improves other branches of the military

Warrant: Space Force adds a voice to the table

Joe Moye, 12-11-2020, "Bad Idea: Disestablishing the Space Force," Defense360,
https://defense360.csis.org/bad-idea-disestablishing-the-space-force/

Likewise, an independent space military service unifies and elevates space capabilities
to compete for resources on par with the other services. A single service specifically
focused on developing military space capabilities reduces duplication and costs,
increases speed of acquisition, and creates overall unity of effort. It also allows the other
services to focus their organic space programs toward being better consumers of space.
Finally, the creation of the Space Force added a seat at the table of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. This ensures that space advocacy and military advice is included in every subject
in which the Joint Chiefs are involved. Absent the chief of space operations, space
advocacy and advice are once again left to the chief of staff of the Air Force, who
understandably might have competing interests and priorities. Space requires an
independent voice at the table. The Defense Department has yet to finish realigning the
remaining appropriate military space programs to the Space Force. General Raymond is
correctly taking a deliberate pace in establishing this new service. It does not appear
that new service “growing pains” have degraded current operations thus far, so we
should give leadership the time they need to do this right. At this point, premature
plateauing of progress or reversal would hinder the positive momentum generated by
centralizing military capability, competence, and advocacy in the space domain.
Returning space components to the Air Force, Army, and Navy would diminish

Champion Briefs 87
Pro Arguments March 2021

advocacy and relegate space capabilities to lower priorities behind each service’s
native domain(s).

Warrant: space force cuts bureaucracy

C. Todd Lopez,, 9-15-2020, "Space Force Chief: U.S. Doesn," U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE,
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2348614/space-force-
chief-us-doesnt-want-war-in-space-must-be-prepared-for-it

"Since establishment, we've been in the business of slashing bureaucracy, delegating

authority and enhancing accountability at every crossroad," Raymond said. "My
opinion: big organizations are slow. We must move at speed to outpace the threats that
we face." The general said the Space Force, in an effort to reduce bureaucracy,
implemented a large-scale reorganization that involved removing two echelons of
command, including a numbered Air Force and an O-6-level command. "We've also
reduced the size of our planned staff at the Pentagon," Raymond said. "Back when we
started, the Pentagon staff was going to be over 1,000 people. That was the initial plan.
We've slashed that by 40%. We're shortening the distance between decision makers and
you, the experts, conducting our mission." Also part of eliminating bureaucracy,
Raymond said, is a hard look at the agencies that exist now that are involved in
acquisition for the space enterprise. He said Congress has identified some 65 different
organizations involved in space-related acquisition.

Warrant: Space Force consolidates organizations

Grant, Dustin L., and Matthew J. Neil. The Case for Space: A Legislative Framework for
an Independent United States Space Force. AIR UNIV MAXWELL AFB AL
MAXWELL AFB, 2020. https://media.defense.gov/2020/Feb/12/2002248561/-1/-

Champion Briefs 88
Pro Arguments March 2021

1/0/WF_73_GRANT_NEIL_THE_CASE_FOR_SPACE_A_LEGISLATIVE_FRAMEWORK
_FOR_AN_INDEPENDENT_UNITED_STATES_SPACE_FORCE.PDF

The current US construct for managing space lacks consistency. Notwithstanding the
issues of lack of centralized space management within the DOD, nationally, there is
not a single overarching federal entity charged with managing US space efforts,
despite an overarching need for one. Space has become ubiquitous, with multiple
dissimilar agencies each handling diverse components of the US space effort and
without any central coordinating body. For example, NASA is responsible for controlling
all space activities “sponsored by the United States.”55 However, excepted explicitly
from NASA’s purview are “activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the
development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United
States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision
for the defense of the United States).”56 These activities fall to the DOD. Thus, even
though NASA is responsible for controlling all space activities, not all activities fall to
them. We have separate entities governing commercial space and national security
space. Though NASA seemingly handles commercial space activities and the DOD
handles national security space activities, the two often overlap. DOD policy is that its
space-related activities will not only ensure security in space and maintain our national
security advantages there but also “energize the space industrial base that supports US
national security.”5

Impact: Space Force improves training and advice

Loren Grush, 12-11-2019, "Space Force may finally become real — but it won’t be an
overhaul," Verge, https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/11/21004914/space-
force-military-branch-ndaa-2020-joint-chiefs

Champion Briefs 89
Pro Arguments March 2021

While it may feel as though the Air Force Space Command is simply getting a new name,
there are a few key distinctions. For one, the Space Force would get full Title 10
authority, which would give the branch the ability to make its own decisions about
operating and training people to use equipment. Under the current regime, the Air
Force is the one with Title 10 authority, and it will make decisions based on
recommendations from the Air Force Space Command. “That organization doesn’t
already have its own independent decision making authority, and this will kind of
elevate that out,” says Johnson. The NDAA also establishes that the Space Force will be
run by a newly created chief of space operations who will report directly to the US
secretary of the Air Force. This CSO will also be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a
group of senior military personnel that advises the president. So while the CSO will
report directly to the Air Force Secretary, they will also have a way to reach the
president without a mediator. “They can give some independent advice to the
President, alongside the other chiefs,” says Weeden. “But they’re under the authority of
the Secretary of the Air Force when it comes to making decisions.”

Warrant: Space Force’s only job is to protect satellites

Reid Barbier*, 7-23-2020, "The Purpose and Mission of the Space Force," American
University, https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/security-technology/the-
purpose-and-mission-of-the-space-force.cfm

The Space Force will act as a conduit for space-based intelligence and technology to
reach the rest of the military, for instance by making sure that battlefield commanders
have real-time access to satellite reconnaissance. The Space Force is designed to be
much more than a maintenance unit however, as multiple threats have emerged in
recent years that require a substantial updating of American space presence. Satellites
are extremely vulnerable to attack, which could turn America’s reliance on them into
a dangerous weakness and potentially cripple American military operations globally.

Champion Briefs 90
Pro Arguments March 2021

China in particular has homed in on this vulnerability by building a growing arsenal of

anti-satellite missiles and technologies, including cyber-attacks. The Space Force’s
most urgent mission is finding ways to defend satellites in order to maintain America’s
preeminence in space.

Impact: Space Force key to protecting satellites

W.J. Hennigan, 7-23-2020, "America Really Does Have a Space Force. We Went Inside to
See What It Does," Time, https://time.com/5869987/spaceforce/

The mission of protecting America’s vulnerable orbital networks falls to U.S. Space
Command and Space Force, which since December has the same status as the Army,
Navy, Air Force and Marines. The Pentagon has decades of experience building and
deploying satellites, the military operates many of the most important ones, and it has
arguably the best strategic planning skills of any organization on the planet. It also
already employs 20,000 people whose jobs are to oversee and manage America’s
space-based GPS, communications, weather and ballistic-missile-warning systems.

Analysis: this argument may work best as an internal link to a satellite contention as it’s difficult
to generate unique impacts off it. However, it also serves to turn many con arguments about
overblown government agency, making it a useful spike. It is recommended that you expand on
the impact scenario with addition warrants beyond this argument.

Champion Briefs 91
Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force decrease potential conflict

Argument: Creating the Space Force decreases the chances of a conflict through deterrence.

Warrant: Deterrence is key to preventing a war

David Montgomery, 12-3-2019, "Trump’s proposal for a Space Force was widely
mocked. But could it be a stroke of stable genius that makes America safe
again?," Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2019/12/03/trumps-proposal-
space-force-was-widely-mocked-could-it-be-stroke-stable-genius-that-makes-
america-safe-again/?arc404=true

The Air Force won’t discuss “counterspace” weapons the United States may be
developing, if any. However, the security-focused publication Defense One reported
earlier this year that Pentagon officials have sought funding for research into space-
based laser technology that could be used to defend against missiles. And the Secure
World Foundation published a lengthy report in April assessing counterspace
capabilities of China, Russia and the United States. It said America’s ability to maneuver
satellites for defensive or maintenance purposes could be turned to offensive uses,
and it also said the United States has ground-based means to electronically jam
satellite signals. The ultimate goal is to deter a war in space. In the Pentagon’s view,
space must be considered a warfighting domain precisely to keep it peaceful. “We think
the best way to avoid conflict from extending into space is not only to be able to
compete in that conflict but to win that conflict,” Manor explains. “To leave no doubt
in an adversary’s or potential adversary’s mind that we will triumph.”

Warrant: conflict in space is coming, Space Force is key to deter conflict

Champion Briefs 92
Pro Arguments March 2021

Fred Kennedy, 7-22-2020, "It’s Time To Equip The U.S. Space Force With The Ability To
Project Force," Forbes,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/fredkennedy/2020/07/22/its-time-to-equip-the-
us-space-force-with-the-ability-to-project-force/?sh=1447f0f04518

Space is a domain like any other – air, sea, and land, and we should treat it as such.
Conflict will occur in space as it has in every other domain; to believe otherwise would
be shockingly naïve and irresponsible. The U.S. must prepare now to deter bad actors
from taking actions which threaten our space capabilities, or resoundingly defeat
them (in the space domain and elsewhere) should deterrence fail.You cannot safely
dismiss the Antarctica argument. It drives a long-standing diplomatic conversation that
continues to the present day. Its adherents seek to define and proscribe the use of
“space weapons,” but little meaningful progress has been made on this front. The
United Nations’ Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and
Committee for Disarmament have debated measures that would require member states
to refrain from deploying weapons in space, or to commit to “no first placement.” These
deliberations continue despite their increasingly academic character: The Chinese fired
a direct-ascent weapon at one of their own satellites in 2007, destroying it and
creating a cloud of debris in low earth orbit that persists to the present day. The next
year, the U.S. shot down one of its own satellites with a Standard Missile. India
conducted a similar test in 2019, prompting condemnation from NASA Administrator
Jim Bridenstine when it was determined that debris from the Indian demonstration
might pose a threat to the International Space Station. Russia followed suit in April of
this year with a test of its own. Multiple nations, including the U.S., have experimented
with techniques for close inspection of satellites, which can serve peaceful purposes
(e.g., refueling or repair) or more bellicose ones. For better or worse, this genie is now
out of its bottle.

Warrant: Space deterrence secures conventional deterrence

Champion Briefs 93
Pro Arguments March 2021

Morgan, Forrest E. Deterrence and First-Strike Stability in Space: A Preliminary

Assessment. RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE SANTA MONICA CA, 2010.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG9
16.pdf

Although this assessment focuses specifically on space deterrence and first-strike

stability in space, it is important to appreciate the interdependencies between these
factors and general deterrence and stability writ large. Given the extent to which space
support enhances U.S. conventional military capabilities, an adversary weighing the
risks and potential benefits of war with the United States might be encouraged
toward greater aggression by the belief that attacking space systems would degrade
U.S. warfighting capabilities enough to enable the attainment of objectives at
acceptable costs. As a result, weaknesses in space deterrence can undermine general
deterrence. Conversely, if a prospective adversary concludes that the probable cost-
benefit outcome of attacking U.S. space systems is unacceptable, it is forced to weigh
the risks and benefits of aggressive designs in the terrestrial domain against the
prospect of facing fully capable, space-enhanced U.S. military forces. In sum, effective
space deterrence fortifies general deterrence and stability

Impact: Protecting satellites is vital

David Montgomery, 12-3-2019, "Trump’s proposal for a Space Force was widely
mocked. But could it be a stroke of stable genius that makes America safe
again?," Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2019/12/03/trumps-proposal-
space-force-was-widely-mocked-could-it-be-stroke-stable-genius-that-makes-
america-safe-again/?arc404=true

Champion Briefs 94
Pro Arguments March 2021

Consider the value of our satellites to our way of life, not to mention our way of war:
The United States has 901, more than any other country. Thirty-one of them provide
GPS, which we rely on not just for driving, but for banking, agriculture, robotics,
maintaining the power grid and much more. Other satellites enable phone calls, track
the weather, monitor environmental disasters and help chart the course of climate
change. Satellites are there to provide early warning of nuclear attack, coordinate
missile interceptors and keep watch on other powers’ adherence to arms control
treaties. When U.S. forces are in conflict, satellites provide them with communications,
navigation, reconnaissance, tactical missile detection and weapons targeting. Given all
of this, it should make us nervous that in recent years China has demonstrated the
ability to shoot down satellites with missiles. India did the same this past spring, and
Russia is testing such a weapon. China and Russia also are developing methods to
disrupt satellites by other means, such as with lasers or electronic jammers, according to
U.S. officials. The Department of Defense has been quietly working on both the
potential threat to our satellites and the larger issue of maintaining space superiority
during the past couple of presidential administrations, primarily through space experts
in the Air Force. Creating a Space Force would elevate and focus those efforts, the
thinking goes. It would foster a singular military space culture, which would nurture
innovation in satellite strategy and defense, strengthen earthbound forces and
potentially help safeguard future spacefaring.

Analysis: Deterrence is likely to be a stock argument on this topic as it frequently appears on

any military related topic. In space particularly, the role satellites play is vital to our nation.

Champion Briefs 95
Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force protects military logistics

Argument: The military is critically dependent on satellites for communication and logistics.
America needs a Space Force to protect these assets.

Warrant: US military depends on satellites

Bryan Bender. “Space war is coming — and the U.S. is not ready.” Politico. April, 2018.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/06/outer-space-war-defense-russia-
china-463067

“War is coming to outer space, and the Pentagon warns it is not yet ready, following
years of underinvesting while the military focused on a host of threats on Earth.
Russia and China are years ahead of the United States in developing the means to
destroy or disable satellites that the U.S. military depends on for everything from
gathering intelligence to guiding precision bombs, missiles and drones. Now the
Pentagon is trying to catch up — pouring billions more dollars into hardening its
defenses against anti-satellite weapons, training troops to operate in the event their
space lifeline is cut, and honing ways to retaliate against a new form of combat that
experts warn could affect millions of people, cause untold collateral damage and spread
to battlefields on Earth.”

Warrant: US is increasingly vulnerable in space

Bryan Bender. “Space war is coming — and the U.S. is not ready.” Politico. April, 2018.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/06/outer-space-war-defense-russia-
china-463067

Champion Briefs 96
Pro Arguments March 2021

““We are now approaching a point where ‘Star Wars’ is not just a movie,” said Steve
Isakowitz, CEO of The Aerospace Corp., a government-funded think tank that serves as
the military’s leading adviser on space. He said the U.S. can no longer afford to take its
dominance for granted. "That supremacy in space has enabled us to have the world’s
greatest war-fighting capability ... whether it is our soldiers on the field, our drones that
fly overhead, our bombers that travel around the world, intelligence we collect," he told
POLITICO. "More and more every day, literally, we become more dependent on it.”

Warrant: America needs to ready itself to avoid a “Space Pearl Harbor”

Bryan Bender. “Space war is coming — and the U.S. is not ready.” Politico. April, 2018.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/06/outer-space-war-defense-russia-
china-463067

“If the U.S. is to avoid a ‘Space Pearl Harbor,’ it needs to take seriously the possibility
of an attack on the U.S. space system,” the report said. Some experts speculate that
military leaders never followed through on the warnings, in part because the terrorist
attacks later that year drew far more attention to what resulted in two ground wars in
the Middle East. One sign of the new urgency is President Donald Trump’s recent call
for establishing a “space force” — a separate military branch responsible for ensuring
American supremacy in space, a role now primarily played by the Air Force.”

Warrant: The US needs a space force to be ready for space warfare

Douglas Loverro. “Why the United States needs a Space Force.” Space News. June 2018.
https://spacenews.com/why-the-united-states-needs-a-space-force/

“Space needs jealous advocacy. When the Chinese shot down their own satellite in
2007, Air Force and other DoD leaders were heard saying that there was no way to

Champion Briefs 97
Pro Arguments March 2021

defend space. The president got it right. We need a Space Force. Space is too critical
for the nation’s defense not to have an organization that speaks for its importance,
defends it against all comers, and jealously advocates for new missions and new
responsibilities. Space is too crucial to national security to be stalled by a lack of focus
and an unwillingness to respond until pushed. President Trump on June 18 ordered the
Pentagon to create a separate military service to focus on national security space.
Outside a cohort of people who have worked this issue for many years, the
announcement was met with a different mixture of reactions — Star Wars humor,
political derision and interservice sarcasm. The reactions reveal a broad
misunderstanding of what a Space Force would do or what it would look like.”

Warrant: The Space Force will dramatically enhance our space presence

Douglas Loverro. “Why the United States needs a Space Force.” Space News. June 2018.
https://spacenews.com/why-the-united-states-needs-a-space-force/

“What the president proclaimed was not the beginning of the militarization of space,
nor the start of a space arms race, but rather that military professionals who
concentrate on space needed their own organization to truly focus their efforts on a
singular task — to protect and defend U.S. and allied interests in space and to assure
their other service brethren never find themselves lacking the space support they
need. To do that would require a career of training, experiences, motivations, and
insights, and a mixture of skills and specialties with a focus on space, that can’t be
developed within the constraints of the current military branches. To develop the
proper culture of space professionals who marry their personal and organizational
identity to this domain, and jealously advocate for its advancement, takes more than a
loose assemblage of individuals from different career fields who dabble in space during
their career, but all too often view space as an assignment rather than as a home.”

Champion Briefs 98
Pro Arguments March 2021

Analysis: This argusment is strong because it gives the judge a sense of urgency. Foreground
why space is vital for our military capabilities and weigh the magnitude of losing space
capabilities to justify the space force.

Champion Briefs 99
Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force defends against ASATs

Argument: Anti-Satillite Missiles are an increasing threat for the United States military. Worse,
the military lacks the capabilities to defend against them.

Warrant: Many countries are developing ASATs

Dwayne A. Day. “To attack or deter? The role of anti-satellite weapons.” DefenseNews.
April, 2020. https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3927/1

“China, Russia, and India are all reported to have anti-satellite capabilities. The
Director of National Intelligence’s annual report to Congress stated that the PRC and
Russia have operational ASATs for targeting low Earth orbiting satellites, and the PRC
is “probably” developing capabilities for geostationary orbit. Even the French, who
were vehemently opposed to American ASATs in the 1980s and one of the loudest
advocates of ASAT arms control, have now declared their intent to develop an anti-
satellite weapon. The United States demonstrated the ability to knock low-flying
satellites out of orbit over a decade ago and has made major classified expenditures on
space systems in recent years, making it entirely possible that the US has an
unacknowledged ASAT program of its own.”

Warrant: Russia is developing ASATs specifically to target US capabilities

Dwayne A. Day. “To attack or deter? The role of anti-satellite weapons.” DefenseNews.
April, 2020. https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3927/1

“Last week, Russia conducted another anti-satellite (ASAT) test, apparently one of a
series they have been undertaking as part of what increasingly looks to be a broad-
ranging ASAT program. This follows a recent statement by the commander of US

Champion Briefs 100

Pro Arguments March 2021

Space Command, General John Raymond, who acknowledged something that amateur
space trackers have noticed for a few months: a Russian satellite appears to be
“stalking” USA 245, an American reconnaissance satellite, raising the possibility that
the Russian satellite might have offensive capabilities. As Bart Hendrickx noted in a 2018
article in Jane’s Intelligence Review, there was ample evidence that Russia was
developing a co-orbital anti-satellite weapon designated “Burevestnik,” although the
satellite that may be following USA 245 is probably of a different but related type
named “Nivelir.”.”

Warrant: American space assets are vulnerable

Brian G. Chow. “Growing U.S. satellite vulnerability: The silent ‘Apocalypse Next’.” Space
News. August, 2018. https://spacenews.com/growing-u-s-satellite-vulnerability-
the-silent-apocalypse-next/

“Unlike ground-launched missiles designed to knock out orbiting satellites, which give
hours of warning before they can hit key targets in geosynchronous orbits, the
spacecraft (i.e., satellites) China and Russia are developing can destroy an intolerable
number of our critical satellites with little or no warning. Faced with the prospect of
waging air, land and naval warfare without the support of America’s key satellites,
America’s military would be wary of waging any military campaigns at all. Chinese and
Russian induced “space deterrence” could prove even more effective and likely against
the U.S. than them threatening nuclear strikes. They could inflict such a strategic
calamity, moreover, literally silently with little or no fanfare.”

Warrant: ASATs can be stealthy

Champion Briefs 101

Pro Arguments March 2021

Brian G. Chow. “Growing U.S. satellite vulnerability: The silent ‘Apocalypse Next’.” Space
News. August, 2018. https://spacenews.com/growing-u-s-satellite-vulnerability-
the-silent-apocalypse-next/

“What is these specialized Russian and Chinese systems’ ostensible purpose? The
Russians and Chinese say they are designed to reduce the growing amount of orbiting
debris and to refuel, repair and refresh China’s and Russia’s existing fleet of satellites.
These “peaceful” spacecraft are often equipped with a robotic arm(s) in order to grab
space debris or a satellite needing service. Unfortunately, these can also be applied
with malevolent intent; bending antennae and distorting solar panels to disable a
satellite that is working perfectly and do so while creating little or no space debris.
Also, if a spacecraft can refuel a satellite, it can also empty the fuel tank. If it can
repair or upgrade a satellite by installing a new component, it must have already
mastered the prerequisite of taking away the malfunctioning component. There is
nothing to prevent it from removing a functioning component and purposely
neglecting to put it back.”

Warrant: The US needs a comprehensive ASAT doctrine

Robert Burns. “Mattis: US needs Space Force to counter Russia, China.” Military News.
August, 2020. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-
military/2018/08/14/mattis-us-needs-space-force-to-counter-russia-china/

“With merely a few years to prepare for satellite defense, the U.S. must be self-
reliant, with cooperation from its allies and friends, to deter and defend against
satellite attacks especially during the early 2020s. Bodyguard satellites and self-defense
zones are both fair and effective and can be implemented in time to counter the
devastating space threats of the 2020s and beyond, provided that the U.S. starts now.”

Champion Briefs 102

Pro Arguments March 2021

Analysis: This argument is a classic call to action – there are new and dangerous weapons and
the US must evolve to respond. Think of innovation such as the airplane and how they resulted
in a revolution in military affairs.

Champion Briefs 103

Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force balances against Russia

Argument: Russia has always been a serious competitor to the United States in space. A space
force will allow the United States to better balance against Russia’s advanced capabilities in this
field.

Warrant: Russia wants to dominate space

Paul Luzin. “Russia is behind in military space capabilities, but that only drives its
appetite.” DefenseNews. April, 2020.
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/02/russia-is-
behind-in-military-space-capabilities-but-that-only-drives-its-appetite/

“As the U.S. Space Force develops, Russia continues to bolster its own military space
assets, each challenging the other’s dominance in outer space, despite the two
partnering in the domain on research and exploration. Specifically, Russia is working
to expand its anti-access/area denial approach in outer space in the form of electronic
warfare, increasing sustainability of its communication systems, and developing
offensive capabilities against ground-based space infrastructure. According to the
Union of Concerned Scientists’ satellite database and space-launch reporting, there are
more than 2,200 satellites in orbit, and over 1,000 of them belong to American
companies, government services and scientific institutions, including 189 military
satellites.”

Warrant: Russia has a significant space presence

Paul Luzin. “Russia is behind in military space capabilities, but that only drives its appe-
tite.” DefenseNews. April, 2020.

Champion Briefs 104

Pro Arguments March 2021

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/02/russia-is-
behind-in-military-space-capabilities-but-that-only-drives-its-appetite/

“it’s estimated that annual spending on the development of Russia’s military satellite
constellation — satellites, launch vehicles and launches — is $1 billion. Spending on
Russian space navigation system GLONASS (currently made up of 27 satellites) in 2019
was $437 million, and spending on military launch site Plesetsk is at least $100 million
annually. All these efforts plus the cost of maintenance for other ground-based defense
space infrastructure and personnel means that Russia’s military space program is about
$1.6 billion. The biggest part of Russia’s military satellite constellation involves 51
communication spacecraft, with 16 Earth-observation satellites. This differs from the
American, Chinese and European ones, where Earth-observation satellites dominate.
For instance, the U.S. has 56 Earth-observation satellites and 49 communication
satellites, but China has 57 Earth-observation satellites and only three communication
satellites.”

Warrant: Russia sees space as a part of its asymmetric warfare to counter the US

Paul Luzin. “Russia is behind in military space capabilities, but that only drives its appe-
tite.” DefenseNews. April, 2020.
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/02/russia-is-
behind-in-military-space-capabilities-but-that-only-drives-its-appetite/

“This imminent industrial weakness inevitably drives Moscow to try to nullify the
advantages of the U.S. and other leading powers. However, Russia’s actions toward
this effort — like the strange orbital maneuvering of experimental Russian satellites or
the testing of air defense missiles with potential anti-satellite capabilities — should not
be overestimated. There is no sense of targeting hundreds of satellites in many orbits,
and it is impossible to target them reticently. Here, Moscow just searches for material

Champion Briefs 105

Pro Arguments March 2021

tools that will enhance its position in political bargaining with the U.S. Where Russia is
really trying to improve its military space capabilities is in the following: opportunities
for jamming and radio intelligence; sustainability of its command, control and
communication systems; and the offensive capabilities against ground-based space
infrastructure. The goal here is to prevent its adversaries from using of their space-
related infrastructure..”

Warrant: Space Force will counter Russia

Robert Burns. “Mattis: US needs Space Force to counter Russia, China.” Military News.
August, 2020. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-
military/2018/08/14/mattis-us-needs-space-force-to-counter-russia-china/

“U.S. Space Force is necessary to protect American satellites from being targeted by
attack weapons in the hands of China and Russia, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said
Tuesday. Mattis' comments came days after Vice President Mike Pence announced
ambitious plans to create a sixth, separate U.S. military warfighting service by 2020 to
ensure American dominance in space. Speaking during a trip to Brazil, Mattis said
repeatedly that the U.S. has no plans to put weapons in space, but he emphasized the
vital and growing role that satellites play not just in military operations but in the
world economy.

Warrant: Top Government officials recognize the need to counter Russia

Robert Burns. “Mattis: US needs Space Force to counter Russia, China.” Military News.
August, 2020. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-
military/2018/08/14/mattis-us-needs-space-force-to-counter-russia-china/

Champion Briefs 106

Pro Arguments March 2021

Mattis' point about countering the space capabilities of other nations was reinforced
Tuesday by the State Department's top arms control official, Yleem Poblete, speaking
in Geneva at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. She said that despite Russian
claims it wants to prevent an arms race in outer space, Moscow is developing new
anti-satellite missiles and has given its forces a mobile laser system. She also voiced
suspicion about Russia's deployment last October of a satellite whose behavior she said
was inconsistent with its supposed purpose of conducting in-orbit space inspections.
"Russian intentions with respect to this satellite are unclear and are obviously a very
troubling development," Poblete said. Russia denies any hostile intent..

Analysis: This argument will be intuitive to many judges because Russia has always been a
competitor to the United States. Make the argument that space is merely an extension of a
preexisting rivalry.

Champion Briefs 107

Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force balances against China

Argument: China is an increasing threat and has quickly become a peer competitor to the
United States militarily. China’s military is capable of waging an all-spectrum conflict against the
US, including in space.

Warrant: China wants to dominate space

Maj. Liane Zivitski. “China wants to dominate space, and the US must take countermeas-
ures.” DefenseNews. June 23, 2020.
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/23/china-wants-
to-dominate-space-and-the-us-must-take-countermeasures/

“China is determined to replace the U.S. as the dominant power in space. While
proclaiming its peaceful intentions, Beijing’s doctrine considers space a military
domain, and it is investing heavily in space infrastructure designed to secure both
economic and military advantages. To ensure that it continues to compete from a
position of strength, the U.S. must invest sufficient resources in preparing its new Space
Force to defend America’s national interests and security in space.”

Warrant: China is taking aggressive actions in space

Maj. Liane Zivitski. “China wants to dominate space, and the US must take countermeas-
ures.” DefenseNews. June 23, 2020.
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/23/china-wants-
to-dominate-space-and-the-us-must-take-countermeasures/

“Beijing’s rapidly improving capabilities are clear to see. On May 5, China successfully
launched the Long March-5B rocket designed to eventually transport astronauts into

Champion Briefs 108

Pro Arguments March 2021

space. This was the first successful launch of any Long March rocket this year after
failed attempts to launch the Long March-3B in April and Long March-7A in March.
Three weeks later, China completed back-to-back launches from two separate launch
facilities placing Earth-imaging and technology demonstration satellites into orbit. China
plans to launch more than 60 spacecraft in over 40 launches in 2020, and has led global
launches over the past two years.”

Warrant: China is preparing to weaponize space

Maj. Liane Zivitski. “China wants to dominate space, and the US must take
countermeasures.” DefenseNews. June 23, 2020.
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/23/china-wants-
to-dominate-space-and-the-us-must-take-countermeasures/

“These capabilities are a cause for concern because of Beijing’s concurrent investment
in space weapons. The Pentagon recently warned China has developed and fielded
ground- and space-based anti-satellite, directed-energy, and electronic warfare
capabilities that place the peaceful use of international space at risk. Evidence
suggests China could be developing up to three different anti-satellite systems. China
launched its first successful ground-based direct ascent anti-satellite missile, the SC-19,
in 2007, and spent the last decade improving follow-on versions. In 2018, the People’s
Liberation Army formed military units that began initial operational training with anti-
satellite missiles. The SC-19 is now assessed operational and capable of targeting low-
Earth orbit satellites. China also fielded sophisticated on-orbit capabilities, such as
satellites with robotic arm technology for inspection and repair, which the U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency assesses could also function as a weapon.”

Warrant: Space Force will counter China

Champion Briefs 109

Pro Arguments March 2021

David Vergun. “Space Force Leader Discusses Newest Military Service.” US DOD News.
OCT. 27, 2020.
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2396174/space-force-
leader-discusses-newest-military-service/

“Space Force Gen. John W. "Jay" Raymond, the chief of space operations and
commander of the U.S. Space Command, attended a virtual event with the National
Defense University Foundation in Washington, D.C. The partnership with the National
Reconnaissance Office has never been better, Raymond said. Today, the Space Force
shares a strategy, an operations center and even programs. "What's driving us
together is largely the threat," he said, meaning mostly from Russia and China.
Although the NRO and the Space Force have distinct missions, Raymond said where they
come together is to protect and defend. "Going forward, we need to broaden that
relationship even greater," he said..”

Warrant: The Space Force will impact our competition against China in all domains

David Vergun. “Space Force Leader Discusses Newest Military Service.” US DOD News.
OCT. 27, 2020.
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2396174/space-force-
leader-discusses-newest-military-service/

Partnering with other services is also critical since whatever happens in the space
domain affects the other domains, he said. An example of this partnership is the Space
Force's high priority on working with the services to begin the Joint All-Domain
Command and Control system, which connects sensors to shooters across multiple
domains, he said. Partnering with the commercial industry is also important in areas
such as commercial launch capabilities and large communications satellites, he said. And

Champion Briefs 110

Pro Arguments March 2021

with the proliferation of small, low-earth orbit and higher-earth orbit satellites, working
with the private sector will be even more important, as they can get very capable
satellites built very quickly.

Analysis: This argument is strong because it is simple – China is becoming an increasing threat
to the United States, especially in space. It just makes sense that a space force would counter
this measure.

Champion Briefs 111

Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space Force allows US to enforce the OST

Argument: As other nations continue to build weapons in space, the United States will need to
develop its own space force in order to keep up with global powers, and prevent them from
spiraling into an arms race.

Warrant: China would have developed space weapons anyway

Manson, Katrina, and Christian Shepherd. US Military Officials Eye New Generation of
Space Weapons. 2 Sept. 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/d44aa332-f564-
4b4a-89b7-1685e4579e72.

Jana Robinson, who leads space security at the Prague Security Studies Institute, said
China had assisted 60 countries with 125 space transactions to date. She characterised
such assistance, which often involved large-scale financing, as an attempt to expand
China’s global space footprint and “capture” the space sector for geopolitical ends by
inducing dependency or even control over the space sectors of recipient countries.
Wang Yiwei, an international relations scholar at Renmin University in Beijing, said
China’s development of BeiDou was a natural step for a country of its size and should
not be seen as part of a space arms race.

Warrant: Space arms race is inevitable

Blatt, Talia. “Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Emerging Space Arms Race.” Harvard
International Review, 26 May 2020, https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-
weapons-and-the-emerging-space-arms-race/.

There are two conflicting views on how the US could mitigate the worst effects of an
ASAT arms race. The first, put forward by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld in

Champion Briefs 112

Pro Arguments March 2021

2001, is fairly simple: Space militarization is inevitable, and the United States will have
to rely on superior capabilities to prevent conflict—essentially, end the arms race by
winning it. This is classic escalation dominance theory: the idea that sustainable
deterrence can be created when a nation escalates conflict to a level greater than
their adversary can match. However, the nature of an arms race makes escalatory
advantages inherently ephemeral, and the advances Russia and China have made since
Rumsfeld’s 2001 report suggest that relying on US space superiority might be a poor
strategy. Even if it were possible, attaining escalation dominance would require near
constant weapons testing, which produces more debris.

Argument: The United States is actively trying to reduce proliferation

Warrant: US has made efforts in the past to reduce space weaponization at the UN

Shlein, Lisa. Nuclear Arms Race, Weaponization of Outer Space High on US Disarmament
Agenda | Voice of America - English. 1 Oct. 2020,
https://www.voanews.com/usa/nuclear-arms-race-weaponization-outer-space-
high-us-disarmament-agenda.

Efforts to rein in a potential nuclear arms race and the weaponization of outer space
will be high on the United States agenda at an upcoming United Nations disarmament
meeting. A hybrid meeting of the U.N. General Assembly First Committee, which
deals with disarmament issues, will be held as part of the UNGA session in New York
between October 6 and November 6. Over the last 10 years, the United States
reportedly has been trying to lessen the need for nuclear weapons as part of its
strategic doctrine. U.S. Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva,
Robert Wood, says these efforts have not been matched by Russia and China. If this
continues, he said, the U.S. will have to confront and respond to these two giant
hegemonic, authoritarian powers. “One of the things we are trying to do is to bring not

Champion Briefs 113

Pro Arguments March 2021

only Russia to the table, but also China—to have a tri-lateral arms negotiation, to deal
with not only strategic nuclear weapons, but non-strategic nuclear weapons, new
systems that Russia is developing, because we think this is the direction we are going
in the future,” he said.

Warrant: The US is committed the the Outer Space Treaty

Javitz, Eric. Disarmament Documentation: US Speech on Outer Space, May 28. 28 May
2002, http://www.acronym.org.uk/old/archive/docs/0205/doc17.htm.

Most important, however, is the Outer Space Treaty, to which the United States
remains firmly committed. The Outer Space Treaty puts celestial bodies off limits to all
nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction and prohibits States Parties
from placing in orbit or stationing such weapons in outer space - a far-reaching non-
proliferation measure in itself. It also provides that celestial bodies shall be used
exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits their use for military establishments or
maneuvers, or for testing any type of weapons. In addition, the Outer Space Treaty
clearly establishes that States Parties retain jurisdiction and control over objects they
have launched into outer space, and have international responsibility for national
objects in outer space, including whatever damage the launched item may cause.

Analysis: If the United States does not become more involved in space, other nations will
continue to control the space, and conflict will emerge. If the United States were to invest in a
space force, it could use its power to prevent escalation and enforce regulations put in place by
the OST.

Champion Briefs 114

Pro Arguments March 2021

PRO: Space weapon development can help solve space debris

Argument: For the United States to establish a military presence in space, that would require
the cleanup of space debris.

Warrant: International guidelines require cleaning up space debris left behind

Pultarova, Tereza. “Meet the Space Custodians: Debris Cleanup Plans Emerge.”
Space.Com, 26 Apr. 2017, https://www.space.com/36602-space-junk-cleanup-
concepts.html.

The U.S. Space Surveillance Network currently tracks some 18,000 objects larger than 4
inches (10 centimeters), of which only 1,200 are intact, operational satellites. In addition
to that, there are 750,000 so-called "flying bullets" about 0.4 inches (1 cm) in size and
around 150 million fragments smaller than 1 millimeter. International guidelines
recommend that operators remove spacecraft from low-Earth orbit (LEO) within 25
years from the end of the craft's mission, but only 60 percent of missions actually do
that, Holger Krag, the head of the European Space Agency's (ESA) Space Debris Office,
said during the final presentation at the 7th European Conference on Space Debris. The
conference took place in Darmstadt, Germany, between April 18 and April 21. [Space
Junk Cleanup: 7 Wild Ways to Destroy Orbital Debris]

Warrant: The U.S. would be required to cleanup after any testing or research.

National Academy Press. Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment. 1995. www.nap.edu,

doi:10.17226/4765.

Three articles in the Outer Space Treaty contain language pertinent to orbital debris
issues. Article VI declares, ''States party to this treaty shall bear international

Champion Briefs 115

Pro Arguments March 2021

responsibility for national activities in outer space." Article VII makes states party to the
treaty internationally liable for damage caused by objects (and the component parts of
those objects) that they launch or have launched into space. Finally, Article IX allows
states that have reason to believe that a planned activity or experiment would cause
potentially harmful interference with other space activities to "request consultation"
concerning the activity or experiment. The Liability and Registration Conventions
further explore the liability of states for damage caused by their space objects. The
Liability Convention makes states liable for damage "caused elsewhere than on the
surface of the Earth to a space object of one launching state or to persons or property
on board such a space object of another launching state … only if the damage is due to
its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible." The Registration
Convention seeks to provide information for use in determining liability by mandating
that all launching states notify the UN of any objects they launch and provide the UN
with the objects' orbital parameters. Article VI of the Registration Convention directs
nations with monitoring or tracking facilities to aid in the identification of space objects
that caused damage.

Argument: Space debris removal programs are already beginning

Warrant: The European Space Agency approved a space debris removal program

Staff. ESA Commissions World’s First Space Debris Removal. 12 Sept. 2019,
https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Clean_Space/ESA_commissions_world_s_fi
rst_space_debris_removal.

ClearSpace-1 will be the first space mission to remove an item of debris from orbit,
planned for launch in 2025. The mission is being procured as a service contract with a
startup-led commercial consortium, to help establish a new market for in-orbit
servicing, as well as debris removal. Following a competitive process, a consortium led

Champion Briefs 116

Pro Arguments March 2021

by Swiss startup ClearSpace – a spin-off company established by an experienced team of

space debris researchers based at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
research institute – will be invited to submit their final proposal, before starting the
project next March. “This is the right time for such a mission,” says Luc Piguet, founder
and CEO of ClearSpace. “The space debris issue is more pressing than ever before. Today
we have nearly 2000 live satellites in space and more than 3000 failed ones.

Example: American military tech companies are already working to address this: Raytheon
SpaDE System is working to clear space debris

Adams, Dallon. “Earth Day Space Take: Cleaning up Space Debris around Our Home
Planet.” TechRepublic, 20 Apr. 2020,
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/earth-day-space-take-cleaning-up-space-
debris-around-our-home-planet/.

Raytheon BBN Technologies is focusing its effort on space debris removal around an
entirely different set of deorbiting solutions. As part of the Space Debris Elimination
(SpaDE) system, the company is harnessing the inherent energy of our atmosphere to
alter the path of debris in orbit. The SpaDE system directs bursts of upper atmospheric
gasses directly into the trajectory of a particular piece of debris to increase drag and
expedite the deorbiting process. The company believes this system has multiple
comparative advantages and lacks the inherent risks associated with introducing new
craft into orbit. "With a wide cloud, the precise determination of the debris is not
necessary, and the density of the cloud can be varied so that deorbit time can be
controlled. Also, since we're using gases ejected from the atmosphere, this method does
not introduce potential new space debris. The gas particles dissipate and settle back into
the atmosphere, " said Daniel Gregory, principal investigator for Raytheon BBN
Technologies.

Champion Briefs 117

Pro Arguments March 2021

Analysis: Space debris is a massive issue in the sense that it prevents the launching of new
satellites and makes space travel dangerous in general. If the Untied States is to establish a
military presence in space, that would require a substantial amount of investment in space
debris clearing, something the U.S. would certainly be capable of doing.

Champion Briefs 118

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force trades off with other military functions

Answer: Space Force is cheap

Warrant: Space Force will not cost the government much money

Marcus Weisgerber. “Space Force Actually May Be Bargain, New Cost Estimate Says”
September 2018. Defense One.
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2018/11/space-force-actually-may-be-
bargain-new-cost-estimate-says/152939/

““Most of this is just a simple matter of reorganization and whether or not you think
that’s worth it,” Harrison said Monday. “The added cost is a handful of F-35s or less
than the audit. I don’t think cost actually should be that big of factor in their decision. I
think a bigger factor is whether or not it’s needed.” An Air Force F-35 in fiscal 2020 is
expected to cost about $80 million each. Harrison believes a Space Force would only
cost between $300 million and $550 million per year in additional funds.”

Warrant: Virtually none of the funding is new

Marcus Weisgerber. “Space Force Actually May Be Bargain, New Cost Estimate Says”
September 2018. Defense One.
https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2018/11/space-force-actually-may-be-
bargain-new-cost-estimate-says/152939/

“Harrison compared the costs for small, medium, and large-sized forces. A lesser Space
Corps kept within the Air Force comprised of about 27,300 uniformed military and
civilians would cost about $11.3 billion annually, he said. A “Lite” Space Force — of
about 35,800 military and civilians would cost about $13.4 billion annually. A “Heavy”

Champion Briefs 120

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Space Force of about 48,500 military and civilian workers would cost about $21.5 billion
annually. “Ninety-six percent of the funding in all three options is not new funding, it’s
just transfers from other accounts that already exist in the services,” Harrison said..”

Analysis: This block is significant because it shows that the space force does not actually cost
enough money to trigger the serious tradeoffs discussed by the other side.

Answer: Space Force is a good use of money

Warrant: Setting aside money lets the military protect space investment

Jackson Barnett. “Space Force gets its own ‘werx’ innovation center” FedScoop. Novem-
ber 2020. https://www.fedscoop.com/spacewerx-space-force-air-force-
innovation/

“Despite the lower budget numbers, Harrison said creating a space force will allow
DoD to protect money set aside purely for space. “In this past budget cycle when the
overall funding came down, we saw space funding declining as well,” Harrison said.
“Then, when the budget started growing, space hasn’t grown quite as much in the Air
Force like aviation programs have. If you have a separate service for space it’s going to
be able to grow and decline just like the other overall services and not be
disadvantaged. In that sense, it probably ends up with more funding in the future.””

Warrant: The overall cost is low

Jackson Barnett. “Space Force gets its own ‘werx’ innovation center” FedScoop.
November 2020. https://www.fedscoop.com/spacewerx-space-force-air-force-
innovation/

Champion Briefs 121

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

“As for how much the space force might cost taxpayers per year to operate, Harrison
said the budget would likely be similar to that of the U.S. Coast Guard, at about $11.3
billion to $21.5 billion. A vast majority of that budget would come from the other
military services’ current spending, however. “More than 96 percent of the budget is
transferred from other parts of DoD and would not add to the top-line defense budget,”
the report said. The new funding for the space force is “less than one tenth of a
percent of the total national defense budget.”

Analysis: This response helps judges contextualize how much “bang for the buck” we get from
the space force. It is less than a tenth of the US national defense budget and allows us to
protect a critical area of defense spending. Seems worth it.

Champion Briefs 122

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force hurts the environment

Answer: Space Force is good for the environment

Warrant: Space Force boosts the USFG’s eco capabilities

Peter Garrison. “The Space Force's relevance to the green agenda” September 2018. De-
fense One. https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/517240-the-space-forces-
relevance-to-the-green-agen-
da#:~:text=The%20Space%20Force%20also%20plays,increasingly%20monitor%2
0our%20terrestrial%20environment.

“The Space Force also plays a pivotal role in protecting the space environment itself. It
provides traffic alerts to prevent satellite collisions (and therefore space debris), and it
helps to develop norms of behavior that regulate the space information services which
increasingly monitor our terrestrial environment. Militaries are, of course, concerned
about climate security and human security. Yet their first focus — and the one driving all
of these innovations — is national security. As is the case with most tools and
technology, something built for one purpose ends up being useful for other purposes.
Military space technology has and will continue to advance the security of Earth’s
climate and biosphere. It can also help the United States to secure a better, and
greener, future..”

Warrant: Space Force can build out space based solar capabilities

Peter Garrison. “The Space Force's relevance to the green agenda” September 2018.
Defense One. https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/517240-the-space-forces-
relevance-to-the-green-

Champion Briefs 123

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

agenda#:~:text=The%20Space%20Force%20also%20plays,increasingly%20monit
or%20our%20terrestrial%20environment.

“But the service is also doing more in this domain. The USSF, for instance, is taking the
lead on what will become the ultimate green energy technology: space-based solar
power. Ignored for decades by both NASA and the Department of Energy, space-based
solar power is unique as a renewable energy source because it is far more efficient
than its terrestrial counterpart and requires much less land. Moreover, its vast
availability would allow a mature system to meet current global demand many times
over.”

Analysis: This block is strong because it shows how the space force can actually help with the
climate by building out net new environmental capabilities.

Answer: Space exploration is important for solving climate change

Warrant: New green tech can be discovered from space research

Jackson Barnett. “Space Force gets its own ‘werx’ innovation center” FedScoop. Novem-
ber 2020. https://www.fedscoop.com/spacewerx-space-force-air-force-
innovation/

“Spaceflight, however, has the potential to be more than just a planetary escape hatch
for eccentric billionaires. Whether in today’s Earth-orbiting spacecraft or the outposts
that may someday be built on the moon and Mars, to exist beyond Earth, we must
somehow replicate all of our planet’s life-giving essentials off-world. Technologies
that recycle practically everything—that make water, air and food as renewable and
self-sustaining as possible—are essential for current and future human spaceflight.”

Champion Briefs 124

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Warrant: Space has already resulted in many successful innovations

Jackson Barnett. “Space Force gets its own ‘werx’ innovation center” FedScoop.
November 2020. https://www.fedscoop.com/spacewerx-space-force-air-force-
innovation/

“Technology transfer from space-related R&D, Anderson says, has sparked significant
innovations not only in eco-friendly products but also in the broader fields of
transportation, health care and communications. The problem is that space agencies
are not effectively communicating such success stories to the general public. “Space
companies are notoriously bad at talking about what they are doing,” Anderson says.”

Analysis: This is a turn. One the macro level it is better for us to invest in the space force
because doing so may yield innovations which address the root cause of climate change.

Champion Briefs 125

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force is bad for the economy

Answer: Space Force is cheap

Warrant: Most of the funds are just reorganizations

Marcus Weisgerber. “Space Force Actually May Be Bargain, New Cost Estimate Says”
September 2018. Defense One.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9657.html

“The estimate from Washington’s resident defense spending guru Todd Harrison of the
Center for Strategic and International Studies argues that creating a Space Force, large
or small, amounts to nothing more than a reorganization in which money would be
transferred out of the Air Force, Army and Navy into the new military service.
Harrison’s estimates assume a version of Space Force smaller than what the U.S. Air
Force has proposed, which includes several additional agencies, and closer to what the
Pentagon’s Office of the Secretary of Defense is seeking.“Most of this is just a simple
matter of reorganization and whether or not you think that’s worth it,” Harrison said
Monday. “The added cost is a handful of F-35s or less than the audit. I don’t think cost
actually should be that big of factor in their decision. I think a bigger factor is whether or
not it’s needed.”

Warrant: Costs will be low

Marcus Weisgerber. “Space Force Actually May Be Bargain, New Cost Estimate Says”
September 2018. Defense One.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9657.html

Champion Briefs 126

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

“Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, who is overseeing the creation of the
Space Force, said last week at the Pentagon that it would cost “single digit, not a
double-digit” billions of dollars to create the new branch. “It might be lower than $5”
billion, Shanahan said. Harrison said his estimate lines up with the defense secretary’s,
but wants to see more than estimates. “One of the golden rules in budget analysis is
never rely on budget data that is presented orally,” Harrison said. “Until he’s written it
down, we don’t really know for sure what he meant.”

Analysis: This block is a delink which makes the argument that most of the costs are inflated.
Use this block to easily outweigh your opponent’s argument.

Answer: Space Force will grow the economy

Warrant: Space Force has programs to catalyze private sector innovation

Jackson Barnett. “Space Force gets its own ‘werx’ innovation center” FedScoop. Novem-
ber 2020. https://www.fedscoop.com/spacewerx-space-force-air-force-
innovation/

“The year-old Space Force will have its own rapid acquisition center to work with
private sector companies to field new technology for military applications, Air Force
leaders say. The new unit, dubbed SpaceWERX, will field commercial technology into
Space Force’s growing tech portfolio, as the AFWERX program does for the Air Force.
It’s fitting Space Force will get its own “werx” unit, since it will rely heavily on
commercial technology to carry out its mission, says Will Roper, head of acquisition,
technology and logistics for the Department of the Air Force which houses Space Force.”

Warrant: Space Force members will be especially trained to foster innovation

Champion Briefs 127

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Jackson Barnett. “Space Force gets its own ‘werx’ innovation center” FedScoop.
November 2020. https://www.fedscoop.com/spacewerx-space-force-air-force-
innovation/

“The Los Angeles Air Force Base is also home to the Space and Missile Systems Center
(SMC) and the Space Force’s DevSecOps coding unit Kobayashi Maru. Space Force has
hosted Pitch Day events in the past that have given private, often small companies
access to quick contracts and Roper said that SpaceWERX will offer more opportunities
year round. Los Angeles has a long history of aeronautics companies, and is home to
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “We really should have done this years ago, because
your team of rockstars have done amazing work in commercial innovation in space,”
Roper said during the AFWERX event while speaking with Lt. Gen. JT Thompson, who
runs SMC. As the newest military branch, Space Force has placed emphasis on “digital
fluency” in its ranks, requiring new recruits and transitioning officers to take online
courses in coding and other technology basics. That fluency is needed since so much of
their work will be based in ever-changing technology systems, leaders have said. With
SpaceWERX, the services hopes to see even more emerging technology come through
the doors..””

Analysis: This is a disadvantage. Even if the space force costs a lot of money, it generates
innovation which is the bedrock of economic growth. Use examples such as DARPA and the
Manhattan project to convince your judge that Federal innovation matters.

Champion Briefs 128

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force escalates tensions with Russia

Answer: Russia wants conflict

Warrant: Russia is a revisionist power

James Dobbins. “What’s the Potential for Conflict with China, and How Can It Be
Avoided?” September 2020. RAND.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9657.html

“The China-Russia relationship has become an increasingly robust, pragmatic strategic

partnership since 2014, in part because the United States is pursuing policies that have
driven the two countries closer together. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are
both authoritarian leaders whose primary preoccupation is regime survival and who
are allergic to Western criticisms of their domestic systems and the repressive policies
of their respective governments. China and Russia are revisionist powers in as much as
they share a commitment to creating a “post-West” global order which takes their
interests into account and is conducive to authoritarian rule..”

Warrant: Russia is helping China fight the US

James Dobbins. “What’s the Potential for Conflict with China, and How Can It Be
Avoided?” September 2020. RAND.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9657.html

“Since Russia’s 2014 seizure and annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and the West’s
subsequent attempts to isolate Russia, Putin has increasingly turned to China, which
has enabled Russia to surmount the isolation and flourish on the world stage. Sino-
Russian economic and energy ties are expanding. China is economically more

Champion Briefs 129

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

important to Russia than vice versa and is Russia’s number one trading partner and the
second-largest purchaser of Russian military hardware. The new Power of Siberia gas
pipeline will increase their energy interdependence. Sino-Russian cooperation in the
military and high-tech fields is also growing. Their joint military exercises and air
patrols, as well as joint work on artificial intelligence and biotechnology pose
challenges to the United States.”

Analysis: This block challenges the assumption of your opponent’s argument that Russia is a
power which the US can collaborate it. Show the judge that this is fundamentally untrue
because Russia is a revisionist power.

Answer: Space Force is needed to balance against Russian aggression

Warrant: Russia is already behaving dangerously in space

Sandra Erwin. “U.S. Space Force unveils doctrine explaining its role in national security”
Space News. November 2017. https://spacenews.com/u-s-space-force-unveils-
doctrine-explaining-its-role-in-national-security/

“Russia conducted a weapons test using one of its satellites earlier this week, the U.S.
Space Force's top officer says, an allegation that if true would represent a troubling
escalation of space-based warfare at a time of increased attention on the new
prospective battleground. Gen. John "Jay" Raymond said in a statement Thursday that
Russia had conducted a "non-destructive test of a space-based anti-satellite weapon."
The Space Force had expressed concerns about this same satellite system earlier this
year.”

Warrant: Russia is generally militarizing space and the US needs to respond

Champion Briefs 130

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Sandra Erwin. “U.S. Space Force unveils doctrine explaining its role in national security”
Space News. November 2017. https://spacenews.com/u-s-space-force-unveils-
doctrine-explaining-its-role-in-national-security/

“Space Force in April slammed Russia for conducting a test of ground-based missiles it
said could be capable of destroying American satellites in low-earth orbit. Raymond
said at the time that the test "is further proof of Russia's hypocritical advocacy of outer
space arms control proposals designed to restrict the capabilities of the United States
while clearly having no intention of halting their counter-space weapons programs." In a
press release on Thursday that included Raymond's latest remarks, Space Force said
that last week's test "is another example that the threats to U.S. and allied space
systems are real, serious, and increasing," and highlights what it considers the
importance of having created the Space Force..””

Analysis: This block is persuasive because you can make the case that the US space force is the
key to keeping Russia in check. Even if Russia is not attacking the US now, they are clearly
building the capabilities to do so.

Champion Briefs 131

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force escalates tensions with China

Answer: China wants conflict

Warrant: China is a revisionist power in East Asia

James Dobbins. “What’s the Potential for Conflict with China, and How Can It Be
Avoided?” September 2020. RAND.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9657.html

“Conflicts in the region involving nations other than China are more likely. Possible
conflicts might arise on its periphery involving Korea, Taiwan, one or more countries
of Southeast Asia, or India, roughly in that descending order of probability. These
more likely conflicts will be with opponents quite different from China and will call for
capabilities quite dissimilar from those required to deal with a real peer competitor.
Individually, these contingencies will be less consequential than a conflict with China,
but collectively they will shape the international environment in which both countries
interact and fundamentally influence Chinese perceptions of U.S. power and resolve.”

Warrant: China could initiate cyber conflict

James Dobbins. “What’s the Potential for Conflict with China, and How Can It Be
Avoided?” September 2020. RAND.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9657.html

“A U.S.-China conflict might also break out in—and perhaps be confined to—
cyberspace. Cyber war might be an overture to armed hostilities, or the conflict could
remain there. Escalation within cyberspace could take the form of efforts to penetrate
sensitive networks such as intelligence. If warning networks were breached, the United

Champion Briefs 132

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

States might retaliate against networks that affect Chinese trade, which could lead to
escalatory attacks such as "soft kill" of satellites.”

Analysis: This block delinks your opponent’s assumption that China is a cooperative power. If
China is aggressive then the best strategy is to pursue defensive balancing.

Answer: Space Force is not aggressive

Warrant: Space Force exists to deter conflict

Sandra Erwin. “U.S. Space Force unveils doctrine explaining its role in national security”
Space News. November 2017. https://spacenews.com/u-s-space-force-unveils-
doctrine-explaining-its-role-in-national-security/

“Raymond, who also serves as commander of U.S. Space Command, insists that the
United States wants space to remain a peaceful environment. “Our goal is not to get
into a conflict, we want to deter it,” he said. “But if deterrence were to fail, then we
need to protect our ability to conduct the joint and coalition fight.” Raymond
described the capstone document as the “foundation of our professional body of
knowledge as we forge an independent military service committed to space
operations.”

Warrant: Space Force serves many nonmilitary ends

Sandra Erwin. “U.S. Space Force unveils doctrine explaining its role in national security”
Space News. November 2017. https://spacenews.com/u-s-space-force-unveils-
doctrine-explaining-its-role-in-national-security/

Champion Briefs 133

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

“The document also makes a point that access and control of space is not just a
military concern but a national one due to the role of space in the global economy and
the world’s increasing dependence on space for critical products and services. “Space
is simultaneously a source and conduit through which a nation can generate and apply
diplomatic, informational, military and economic power,” the Space Force document
says. “The United States must cultivate, develop and advance spacepower in order to
ensure national prosperity and security.”

Military space forces, the document says, have a duty to “preserve that prosperity and
security.””

Analysis: This block attacks the link of the argument that the Space Force is aggressive. Clearly,
the space force serves many civilian ends and exists to respond to and deter conflict, not
aggress.

Champion Briefs 134

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force protects military logistics

Answer: The space force will hinder our Military’s ability to respond

Warrant: Space Force hinders joint operations

Loren Thompson. “Ten Ways A Space Force Will Make America Weaker” October 2020.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/08/27/ten-ways-a-
space-force-will-make-america-weaker/?sh=4377431a34b0

“It will create new barriers to joint force integration. Organizations have boundaries
that get in the way of cooperating with other organizations -- particularly when they
are competing for missions and resources. One reason the 9-11 attacks succeeded was
that intelligence and law enforcement agencies did not share information because
they were protecting their bureaucratic turf. A great deal of effort has been invested in
tearing down those walls. But standing up a Space Force would create new barriers to
cooperation.”

Warrant: Space Force will be hampered by a small budget

Loren Thompson. “Ten Ways A Space Force Will Make America Weaker” October 2020.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/08/27/ten-ways-a-
space-force-will-make-america-weaker/?sh=4377431a34b0

“It will lack the resources to be a co-equal service. President Trump says he wants the
Space Force to be "separate but equal" with the Air Force. But the entire space
workforce in the defense department and intelligence community -- 27,500 people
according to Sandra Erwin of Space News -- represents less than 1% of the personnel
employed by the Pentagon. The budget for all national security space activities totals

Champion Briefs 135

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

less than two days’ worth of federal spending per year. So a Space Force will not be
"separate but equal" with other services.”

Analysis: This block is a disadvantage. Sure, space is important. But the space force is ill
equipped to handle the defense of it and will trade off with other important resources.

Answer: The Space Force will not be effective at protecting logistics

Warrant: Historical attempts at space command have failed

Bryan Nakayama. “3 Reasons Trump’s New Space Force Would Be a Disaster” Fortune
Magazine. November 2017. https://fortune.com/2018/06/21/trump-space-
force-bad-idea/

“The United States Space Command, which existed from 1985 to 2002, only
consolidated its control over military space programs in the mid-1990s due to
bureaucratic infighting. This meant, for example, that the Command was unable to
quickly update its doctrine or operational plans until the late 1990s. The creation of a
Space Force would reproduce the same tensions and more because of the scale of
organizational change. It would undermine the effectiveness of military space
operations and lead to a loss of the flexibility necessary for a rapidly changing world.”

Warrant: The US should spend money on other things

Bryan Nakayama. “3 Reasons Trump’s New Space Force Would Be a Disaster” Fortune
Magazine. November 2017. https://fortune.com/2018/06/21/trump-space-
force-bad-idea/

Champion Briefs 136

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

“What’s more, President Trump’s proposed Space Force could undermine the status of
space as a place of exploration and cooperation. Powerful states develop military
systems in a tit-for-tat fashion, and a Space Force would trigger a response from other
space-faring nations, potentially leading to the weaponization of space. Space
cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War
served as a crucial pressure release valve in times of high tensions.”

Analysis: This block clearly shows that there are significant disadvantages to creating a space
force. There is no reason to do it if it will not achieve its objectives and has negative spillovers.

Champion Briefs 137

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space weapons create collateral damage

Answer: Space debris removal programs are already beginning

Warrant: The European Space Agency approved a space debris removal program

Staff. ESA Commissions World’s First Space Debris Removal. 12 Sept. 2019,
https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Clean_Space/ESA_commissions_world_s_fi
rst_space_debris_removal.

ClearSpace-1 will be the first space mission to remove an item of debris from orbit,
planned for launch in 2025. The mission is being procured as a service contract with a
startup-led commercial consortium, to help establish a new market for in-orbit
servicing, as well as debris removal. Following a competitive process, a consortium led
by Swiss startup ClearSpace – a spin-off company established by an experienced team of
space debris researchers based at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
research institute – will be invited to submit their final proposal, before starting the
project next March. “This is the right time for such a mission,” says Luc Piguet, founder
and CEO of ClearSpace. “The space debris issue is more pressing than ever before. Today
we have nearly 2000 live satellites in space and more than 3000 failed ones.

Warrant: Raytheon SpaDE System is working to clear space debris

Adams, Dallon. “Earth Day Space Take: Cleaning up Space Debris around Our Home
Planet.” TechRepublic, 20 Apr. 2020,
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/earth-day-space-take-cleaning-up-space-
debris-around-our-home-planet/.

Champion Briefs 138

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Raytheon BBN Technologies is focusing its effort on space debris removal around an
entirely different set of deorbiting solutions. As part of the Space Debris Elimination
(SpaDE) system, the company is harnessing the inherent energy of our atmosphere to
alter the path of debris in orbit. The SpaDE system directs bursts of upper atmospheric
gasses directly into the trajectory of a particular piece of debris to increase drag and
expedite the deorbiting process. The company believes this system has multiple
comparative advantages and lacks the inherent risks associated with introducing new
craft into orbit. "With a wide cloud, the precise determination of the debris is not
necessary, and the density of the cloud can be varied so that deorbit time can be
controlled. Also, since we're using gases ejected from the atmosphere, this method does
not introduce potential new space debris. The gas particles dissipate and settle back into
the atmosphere, " said Daniel Gregory, principal investigator for Raytheon BBN
Technologies.

Analysis: This is a good response because it shows that the impact of space debris is only short
term. In the long term, we will be able to clean it up. This means that the impact of the con’s
argument is significantly mitigated and easy to outweigh.

Answer: Space regulations require the removal of space debris

Warrant: International guidelines require cleaning up space debris left behind

Pultarova, Tereza. “Meet the Space Custodians: Debris Cleanup Plans Emerge.”
Space.Com, 26 Apr. 2017, https://www.space.com/36602-space-junk-cleanup-
concepts.html.

The U.S. Space Surveillance Network currently tracks some 18,000 objects larger than 4
inches (10 centimeters), of which only 1,200 are intact, operational satellites. In addition
to that, there are 750,000 so-called "flying bullets" about 0.4 inches (1 cm) in size and

Champion Briefs 139

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

around 150 million fragments smaller than 1 millimeter. International guidelines

recommend that operators remove spacecraft from low-Earth orbit (LEO) within 25
years from the end of the craft's mission, but only 60 percent of missions actually do
that, Holger Krag, the head of the European Space Agency's (ESA) Space Debris Office,
said during the final presentation at the 7th European Conference on Space Debris. The
conference took place in Darmstadt, Germany, between April 18 and April 21. [Space
Junk Cleanup: 7 Wild Ways to Destroy Orbital Debris]

Warrant: UN regulations require consultation before harming space activities

National Academy Press. Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment. 1995. www.nap.edu,

doi:10.17226/4765.

Three articles in the Outer Space Treaty contain language pertinent to orbital debris
issues. Article VI declares, ''States party to this treaty shall bear international
responsibility for national activities in outer space." Article VII makes states party to the
treaty internationally liable for damage caused by objects (and the component parts of
those objects) that they launch or have launched into space. Finally, Article IX allows
states that have reason to believe that a planned activity or experiment would cause
potentially harmful interference with other space activities to "request consultation"
concerning the activity or experiment. The Liability and Registration Conventions
further explore the liability of states for damage caused by their space objects. The
Liability Convention makes states liable for damage "caused elsewhere than on the
surface of the Earth to a space object of one launching state or to persons or property
on board such a space object of another launching state … only if the damage is due to
its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible." The Registration
Convention seeks to provide information for use in determining liability by mandating
that all launching states notify the UN of any objects they launch and provide the UN
with the objects' orbital parameters. Article VI of the Registration Convention directs

Champion Briefs 140

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

nations with monitoring or tracking facilities to aid in the identification of space objects
that caused damage.

Analysis: This is a good response because it shows that if space debris is made, there is a high
chance that the perpetrator would comply with international law and clean it up. This means
that there is a low likelihood that this impact would last very long. This significantly mitigates
the con’s argument.

Champion Briefs 141

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space weapons are too expensive

Answer: Space Force will be a lean, inexpensive machine

Warrant: Current efforts aim to reduce bureaucracy

Lopez, Todd. “Space Force Chief: U.S. Doesn.” U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 15 Sept.
2020, https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2348614/space-
force-chief-us-doesnt-want-war-in-space-must-be-prepared-for-it/.

To plan for warfare at the speeds and distances required to operate in space, the Space
Force must be lean, agile and fast. The new military service has been working on all of
those things since it stood up in December, Raymond said. A big part of the leaning
effort, he said, is the reduction of bureaucracy. "Since establishment, we've been in
the business of slashing bureaucracy, delegating authority and enhancing
accountability at every crossroad," Raymond said. "My opinion: big organizations are
slow. We must move at speed to outpace the threats that we face.” The general said
the Space Force, in an effort to reduce bureaucracy, implemented a large-scale
reorganization that involved removing two echelons of command, including a
numbered Air Force and an O-6-level command. "We've also reduced the size of our
planned staff at the Pentagon," Raymond said. "Back when we started, the Pentagon
staff was going to be over 1,000 people. That was the initial plan. We've slashed that by
40%. We're shortening the distance between decision makers and you, the experts,
conducting our mission."

Warrant: How money is spent matters more than how much money is spent on the military

O’Hanlon, James N. Miller and Michael E. “Quality over Quantity: U.S. Military Strategy
and Spending in the Trump Years.” Brookings, 2 Jan. 2019,

Champion Briefs 142

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

https://www.brookings.edu/research/quality-over-quantity-u-s-military-
strategy-and-spending-in-the-trump-years/.

The U.S. armed forces need to innovate and invest in breakthrough capabilities, and to
improve immediate readiness, but they can do so at their current overall size.
Investing in modernization and readiness rather than growth, paired with more clever
and efficient management of the military, can allow today’s U.S. military of roughly
1.3 million active-duty troops, just over 900,000 reservists, and almost 750,000 full-
time civilians to do the job. By giving up most plans for expansion, the military
services can ensure that modernization and readiness get the resources they crucially
require. There is a case for $733 billion in 2020, to be sure—and there is no case at all
for cutting below $700 billion, as would happen if the existing provisions of the 2011
Budget Control Act again kicked in (that legislation lasts through 2021 before expiring).
But how money is spent matters more than how much money is spent on defense.

Analysis: This is a good response because it shows that the expenses will not be excessive.
Compared to other parts of the military, US expenditure on space weaponry will be efficient
and unwasteful. This response can thus significantly mitigate the con’s impact.

Answer: The US already spends billions on the military

Warrant: The US spends more than the next ten countries combined

Staff. “The United States Spends More on Defense than the Next 10 Countries
Combined.” Peter G Foundation, 15 May 2020,
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2020/05/the-united-states-spends-more-on-
defense-than-the-next-10-countries-combined.

Champion Briefs 143

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) recently released an

update to its military expenditure database, which shows that the United States
spends considerably more on defense than any other country in the world. The
database reported that in 2019, the United States spent $732 billion on national
defense, which was more than the next 10 countries combined. U.S. defense spending
increased substantially from 2018 to 2019 relative to other countries. In 2018, the
United States spent more than the next eight countries combined. In 2019, that number
increased to 10 mainly because U.S. spending increased by $49 billion and spending by
Saudi Arabia decreased by $13 billion. Those two changes combined to create enough
room for two new countries — South Korea and Brazil — to enter the comparison.

Warrant: The US spends hundreds of billions on defense

Collins, Patrick. “Why Does the US Spend So Much on Defense?” Defense One, 26 Jan.
2020, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/01/why-does-us-spend-so-
much-defense/162657/.

Yes, the United States spends a lot on defense. Probably even more than you think. In
fiscal 2019, the Defense Department’s budget, plus money appropriated for nominally
unanticipated operational expenses, was $686 billion. A DOD chart shows that amount
as part of a trend of generally rising budgets since the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, with some reductions after drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan began. To put
U.S. military spending in context, it is useful to compare what it spends to that of others.
In fiscal 2018, the Defense Department’s budget of $649 billion — not even counting the
contingency fund — was larger than the combined spending of the next seven largest
militaries: $609 billion (China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, UK, Germany).

Champion Briefs 144

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Analysis: This is a good response because it effectively mitigates the con’s impact. The US
already spends more on its military than any other country in the world. This means that any
increase in spending would amount to nothing more than a drop in the bucket.

Champion Briefs 145

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force will create a space weapons arms race

Answer: Other nations will develop space weapons either way

Warrant: China would have developed space weapons anyway

Manson, Katrina, and Christian Shepherd. US Military Officials Eye New Generation of
Space Weapons. Financial Times. 2 Sept. 2020,
https://www.ft.com/content/d44aa332-f564-4b4a-89b7-1685e4579e72.

Jana Robinson, who leads space security at the Prague Security Studies Institute, said
China had assisted 60 countries with 125 space transactions to date. She characterised
such assistance, which often involved large-scale financing, as an attempt to expand
China’s global space footprint and “capture” the space sector for geopolitical ends by
inducing dependency or even control over the space sectors of recipient countries.
Wang Yiwei, an international relations scholar at Renmin University in Beijing, said
China’s development of BeiDou was a natural step for a country of its size and should
not be seen as part of a space arms race.

Warrant: Space arms race is inevitable

Blatt, Talia. “Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Emerging Space Arms Race.” Harvard
International Review, 26 May 2020, https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-
weapons-and-the-emerging-space-arms-race/.

There are two conflicting views on how the US could mitigate the worst effects of an
ASAT arms race. The first, put forward by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld in
2001, is fairly simple: Space militarization is inevitable, and the United States will have
to rely on superior capabilities to prevent conflict—essentially, end the arms race by

Champion Briefs 146

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

winning it. This is classic escalation dominance theory: the idea that sustainable
deterrence can be created when a nation escalates conflict to a level greater than
their adversary can match. However, the nature of an arms race makes escalatory
advantages inherently ephemeral, and the advances Russia and China have made since
Rumsfeld’s 2001 report suggest that relying on US space superiority might be a poor
strategy. Even if it were possible, attaining escalation dominance would require near
constant weapons testing, which produces more debris.

Analysis: This is a good response because it renders the entire argument nonunique. If
countries are going to develop space weapon arsenals with or without Space Force, then Space
Force plays no role in the proliferation of space weapons. This means that it is impossible for
the judge to vote for the con on this argument.

Answer: The United States is actively trying to reduce proliferation

Warrant: US has made efforts in the past to reduce space weaponization at the UN

Shlein, Lisa. Nuclear Arms Race, Weaponization of Outer Space High on US Disarmament
Agenda | Voice of America - English. 1 Oct. 2020,
https://www.voanews.com/usa/nuclear-arms-race-weaponization-outer-space-
high-us-disarmament-agenda.

Efforts to rein in a potential nuclear arms race and the weaponization of outer space
will be high on the United States agenda at an upcoming United Nations disarmament
meeting. A hybrid meeting of the U.N. General Assembly First Committee, which
deals with disarmament issues, will be held as part of the UNGA session in New York
between October 6 and November 6. Over the last 10 years, the United States
reportedly has been trying to lessen the need for nuclear weapons as part of its
strategic doctrine. U.S. Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva,

Champion Briefs 147

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Robert Wood, says these efforts have not been matched by Russia and China. If this
continues, he said, the U.S. will have to confront and respond to these two giant
hegemonic, authoritarian powers. “One of the things we are trying to do is to bring not
only Russia to the table, but also China—to have a tri-lateral arms negotiation, to deal
with not only strategic nuclear weapons, but non-strategic nuclear weapons, new
systems that Russia is developing, because we think this is the direction we are going
in the future,” he said.

Warrant: The US is committed the the Outer Space Treaty

Javitz, Eric. Disarmament Documentation: US Speech on Outer Space, May 28. 28 May
2002, http://www.acronym.org.uk/old/archive/docs/0205/doc17.htm.

Most important, however, is the Outer Space Treaty, to which the United States
remains firmly committed. The Outer Space Treaty puts celestial bodies off limits to all
nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction and prohibits States Parties
from placing in orbit or stationing such weapons in outer space - a far-reaching non-
proliferation measure in itself. It also provides that celestial bodies shall be used
exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits their use for military establishments or
maneuvers, or for testing any type of weapons. In addition, the Outer Space Treaty
clearly establishes that States Parties retain jurisdiction and control over objects they
have launched into outer space, and have international responsibility for national
objects in outer space, including whatever damage the launched item may cause.

Analysis: This is a good response because it shows that the United States could itself mitigate
whatever risks of an arms race might come. This potentially mitigates the con’s impact by
showing that even if the incentive to get more arms increases, the US might be able to stop our
adversaries from doing so. This takes out the con’s impact.

Champion Briefs 148

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space weapons have a high chance of miscalculation

Answer: Conventional MAD is more likely to bring miscalculation

Warrant: Opting for MAD instead of space weapons increases odds of miscalculation

Pry, Peter. Have Russia And China Already “Militarized” Space? | RealClearDefense. 16
July 2020,
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2020/07/16/have_russia_and_china
_already_militarized_space_115469-full.html.

Another big problem with banking on MAD instead of SANE and space-based defenses
to deter World War III is that “strategic stability” is not what it used to be, as during
the bipolar Cold War between the U.S. and USSR. Russia, China, North Korea, and
soon (if not already) Iran comprise a more complex and aggressive multi-polar
constellation of nuclear powers. The possibilities for nuclear war by design or
miscalculation have increased exponentially. Finally, it could be a fatal mistake for the
U.S. to forego SANE’s “Star Wars” and continue relying on MAD’s “Dr. Strangelove”
trusting that China, Russia, and perhaps others have not already “militarized” space with
aggressive clandestine programs designed to sweep the skies of U.S. satellites, and
thereby win the next war at the outset. Indeed, given China and Russia's contempt for
international norms and noncompliance with treaties, it is likely norms and treaties are
no significant obstacles to their clandestine militarization of space.

Warrant: SANE can replace MAD, reducing miscalculation risks

Pry, Vincent. “Time to Replace Mutual Assured Nuclear Destruction with a Shield of
Space-Based Defenses.” The Washington Times, 14 Dec. 2020,

Champion Briefs 149

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/14/time-to-replace-mutual-
assured-nuclear-destruction/.

Space-based defenses could work a new revolution in military affairs: making nuclear
missiles obsolete; canceling the powerful technological advantages and incentives that
presently favor nuclear blackmail and aggression, striking first, and surprise attack;
and inaugurating a much safer, more stable era dominated by strategic defenses. The
long nuclear nightmare called mutual assured destruction (MAD) could be replaced
with the shield of space-based defenses and a new strategic principle — strategic
assured national existence (SANE). SANE would replace the “mutual hostage
relationship” of MAD, that threatens destruction of populations, with intercepting the
mass destruction weapons that threaten life. SANE and space-based weapons to
implement this defensive strategy is consistent with the ethos of democracies and
Judeo-Christian “just war” principles, and so should be more popular and politically
sustainable than the offensive nuclear capabilities necessary to underwrite MAD.

Analysis: This is a good response because it turns the con’s argument into a reason to vote for
the pro. Since space weapons have a lower chance of miscalculation than other weapons, this
means that having more space weapons reduces the risk of miscalculation overall.

Answer: Miscalculation has never occurred

Warrant: Miscalculation has never resulted in nuclear war

Staff. “Nuclear Miscalculation.” The William J. Perry Project, 2020,

https://www.wjperryproject.org/nuclear-miscalculation.

While miscalculation has never resulted in a nuclear launch, it has resulted in several
extremely close calls. In 1983, Russian satellite nuclear warning systems detected the

Champion Briefs 150

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

launch of five U.S. nuclear missiles at Russia. At the time, there was no identifiable
system failure. Were it not for the actions of a skeptical Lt. Colonel who independently
reported the event to military leadership as a false alarm, it’s likely that a launch would
have occurred.

Warrant: Accurate surveillance technology makes miscalculation unlikely

Hersmann, Rebecca. “When Is More Actually Less? Situational Awareness and Nuclear
Risks.” War on the Rocks, 2 Aug. 2019,
https://warontherocks.com/2019/08/when-is-more-actually-less-situational-
awareness-and-nuclear-risks/.

For most of the nuclear age, enhanced strategic situational awareness — the ability to
characterize the operating environment, detect nuclear and conventional strategic
attacks, and discern real attacks from false alarms — has been viewed as beneficial to
crisis stability. By improving the accuracy and timeliness of warning, increasing
visibility and clarity regarding adversary actions, and extending decision time in crisis,
enhanced situational awareness reduces the risk of miscalculation at the nuclear level
and alleviates use-or-lose pressures that could incentivize a nuclear first strike.
Moreover, the systems that traditionally provided this strategic warning operated at
long range, from outside of adversary territories, and generally in ways that were not
particularly concerning to an adversary. Today, existing and emerging technology
offers the prospect of insight into adversary actions and activities with unprecedented
speed and precision. The combination of new sensor technologies, platforms for their
deployment, high-bandwidth networks, and artificial intelligence (AI) tools is
transforming the potential field of view at the conventional and strategic levels of
conflict.

Champion Briefs 151

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Analysis: This is a good response because it severely mitigates the con’s impact. Even if a
miscalculation would be devastating, there are exceedingly low odds that it would ever happen.
The proof of this is the fact that nuclear miscalculation has never occurred, so it would be
reasonable to think space weapon miscalculation would not occur either.

Champion Briefs 152

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space weapons have no international regulations

Answer: The UN has made efforts to regulate space weapons

Warrant: The UN Space Disarmament Commission is working to create regulations

OConnor, Sarah. We’re All Losers in the Space Arms Race . 21 May 2020,
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2020/05/21/were_all_losers_in_the
_space_arms_race_115310-full.html.

For its 2018–2020 cycle, the UN Disarmament Commission’s Outer Space Working
Group will prepare a set of recommendations to promote the practical
implementation of transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space
activities. While such measures are a step in the right direction, they should not be
viewed as a panacea. More needs to be done to ensure space remains accessible and
operational for both military and civilian purposes. Space as a battlefield is not
inevitable, but “you can work yourself into it”, cautions Joan Johnson-Freese. So far,
only France and the U.S. have officially recognised the prospect of armed conflict in
outer space, but the limited constraints on behaviour have given countries such as
Russia, China and India the scope to continue to develop and test their counterspace
capabilities.

Warrant: The UN has gathered delegates to discuss space weapon safety

UN. Raising Alarm over Possible Space Wars, First Committee Delegates Explore Ways to
Build New Order for Preventing Celestial Conflict, Confrontation | Meetings
Coverage and Press Releases. 24 Oct. 2018,
https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/gadis3609.doc.htm.

Champion Briefs 153

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

To prevent outer space from becoming another military battlefield, delegates today
explored ways to establish a rules-based order to securely govern that sphere, which
they called “a common asset for humanity”, as the First Committee (Disarmament and
International Security) continued its work. “Taking into consideration the extreme
fragility and volatility of the outer space environment,” Egypt’s representative said, “it
must not be allowed to turn into another battlefield or a scene for military conflicts
that could have catastrophic implications.” Echoing the views expressed by the Arab
Group, African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, he stressed that outer space is a
shared heritage owned equally by all the peoples of the world and a common asset for
humanity. Therefore, there is a clear need for a legally binding instrument to prevent an
arms race and fill existing legal gaps. Such an instrument should have a comprehensive
scope that includes four prohibitions: the placement of any weapons, defensive or
offensive; armed attacks against satellites or any outer space assets; intentional,
harmful interference that interrupts the normal functioning of such assets; and
developing, testing and stockpiling weapons designed to attack outer space assets.

Analysis: This is a good response because it shows that efforts are currently under way in
international organizations to regulate space weapons. This means that the impact is at best
short term since there will soon be regulations to stop conflict.

Answer: There are unilateral efforts to reduce space proliferation

Warrant: Russia has called for space disarmament

Lauder, John, et al. How to Avoid a Space Arms Race. Rand Corporation.26 Oct. 2020,
https://www.rand.org/blog/2020/10/how-to-avoid-a-space-arms-race.html.

On September 22, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed that leading space
powers agree to prohibit the “stationing” of weapons in space and the “threat or use

Champion Briefs 154

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

of force” against space objects. There's hardly anything new in Putin's pronouncement.
As far back as 1985, the USSR called for a ban on “space strike weapons.” Moscow has
sounded variations on the same theme, often aided and abetted by China, ever since.
Both nations share a common desire to curb the U.S. technological prowess in
developing advanced space capabilities, especially those that might be applied to
missile defense or anti-satellite operations. Ironically, both Russia and China are
actively developing and testing a variety of technical approaches to threaten U.S. and
allied space assets in the event of a crisis or conflict. Twice this year, Russia has tested
different systems capable of destroying U.S. satellites.

Warrant: PAROS treaty aims to stop space proliferation

Nuclear Threat Initiative Staff. Proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Space (PAROS)
Treaty | Treaties & Regimes | NTI. 23 Apr. 2020,
https://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-
race-space-paros-treaty/.

Under the draft treaty submitted to the CD by Russia in 2008, State Parties would
commit to refrain from placing objects carrying any type of weapon into orbit,
installing weapons on celestial bodies, and threatening to use force against objects in
outer space. State Parties would also agree to practice agreed confidence-building
measures. A PAROS treaty would complement and reaffirm the importance of the
1967 Outer Space Treaty, which aims to preserve space for peaceful uses by prohibiting
the use of space weapons, the development of space-weapon technology, and
technology related to “missile defense.” The treaty would prevent any nation from
gaining a military advantage in outer space.

Champion Briefs 155

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Analysis: This is a good response because it shows that individual states are taking important
measures on their own to stop unsafe activities in space. This could indicate that international
regulations are not necessary if states are taking these precautions on their own.

Champion Briefs 156

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force will increase quality and threat of space debris

Answer: For the United States to establish a military presence in space, that would require the
cleanup of space debris.

Warrant: International guidelines require cleaning up space debris left behind

Pultarova, Tereza. “Meet the Space Custodians: Debris Cleanup Plans Emerge.”
Space.Com, 26 Apr. 2017, https://www.space.com/36602-space-junk-cleanup-
concepts.html.

The U.S. Space Surveillance Network currently tracks some 18,000 objects larger than 4
inches (10 centimeters), of which only 1,200 are intact, operational satellites. In addition
to that, there are 750,000 so-called "flying bullets" about 0.4 inches (1 cm) in size and
around 150 million fragments smaller than 1 millimeter. International guidelines
recommend that operators remove spacecraft from low-Earth orbit (LEO) within 25
years from the end of the craft's mission, but only 60 percent of missions actually do
that, Holger Krag, the head of the European Space Agency's (ESA) Space Debris Office,
said during the final presentation at the 7th European Conference on Space Debris. The
conference took place in Darmstadt, Germany, between April 18 and April 21. [Space
Junk Cleanup: 7 Wild Ways to Destroy Orbital Debris]

Warrant: The U.S. would be required to cleanup after any testing or research.

National Academy Press. Orbital Debris: A Technical Assessment. 1995. www.nap.edu,

doi:10.17226/4765.

Three articles in the Outer Space Treaty contain language pertinent to orbital debris
issues. Article VI declares, ''States party to this treaty shall bear international

Champion Briefs 157

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

responsibility for national activities in outer space." Article VII makes states party to the
treaty internationally liable for damage caused by objects (and the component parts of
those objects) that they launch or have launched into space. Finally, Article IX allows
states that have reason to believe that a planned activity or experiment would cause
potentially harmful interference with other space activities to "request consultation"
concerning the activity or experiment. The Liability and Registration Conventions
further explore the liability of states for damage caused by their space objects. The
Liability Convention makes states liable for damage "caused elsewhere than on the
surface of the Earth to a space object of one launching state or to persons or property
on board such a space object of another launching state … only if the damage is due to
its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible." The Registration
Convention seeks to provide information for use in determining liability by mandating
that all launching states notify the UN of any objects they launch and provide the UN
with the objects' orbital parameters. Article VI of the Registration Convention directs
nations with monitoring or tracking facilities to aid in the identification of space objects
that caused damage.

Answer: Space debris removal programs are already beginning

Warrant: The European Space Agency approved a space debris removal program

Staff. ESA Commissions World’s First Space Debris Removal. 12 Sept. 2019,
https://www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Clean_Space/ESA_commissions_world_s_fi
rst_space_debris_removal.

ClearSpace-1 will be the first space mission to remove an item of debris from orbit,
planned for launch in 2025. The mission is being procured as a service contract with a
startup-led commercial consortium, to help establish a new market for in-orbit
servicing, as well as debris removal. Following a competitive process, a consortium led

Champion Briefs 158

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

by Swiss startup ClearSpace – a spin-off company established by an experienced team of

space debris researchers based at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
research institute – will be invited to submit their final proposal, before starting the
project next March. “This is the right time for such a mission,” says Luc Piguet, founder
and CEO of ClearSpace. “The space debris issue is more pressing than ever before. Today
we have nearly 2000 live satellites in space and more than 3000 failed ones.

Example: American military tech companies are already working to address this: Raytheon
SpaDE System is working to clear space debris

Adams, Dallon. “Earth Day Space Take: Cleaning up Space Debris around Our Home
Planet.” TechRepublic, 20 Apr. 2020,
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/earth-day-space-take-cleaning-up-space-
debris-around-our-home-planet/.

Raytheon BBN Technologies is focusing its effort on space debris removal around an
entirely different set of deorbiting solutions. As part of the Space Debris Elimination
(SpaDE) system, the company is harnessing the inherent energy of our atmosphere to
alter the path of debris in orbit. The SpaDE system directs bursts of upper atmospheric
gasses directly into the trajectory of a particular piece of debris to increase drag and
expedite the deorbiting process. The company believes this system has multiple
comparative advantages and lacks the inherent risks associated with introducing new
craft into orbit. "With a wide cloud, the precise determination of the debris is not
necessary, and the density of the cloud can be varied so that deorbit time can be
controlled. Also, since we're using gases ejected from the atmosphere, this method does
not introduce potential new space debris. The gas particles dissipate and settle back into
the atmosphere, " said Daniel Gregory, principal investigator for Raytheon BBN
Technologies.

Champion Briefs 159

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Analysis: The United States couldn’t simply disregard space debris. In order for the Space Force
to succeed, it will need to emphasize the clearing and removal of space debris, which it is
already doing through the private sector.

Champion Briefs 160

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Creating a space force is a violation of the Outer Space Treaty

Answer: Space Force is not the reason for militarization of space, violations of OST.

Warrant: China would have developed space weapons anyway

Manson, Katrina, and Christian Shepherd. US Military Officials Eye New Generation of
Space Weapons. 2 Sept. 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/d44aa332-f564-
4b4a-89b7-1685e4579e72.

Jana Robinson, who leads space security at the Prague Security Studies Institute, said
China had assisted 60 countries with 125 space transactions to date. She characterised
such assistance, which often involved large-scale financing, as an attempt to expand
China’s global space footprint and “capture” the space sector for geopolitical ends by
inducing dependency or even control over the space sectors of recipient countries.
Wang Yiwei, an international relations scholar at Renmin University in Beijing, said
China’s development of BeiDou was a natural step for a country of its size and should
not be seen as part of a space arms race.

Warrant: Space arms race is inevitable

Blatt, Talia. “Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Emerging Space Arms Race.” Harvard
International Review, 26 May 2020, https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-
weapons-and-the-emerging-space-arms-race/.

There are two conflicting views on how the US could mitigate the worst effects of an
ASAT arms race. The first, put forward by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld in
2001, is fairly simple: Space militarization is inevitable, and the United States will have
to rely on superior capabilities to prevent conflict—essentially, end the arms race by

Champion Briefs 161

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

winning it. This is classic escalation dominance theory: the idea that sustainable
deterrence can be created when a nation escalates conflict to a level greater than
their adversary can match. However, the nature of an arms race makes escalatory
advantages inherently ephemeral, and the advances Russia and China have made since
Rumsfeld’s 2001 report suggest that relying on US space superiority might be a poor
strategy. Even if it were possible, attaining escalation dominance would require near
constant weapons testing, which produces more debris.

Answer: The United States is actively trying to reduce proliferation

Warrant: US has made efforts in the past to reduce space weaponization at the UN

Shlein, Lisa. Nuclear Arms Race, Weaponization of Outer Space High on US Disarmament
Agenda | Voice of America - English. 1 Oct. 2020,
https://www.voanews.com/usa/nuclear-arms-race-weaponization-outer-space-
high-us-disarmament-agenda.

Efforts to rein in a potential nuclear arms race and the weaponization of outer space
will be high on the United States agenda at an upcoming United Nations disarmament
meeting. A hybrid meeting of the U.N. General Assembly First Committee, which
deals with disarmament issues, will be held as part of the UNGA session in New York
between October 6 and November 6. Over the last 10 years, the United States
reportedly has been trying to lessen the need for nuclear weapons as part of its
strategic doctrine. U.S. Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva,
Robert Wood, says these efforts have not been matched by Russia and China. If this
continues, he said, the U.S. will have to confront and respond to these two giant
hegemonic, authoritarian powers. “One of the things we are trying to do is to bring not
only Russia to the table, but also China—to have a tri-lateral arms negotiation, to deal
with not only strategic nuclear weapons, but non-strategic nuclear weapons, new

Champion Briefs 162

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

systems that Russia is developing, because we think this is the direction we are going
in the future,” he said.

Warrant: The US is committed to the Outer Space Treaty

Javitz, Eric. Disarmament Documentation: US Speech on Outer Space, May 28. 28 May
2002, http://www.acronym.org.uk/old/archive/docs/0205/doc17.htm.

Most important, however, is the Outer Space Treaty, to which the United States
remains firmly committed. The Outer Space Treaty puts celestial bodies off limits to all
nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction and prohibits States Parties
from placing in orbit or stationing such weapons in outer space - a far-reaching non-
proliferation measure in itself. It also provides that celestial bodies shall be used
exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits their use for military establishments or
maneuvers, or for testing any type of weapons. In addition, the Outer Space Treaty
clearly establishes that States Parties retain jurisdiction and control over objects they
have launched into outer space, and have international responsibility for national
objects in outer space, including whatever damage the launched item may cause.

Analysis: Militarization of space was going to happen regardless of whether Trump had created
the Space Force. Furthermore, the U.S. is actively working to reduce the proliferation of space-
based weapons in part because it is a signatory of the OST.

Champion Briefs 163

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Creation of the Space Force undermines the Air Force

Argument: Creation of the Space Force improves other branches of the military

Warrant: Space Force adds a voice to the table

Joe Moye, 12-11-2020, "Bad Idea: Disestablishing the Space Force," Defense360,
https://defense360.csis.org/bad-idea-disestablishing-the-space-force/

Likewise, an independent space military service unifies and elevates space capabilities
to compete for resources on par with the other services. A single service specifically
focused on developing military space capabilities reduces duplication and costs,
increases speed of acquisition, and creates overall unity of effort. It also allows the other
services to focus their organic space programs toward being better consumers of space.
Finally, the creation of the Space Force added a seat at the table of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. This ensures that space advocacy and military advice is included in every subject
in which the Joint Chiefs are involved. Absent the chief of space operations, space
advocacy and advice are once again left to the chief of staff of the Air Force, who
understandably might have competing interests and priorities. Space requires an
independent voice at the table. The Defense Department has yet to finish realigning the
remaining appropriate military space programs to the Space Force. General Raymond is
correctly taking a deliberate pace in establishing this new service. It does not appear
that new service “growing pains” have degraded current operations thus far, so we
should give leadership the time they need to do this right. At this point, premature
plateauing of progress or reversal would hinder the positive momentum generated by
centralizing military capability, competence, and advocacy in the space domain.
Returning space components to the Air Force, Army, and Navy would diminish
advocacy and relegate space capabilities to lower priorities behind each service’s
native domain(s).

Champion Briefs 164

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Warrant: space force cuts bureaucracy

C. Todd Lopez,, 9-15-2020, "Space Force Chief: U.S. Doesn," U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE,
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2348614/space-force-
chief-us-doesnt-want-war-in-space-must-be-prepared-for-it

"Since establishment, we've been in the business of slashing bureaucracy, delegating

authority and enhancing accountability at every crossroad," Raymond said. "My
opinion: big organizations are slow. We must move at speed to outpace the threats that
we face." The general said the Space Force, in an effort to reduce bureaucracy,
implemented a large-scale reorganization that involved removing two echelons of
command, including a numbered Air Force and an O-6-level command. "We've also
reduced the size of our planned staff at the Pentagon," Raymond said. "Back when we
started, the Pentagon staff was going to be over 1,000 people. That was the initial plan.
We've slashed that by 40%. We're shortening the distance between decision makers and
you, the experts, conducting our mission." Also part of eliminating bureaucracy,
Raymond said, is a hard look at the agencies that exist now that are involved in
acquisition for the space enterprise. He said Congress has identified some 65 different
organizations involved in space-related acquisition.

Warrant: Space Force consolidates organizations

Grant, Dustin L., and Matthew J. Neil. The Case for Space: A Legislative Framework for
an Independent United States Space Force. AIR UNIV MAXWELL AFB AL
MAXWELL AFB, 2020. https://media.defense.gov/2020/Feb/12/2002248561/-1/-
1/0/WF_73_GRANT_NEIL_THE_CASE_FOR_SPACE_A_LEGISLATIVE_FRAMEWORK
_FOR_AN_INDEPENDENT_UNITED_STATES_SPACE_FORCE.PDF

Champion Briefs 165

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

The current US construct for managing space lacks consistency. Notwithstanding the
issues of lack of centralized space management within the DOD, nationally, there is
not a single overarching federal entity charged with managing US space efforts,
despite an overarching need for one. Space has become ubiquitous, with multiple
dissimilar agencies each handling diverse components of the US space effort and
without any central coordinating body. For example, NASA is responsible for controlling
all space activities “sponsored by the United States.”55 However, excepted explicitly
from NASA’s purview are “activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the
development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United
States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision
for the defense of the United States).”56 These activities fall to the DOD. Thus, even
though NASA is responsible for controlling all space activities, not all activities fall to
them. We have separate entities governing commercial space and national security
space. Though NASA seemingly handles commercial space activities and the DOD
handles national security space activities, the two often overlap. DOD policy is that its
space-related activities will not only ensure security in space and maintain our national
security advantages there but also “energize the space industrial base that supports US
national security.”5

Impact: Space Force improves training and advice

Loren Grush, 12-11-2019, "Space Force may finally become real — but it won’t be an
overhaul," Verge, https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/11/21004914/space-
force-military-branch-ndaa-2020-joint-chiefs

While it may feel as though the Air Force Space Command is simply getting a new name,
there are a few key distinctions. For one, the Space Force would get full Title 10
authority, which would give the branch the ability to make its own decisions about

Champion Briefs 166

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

operating and training people to use equipment. Under the current regime, the Air
Force is the one with Title 10 authority, and it will make decisions based on
recommendations from the Air Force Space Command. “That organization doesn’t
already have its own independent decision making authority, and this will kind of
elevate that out,” says Johnson. The NDAA also establishes that the Space Force will be
run by a newly created chief of space operations who will report directly to the US
secretary of the Air Force. This CSO will also be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a
group of senior military personnel that advises the president. So while the CSO will
report directly to the Air Force Secretary, they will also have a way to reach the
president without a mediator. “They can give some independent advice to the
President, alongside the other chiefs,” says Weeden. “But they’re under the authority of
the Secretary of the Air Force when it comes to making decisions.”

Warrant: Space Force’s only job is to protect satellites

Reid Barbier*, 7-23-2020, "The Purpose and Mission of the Space Force," American
University, https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/security-technology/the-
purpose-and-mission-of-the-space-force.cfm

The Space Force will act as a conduit for space-based intelligence and technology to
reach the rest of the military, for instance by making sure that battlefield commanders
have real-time access to satellite reconnaissance. The Space Force is designed to be
much more than a maintenance unit however, as multiple threats have emerged in
recent years that require a substantial updating of American space presence. Satellites
are extremely vulnerable to attack, which could turn America’s reliance on them into
a dangerous weakness and potentially cripple American military operations globally.
China in particular has homed in on this vulnerability by building a growing arsenal of
anti-satellite missiles and technologies, including cyber-attacks. The Space Force’s

Champion Briefs 167

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

most urgent mission is finding ways to defend satellites in order to maintain America’s
preeminence in space.

Impact: Space Force key to protecting satellites

W.J. Hennigan, 7-23-2020, "America Really Does Have a Space Force. We Went Inside to
See What It Does," Time, https://time.com/5869987/spaceforce/

The mission of protecting America’s vulnerable orbital networks falls to U.S. Space
Command and Space Force, which since December has the same status as the Army,
Navy, Air Force and Marines. The Pentagon has decades of experience building and
deploying satellites, the military operates many of the most important ones, and it has
arguably the best strategic planning skills of any organization on the planet. It also
already employs 20,000 people whose jobs are to oversee and manage America’s
space-based GPS, communications, weather and ballistic-missile-warning systems.

Analysis: Ultimately, while certain branches may lose a bit of funding and resources, the overall
structure of the military will be much clearer by separating out the Space Force. In fact, creating
more demand for top scientists will benefit all branches in time.

Champion Briefs 168

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

A/2: Creating a Space Force will lead to monopolization of space

Answer: Space Force increases U.S. hegemony which secures and protects space.

Warrant: Space is the new frontier once again

Goldman Sachs Team, 7-11-2016, "What if I Told You... Space Is Once Again the New
Frontier," Smithsonian Magazine. 11 Jul. 2016. Web. 5 Feb. 2021.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/sponsored/what-if-i-told-you-space-once-
again-new-frontier-180959457/

The space race is reigniting, catalyzing changes in the new space economy. The
industry stagnated after the major scientific and commercial achievements of the 20th
century, but new players and technology are reopening space as the next frontier.
Noah Poponak, the senior Aerospace and Defense analyst at Goldman Sachs Research,
describes space as becoming “smaller, closer, and cheaper” as the industry reinvents
itself. Poponak explains that diminishing barriers to entry—combined with geopolitical
tensions—have led to a renewed focus on space activity, with major implications for
scientific research, defense, and communications. Launch-to-orbit costs, the greatest
hurdle for new entrants, have fallen to less than 10 percent of what they were five years
ago and are likely to continue dropping as new technologies like reusable rocketry are
introduced, opening space to new applications, technologies, and competitor

Warrant: Whichever country holds power in space challenges American dominance

Robert Burns, 1-28-2021, "Biden seen likely to keep Space Force, a Trump favorite," AP
NEWS. 28 Jan. 2021. Web. 5 Feb. 2021. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-
space-force-edcb01683ab38e740ae87530c49ecd4e

Champion Briefs 169

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — To the last moments of his presidency, Donald Trump trumpeted
Space Force as a creation for the ages. And while President Joe Biden has quickly
undone other Trump initiatives, the space-faring service seems likely to survive, even if
the new administration pushes it lower on the list of defense priorities. The reason
Space Force is unlikely to go away is largely this: Elimination would require an act of
Congress, where a bipartisan consensus holds that America’s increasing reliance on
space is a worrying vulnerability that is best addressed by a branch of the military
focused exclusively on this problem. The new service also is linked to an increasing U.S.
wariness of China, which is developing capabilities to threaten U.S. satellites in space
and which has become, in the minds of some, the singular national security challenge.
Russia, too, stands accused by Washington of seeking to challenge American
dominance in space. “They’re building capabilities to use space against us. We have to
be able to respond to that,” Gen. John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
told the National Security Space Association, an advocacy group, last week, referring to
Russia and China.

Warrant: China is actively in pursuit of hegemony

Maj. Liane Zivitski, 6-23-2020, "China wants to dominate space, and the US must take
countermeasures," Defense News. 23 Jun. 2020. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/23/china-wants-
to-dominate-space-and-the-us-must-take-countermeasures/

China is determined to replace the U.S. as the dominant power in space. While
proclaiming its peaceful intentions, Beijing’s doctrine considers space a military
domain, and it is investing heavily in space infrastructure designed to secure both
economic and military advantages. To ensure that it continues to compete from a
position of strength, the U.S. must invest sufficient resources in preparing its new Space

Champion Briefs 170

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Force to defend America’s national interests and security in space. Beijing’s rapidly
improving capabilities are clear to see. On May 5, China successfully launched the Long
March-5B rocket designed to eventually transport astronauts into space. This was the
first successful launch of any Long March rocket this year after failed attempts to launch
the Long March-3B in April and Long March-7A in March. Three weeks later, China
completed back-to-back launches from two separate launch facilities placing Earth-
imaging and technology demonstration satellites into orbit. China plans to launch more
than 60 spacecraft in over 40 launches in 2020, and has led global launches over the
past two years.

Warrant: US hegemony in space means that allies and enemies don’t feel like the US is backing
down

Joe Moye, 12-11-2020, "Bad Idea: Disestablishing the Space Force," Defense360. 11 Dec.
2020. Web. 5 Feb. 2021. https://defense360.csis.org/bad-idea-disestablishing-
the-space-force/

Yet we do not need to wait for tomorrow: threats exist today. Even now, our lives are
unquestionably dependent on our unfettered ability to use space. General Raymond
recently said that the Space Force was created due to “the compelling case our
competitors have created for us.” Chinese and Russian space capabilities and
counterspace threats are well-documented. China’s rapidly maturing space program is
increasingly becoming the pace setter in this domain. Dr. Mir Sadat, a former policy
director for the U.S. National Security Council, has argued that we are in “a race for
dominance over cislunar access, operations, and resources.” Stagnating the Space
Force, or rolling it back into the Air Force, would send mixed signals to our partners
and allies on the priority of space — especially those following our lead to bolster
their own space forces. Some argue that the solution is to mirror special operations by
making United States Space Command “service-like” and retaining the actual capability
within the traditional services.

Champion Briefs 171

Pro Responses to Con Arguments March 2021

Impact: US hegemony prevents wide scale conflict

Alex Ward, 08-22-2014, "Only US Can Prevent Great Power War," The Diplomat. 22 Aug.
2014. Web. 5 Feb. 2021. https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/only-us-can-prevent-
great-power-war/

But Gilpin’s preconditions shouldn’t be misconstrued as predictive or fatalistic. Indeed,

the United States, as the hegemon, has the capability (and responsibility) to preserve
the international order and lead the world out of this mess. By keeping good relations
with partners and allies, deterring adversaries, reversing the perception of its decline,
and leveraging technological capabilities for global good, there is a decent chance that
the U.S. can make the great-power-war-incubation period fade away. Should the United
States not seize this moment, and ensure that China is a responsible partner in the
current global system alongside it, then the chance of a great power war cannot be
dismissed, however remote.

Analysis: Regardless of whether the United States is wholly altruistic in its pursuit of power in
space, it’s a stabilizing actor that would be preferable to several others who seek power. U.S.
hegemony would prevent those other actors, like China, from creating even more dangerous
circumstances as space slowly militarizes.

Champion Briefs 172

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Space Force trades off with other military functions

Argument: The Space Force, like any other large bureaucratic organization, has parochial
interests which compete for funding with its peer organizations. In context this means it will
suck funding from the rest of the military.

Warrant: Space Force will compete with other important space programs in the military

Sandra Erwin. “Concerns grow about Space Force diverting funds from other military
priorities.” Sandra Erwin. March 2019. https://spacenews.com/concerns-grow-
about-space-force-diverting-funds-from-other-military-priorities/

“Experts warn that if the Space Force is set up as an independent service, its
substantial administrative costs could eat up funds that might otherwise be spent
training and equipping forces with next-generation space technology. Political
disagreements aside, the Trump administration’s push to create a separate branch of
the military for space is being challenged on grounds that an expensive bureaucracy
could undermine the central goal of boosting military capabilities to defend satellites
and the nation’s access to space. Vice President Mike Pence said the administration
would ask Congress for $8 billion over the next five years to get the Space Force off the
ground. It’s unclear if Pence meant this would be new money to be added to the
Pentagon budget top line or whether these funds would be redirected from other
accounts. Experts are warning that if the Space Force is set up as an independent
service, its substantial administrative costs could eat up funds that might otherwise be
spent training and equipping forces with next-generation space technology.”

Warrant: Space Force does not need to be a separate branch

Champion Briefs 174

Con Arguments March 2021

Sandra Erwin. “Concerns grow about Space Force diverting funds from other military
priorities.” Sandra Erwin. March 2019. https://spacenews.com/concerns-grow-
about-space-force-diverting-funds-from-other-military-priorities/

““There is no argument that there has to be more investment in space capability, but
will the overhead cost of the Space Force eat into investments and other warfighter
priorities?” said Wesley Hallman, senior vice president for policy at the National
Defense Industrial Association. “It’s always a competition for resources,” Hallman told
SpaceNews. A retired Air Force officer, Hallman said he welcomes the administration’s
interest in space but would like to see more analysis on whether creating a new military
branch is the best approach. He noted that his association’s members have not taken an
official a position on the Space Force.”

Warrant: Space Force may materially trade off with important military priorities

Sandra Erwin. “Concerns grow about Space Force diverting funds from other military
priorities.” Sandra Erwin. March 2019. https://spacenews.com/concerns-grow-
about-space-force-diverting-funds-from-other-military-priorities/

““We all want this to work,” he said. But does it have to be a separate service? “That
implies you have to have an independent recruiting command, basic training, a service
academy, a medical corps. Are you going to create those redundancies because you
decided this needs to be an independent service?” Hallman said. “There’s going to be
an overhead bill that you’re not currently paying. How do we ensure that this ends up
being more space capability? Is it going to take resources from efforts to build a 355
ship navy? Will it take resources from buying 1,763 F-35 fighters that the Air Force
needs?” He suggested it might be more efficient to set up the Space Force under the
umbrella of the Department of the Air Force — like the Marine Corps, which is part of
the Department of the Navy..”

Champion Briefs 175

Con Arguments March 2021

Warrant: Air force is currently underfunded

Sandra Erwin. “Space Force’s small launch program looks to pick up pace after a year of
delays” Space News. Jan 2021. https://spacenews.com/space-forces-small-
launch-program-looks-to-pick-up-pace-after-a-year-of-delays/

“Air and space are critical domains for our national security, yet our nation has
consistently failed to invest sufficiently in these requirements. As a result, today’s U.S.
Air Force is older and smaller than at any time in its history, even as it begins to birth
the new U.S. Space Force with massive funding needs of its own. The Department of
the Air Force, which encompasses both the Air Force and the Space Force, faces
daunting demands. Within the budget of a single service, it must modernize its geriatric
fleet to remain the world’s predominant Air Force, while building up the nascent Space
Force to ensure it remains ahead of its near-peer competitors, China and Russia.”

Warrant: Space Force is taking funds from the air force

Sandra Erwin. “Space Force’s small launch program looks to pick up pace after a year of
delays” Space News. Jan 2021. https://spacenews.com/space-forces-small-
launch-program-looks-to-pick-up-pace-after-a-year-of-delays/

“The new Space Force is now entering an orbit that will demand funding increases to
pay for new capabilities. It too must compete with Air Force modernization and pass-
through funding to achieve its objectives. This is all light years away from real
transparency and good governance in national security. The services rationalize budget
resource shortfalls by saying they will simply “accept more risk,” but few truly
understand what that means. Accepting risk means acknowledging the military may not
be able to deter future conflicts. It means American lives will be put in jeopardy because

Champion Briefs 176

Con Arguments March 2021

our military will be unable to protect them. It means America may need to stand down
in some circumstances rather than confronting adversaries.”

Analysis: This argument is strong because it forces your opponents to justify their impacts
relative to other pressing national security concerns. This doubles their burden by making them
weigh upfront in order to even get the judge’s attention.

Champion Briefs 177

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Space Force hurts the environment

Argument: Space missions, including the ones done by the space force, are a massive
contributor to climate change. Because of the impact of climate change we should shy away
from these ventures.

Warrant: Space launches are bad for climate change

J. A. Dallas. “Environmental impact of rocket launches must be taken seriously.” Elsevier

Journal. March 2019. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-cleaner-
production/news/environmental-impact-of-rocket-launches-must-be-taken-
seriou#:~:text=Sustainable%20space%20travel,and%20persist%20in%20the%20s
oil.

“As well as stratospheric ozone, launch emissions have the potential to impact climate
change through the release of black carbon into the stratosphere. They also can
impact ecosystem and human health through the release of toxic chemicals that can
enter surface waters and persist in the soil. Launch emissions can cause direct effects,
from the combustion of the propellant, and indirect effects, from the mixing of ambient
air into the exhaust plume, which can cause different reactions at different altitudes.
The team discovered that the quantity and type of propellant used had the biggest
effect on the nature and magnitude of the environmental impacts associated with space
launches.”

Warrant: Launch chemicals may deplete the ozone layer

J. A. Dallas. “Environmental impact of rocket launches must be taken seriously.” Elsevier

Journal. March 2019. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-cleaner-
production/news/environmental-impact-of-rocket-launches-must-be-taken-

Champion Briefs 178

Con Arguments March 2021

seriou#:~:text=Sustainable%20space%20travel,and%20persist%20in%20the%20s
oil.

“Dallas and her colleagues reviewed more than 40 studies that considered a range of
rocket and propellant types, and the resulting impacts on climate, stratospheric ozone,
ecosystems and human health. While the effects of different rocket and propellant
types varied, all had the potential to cause stratospheric ozone depletion. Ozone in
the stratosphere forms a layer that prevents the sun’s damaging ultraviolet rays from
reaching the surface. The discovery of a hole in the ozone layer caused by refrigerant
chemicals in 1982 caused a ban on these chemicals, so anything that may cause
renewed ozone depletion is of global concern. Rocket launches are the only source of
ozone-depleting chemicals that are deposited directly into the stratosphere, meaning
increased numbers of launches could cause significant damage..”

Warrant: America needs an environmental lens to space

J. A. Dallas. “Environmental impact of rocket launches must be taken seriously.” Elsevier

Journal. March 2019. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-cleaner-
production/news/environmental-impact-of-rocket-launches-must-be-taken-
seriou#:~:text=Sustainable%20space%20travel,and%20persist%20in%20the%20s
oil.

“In 2018, the number of rocket launches exceeded 100 for the first time since 1990, at
the peak of construction of the International Space Station. As commercial spaceflight
increases, and the possibility of colonies on the Moon and Mars become closer to
reality, the environmental impact of emissions from increased rocket launches must be
considered before it is too late. “Our understanding must be improved to ensure the
prevention and effective mitigation of any harmful environmental impacts resulting
from both individual launch events and the possible cumulative effects of frequent

Champion Briefs 179

Con Arguments March 2021

launches,” says lead author Jessica Dallas, from the University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia. “While economic and technical considerations are vital to the
success of any space mission, it is important also that environmental considerations
be included to avoid long-term environmental damage.”.”

Warrant: Space Force is starting to ramp up the launch of satellites and rockets

Sandra Erwin. “Space Force’s small launch program looks to pick up pace after a year of
delays” Space News. Jan 2021. https://spacenews.com/space-forces-small-
launch-program-looks-to-pick-up-pace-after-a-year-of-delays/

“Small satellite launches by the U.S. Space Force slowed considerably in 2020 due to
the pandemic and technical setbacks. Small rocket missions that slipped to 2021
include launches by Virgin Orbit, Rocket Lab and Space Vector. “Some of the small
launch providers ran into technical challenges during the development of their
systems and that has delayed missions into 2021,” said Lt. Col. Ryan Rose, chief of the
small launch and targets division of the Space and Missile Systems Center’s launch
enterprise. “COVID-19 also had an impact on the execution of these missions,” Rose told
SpaceNews in an interview from Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico..”

Warrant: Space Force is increasing funding to newcomers in the rocket launch space

Sandra Erwin. “Space Force’s small launch program looks to pick up pace after a year of
delays” Space News. Jan 2021. https://spacenews.com/space-forces-small-
launch-program-looks-to-pick-up-pace-after-a-year-of-delays/

“Two other Space Force launches that slid into 2021 are Space Test Program missions
awarded to Virgin Orbit, a sister company to Richard Branson’s space venture Virgin
Galactic. The company intends to deploy satellites using rockets released from under

Champion Briefs 180

Con Arguments March 2021

the wing of a Boeing 747 airliner. Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne has yet to reach orbit.
The company’s first attempt failed in May when the rocket’s first-stage engine shut
down a few seconds after ignition. Another test flight was planned for late 2020 but the
company had to stand down temporarily to allow employees “precautionary
quarantines” amid the pandemic, Virgin Orbit said. A new launch attempt could happen
this month at the Mojave spaceport in California. One of Virgin Orbit’s Space Force
contracts is to launch the STP-27VP mission from the the island of Guam in the Western
Pacific. A second Virgin Orbit Space Force mission planned for 2021 is STP-S28, also
from Guam.”

Analysis: The environment is one of the most important issues of our time and judges know
this. Make the case that no space force activity is more important than climate change. Weigh
the impact of lives lost from ozone collapse or global warming.

Champion Briefs 181

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Space Force is bad for the economy

Argument: The Space Force is incredibly wasteful and expensive. The US military budget is
already too high and does not drive essential national outcomes. We should not invest in
another wasteful project.

Warrant: Space Force will cost billions

Mike Gruss. “Space Force to cost $2 billion, include 15,000 personnel in first five years.”
Defense News. March 2019.
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2019/03/01/space-force-to-cost-2-
billion-include-15000-personnel-in-first-five-years/

“The Trump administration plans to spend $2 billion in new funding over a five-year
period to create its Space Force, during which roughly 15,000 space-related personnel
will transfer from existing roles. Officials unveiled those details and the Pentagon’s
legislative proposal for the new military service March 1. Defense leaders sent the
formal proposal to Congress Feb. 27 after President Donald Trump ordered its creation
in June. While many of the details have yet to be determined — will the service have a
bootcamp (unclear), its own service academy (no), their own uniforms (possible) or
recruitment centers (probably) — a Space Force would share resources such as an
acquisition chief, general counsel and chaplains with the broader Department of the Air
Force.”

Warrant: America already spends a lot of money on space

Mike Gruss. “Space Force to cost $2 billion, include 15,000 personnel in first five years.”
Defense News. March 2019.

Champion Briefs 182

Con Arguments March 2021

https://www.defensenews.com/space/2019/03/01/space-force-to-cost-2-
billion-include-15000-personnel-in-first-five-years/

“In September, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson floated a cost of $13 billion for
the Space Force, while an independent estimate from the Center for Strategic and
International Studies put the additional costs at around $550 million per year. However,
senior department officials said March 1 that the Pentagon plans to spend about $72
million on setting up a headquarters for the service with about 200 staffers in fiscal
2020. As the force ramps up, those costs could rise to about $500 million per year.
Those costs are in addition to the roughly $10 billion the Department of Defense
already spends on unclassified space programs.”

Warrant: Space Force will eat up resources from other departments

Mike Gruss. “Space Force to cost $2 billion, include 15,000 personnel in first five years.”
Defense News. March 2019.
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2019/03/01/space-force-to-cost-2-
billion-include-15000-personnel-in-first-five-years/

“All told, roughly 15,000 “highly technical” personnel from existing offices will move
under the aegis of the Space Force by the end of FY24. Those individuals may be
transferred both voluntarily and involuntarily, and will move with the grade, rank,
duty, and pay status they had previously. While in the past decade Air Force Space
Command has been described as including as many as 40,000 employees, not all of
those workers were strictly focused on space and may have provided support functions.
Some new general officer roles will be required to fill out the Space Force, which
requires Congressional authorization. Just how many is unclear, with the proposal
promising a report to Congress on that issue sometime in FY20. One challenge in setting
up the Space Force during this period will be collaboration with the intelligence

Champion Briefs 183

Con Arguments March 2021

community, whose National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) will remain independent of

the new military branch.”

Warrant: Even military leaders agree that the space force is massively wasteful of taxpayer
dollars

Markian Dobczansky. “Why Russia and America Need Each Other” Wilson Center.
December 2008. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-russia-and-
america-need-each-other

“In the past, leading Department of Defense (DOD) officials have opposed the creation
of a new military branch. At the time of the original proposal, Air Force Chief of Staff
General David Goldfein acknowledged that while there are improvements to be made
to the military’s approach to space, a new branch would bloat bureaucracy and hinder
a space corps’ ability to operate efficiently. Secretary of Defense James Mattis also
lobbied against a Space Force in July 2017, calling the formation of an additional
branch “premature” as he sought to “reduce overhead” at DOD. In a similar
statement, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson stated that a sixth branch would “make
it more complex, add more boxes to the organization chart, and cost more money,”
which she argues would better directed toward “lethality” rather than bureaucracy. The
proposal of a space force brings forth several questions regarding the structure and role
of this new military branch. Because it would be independent of the Air Force, a space
force would require a new command structure and the addition of thousands of highly
specialized employees. Many of these positions would likely be filled by the Air Force
Space Command, which only consists of 35,000 service members. l.”

Champion Briefs 184

Con Arguments March 2021

Analysis: The Space Force will cost America billions of dollars and has been opposed by senior
military commanders. We should be wary of spending money on anything so large without a
clear payoff.

Champion Briefs 185

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Space Force escalates tensions with Russia

Argument: The Space Force antagonizes Russia. This is unnecessary and detrimental to United
States interests.

Warrant: Russia is opposed to US domination of space

Kyle Rempfer. “Russia warns of a ‘tough response’ to creation of US space force.” Air
Force Times. December 2018.
https://www.airforcetimes.com/flashpoints/2018/06/21/russia-warns-of-a-
tough-response-to-creation-of-us-space-force/

“Russian diplomats and politicians are promising repercussions if President Donald

Trump’s order to build a U.S. space force is met, citing a treaty banning nuclear
weapons in outer space. "Militarization of outer space is the path to disaster,” Victor
Bondarev, head of the Russian Parliament’s Upper House Committee on Defense and
Security, told state media Tuesday.” Let's hope the American political elite still have the
remnants of reason and common sense,” Bondarev said. “But if the United States
withdraws from the 1967 treaty banning nuclear weapons in outer space, then, of
course, not only ours, but also other states, will follow with a tough response aimed at
ensuring world security.” Bondarev appeared to be referencing the 1967 Outer Space
Treaty, one of several “non-armament” treaties that sought to prevent “a new form of
colonial competition” in the cosmos, according to the U.S. State Department’s
archives..”

Warrant: Russia is scared that the US is militarizing space against Russia

Kyle Rempfer. “Russia warns of a ‘tough response’ to creation of US space force.” Air
Force Times. December 2018.

Champion Briefs 186

Con Arguments March 2021

https://www.airforcetimes.com/flashpoints/2018/06/21/russia-warns-of-a-
tough-response-to-creation-of-us-space-force/

“We don’t want China and Russia and other countries leading us. We’ve always led.
We’ve gone way far afield for decades now,” Trump said. Leadership within the
Pentagon and Air Force have appeared mostly opposed to the idea of a separate space
force, citing budget constraints and possible impediments to the Air Force’s own ability
to wage war. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova also criticized the
formation of an American space force Wednesday, according to state media."What
makes this piece of news most alarming is the purpose of the instruction was
described in very clear terms — dominance in space,” Zakharova said. "Naturally, we
keep the closest watch on Washington’s intentions and analyze the likely effects," she
added. "A military buildup in space, in particular, after the deployment of weapons
there, would have destabilizing effects on strategic stability and international
security.”

Warrant: Russian space forces are peaceful

Kyle Rempfer. “Russia warns of a ‘tough response’ to creation of US space force.” Air
Force Times. December 2018.
https://www.airforcetimes.com/flashpoints/2018/06/21/russia-warns-of-a-
tough-response-to-creation-of-us-space-force/

“While Russia does have a branch of the military described as "space forces," their
activities are "purely defensive," the spokeswoman said. Russian Space Forces are a
branch of the larger Russian Aerospace Forces, and provide advanced missile defense
services. The units historically incorporated under the Russian Space Forces operate
radars and satellites involved in early-warning systems, according to a 2002 article
archived by Stanford University. The branch appears to be comparable to U.S. Air Force

Champion Briefs 187

Con Arguments March 2021

Space Command. "Our country is not interested in tackling any tasks in space with the
use of attack weapons,” Zakharova said.”

Warrant: US and Russia need to cooperate with each other

Markian Dobczansky. “Why Russia and America Need Each Other” Wilson Center.
December 2008. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-russia-and-
america-need-each-other

“In spite of these disagreements, Trenin emphasized that Russia and the United States
need one another and that cooperation between the two countries is essential. On a
wide range of issues, U.S. and Russian interests coincide, including non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, managing the rise of China, dealing with the difficult
situation in the Middle East, and resolving "frozen conflicts." In addition, Russia needs
American assistance to modernize and integrate its economy into the global market,
and to gain access to American markets, he said. The United States needs Russia's
cooperation in the fight against terrorism, he said. Positive relations between the two
countries would lead to a more stable world, and would enhance both countries'
security. In connection with this, Trenin believes that a new global institution needs to
be formed to maintain stability and security. This organization would be similar to the
G-8, in that it would provide a forum for the discussion of major problems confronting
the world, he said, but would be more inclusive than the G-8, because it would not
require a country to be "democratic." The group could include all the G-8 members, as
well as China, India, and Brazil. Russia wants to be given a seat at the table where
decisions are made, Trenin stressed, and such an organization could be one way to
accomplish this goal.”

Champion Briefs 188

Con Arguments March 2021

Analysis: Russia and the US need to cooperate on a whole host of international issues for the
sake of global security and stability. Make the case to the judge that this cooperation is not
worth throwing away for the space force.

Champion Briefs 189

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Space Force escalates tensions with China

Argument: China is a rising economic and military power. Building a space force is inherently
antagonistic and will preclude cooperation over important issues

Warrant: China does not like the space force

Staff Reporters. “China attacks US Space Force as threat to peace.” The Associated
Press. December 2019. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-
military/2019/12/23/china-attacks-us-space-force-as-threat-to-peace/

“Rising space power China on Monday attacked the newly created U.S. Space Force as
a “direct threat to outer space peace and security.” Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng
Shuang told reporters that China is “deeply concerned about it and resolutely opposed
to it. “The relevant U.S. actions are a serious violation of the international consensus
on the peaceful use of outer space, undermine global strategic balance and stability,
and pose a direct threat to outer space peace and security,” Geng said at a regular
briefing. China’s space program has advanced rapidly since its first crewed mission in
2003. In a report last February, the Pentagon asserted that China and Russia have
embarked on major efforts to develop technologies that could allow them to disrupt or
destroy American and allied satellites in a crisis or conflict.”

Warrant: China wants outer space to be peaceful

Staff Reporters. “China attacks US Space Force as threat to peace.” The Associated
Press. December 2019. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-
military/2019/12/23/china-attacks-us-space-force-as-threat-to-peace/

Champion Briefs 190

Con Arguments March 2021

“China in 2007 conducted an unannounced missile strike against one of its own defunct
satellites, creating an enormous amount of space debris. Geng dismissed such concerns,
calling them "unfounded counter charges" that merely provided the U.S. with a
justification for its own actions. China, he said, has consistently opposed the
weaponization of space and believes international treaties on arms control in outer
space need to be negotiated. "We hope that the international community, especially
the major powers concerned, will adopt a cautious and responsible attitude to
prevent outer space from becoming a new battlefield and work together to maintain
lasting peace and tranquility in outer space," he said.”

Warrant: The steady, peaceful operation of space is key to many facets of American life

Staff Reporters. “China attacks US Space Force as threat to peace.” The Associated
Press. December 2019. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-
military/2019/12/23/china-attacks-us-space-force-as-threat-to-peace/

“The establishment of the Space Force is seen by the U.S. military as a recognition of the
need to more effectively organize for the defense of U.S. interests in space — especially
satellites used for navigation and communication. The Space Force is not designed or
intended to put combat troops in space. Space has "evolved into a war-fighting domain
of its own," Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters Friday. Space has become
increasingly important to the U.S. economy and to everyday life. The Global
Positioning System, for example, provides navigation services to the military as well as
civilians. Its constellation of about two dozen orbiting satellites is operated by the
50th Space Wing from an operations center at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado.”

Warrant: Political competitions makes cooperation over climate change hard

Champion Briefs 191

Con Arguments March 2021

Aimee Barnes. “How the US and China Could Renew Cooperation on Climate Change”
Columbia. December 2020.
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/how-us-and-
china-could-renew-cooperation-climate-change

“Averting global climate catastrophe depends in large part on progress by the world’s
two greatest powers and emitters: the United States and China. However, relations
between these two countries—particularly on climate action—have deteriorated over
the past four years. With a new presidential administration set to enter the White
House in January 2021, there is an opportunity for the US and China to build trust and
cooperation on climate change in a way that supports a cooperative and dynamic
bilateral relationship more broadly.”

Warrant: To cooperate on climate change we need to build bilateral trust

Aimee Barnes. “How the US and China Could Renew Cooperation on Climate Change”
Columbia. December 2020.
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/commentary/how-us-and-
china-could-renew-cooperation-climate-change

“The most promising potential areas for US-China cooperation fall into three broad
categories: renewing a shared commitment to global climate governance under the
Paris Agreement; building trust to enable renewed bilateral cooperation, such as on
technology innovation and investments; and supporting subnational leaders' progress in
both countries through platforms where they can productively convene. Recognizing
that a climate-safe future is bound up in our mutuality, these two world powers can
promote a new era of climate action and resiliency.”

Champion Briefs 192

Con Arguments March 2021

Analysis: It is hard to deny that cooperation between the US and China is essential to stopping
climate change. Make the case to the judge that we need to play nice with Beijing so that we
can work together on these important issues.

Champion Briefs 193

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Space Force protects military logistics

Argument: The military is critically dependent on satellites for communication and logistics.
America needs a Space Force to protect these assets.

Warrant: US military depends on satellites

Bryan Bender. “Space war is coming — and the U.S. is not ready.” Politico. April, 2018.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/06/outer-space-war-defense-russia-
china-463067

“War is coming to outer space, and the Pentagon warns it is not yet ready, following
years of underinvesting while the military focused on a host of threats on Earth.
Russia and China are years ahead of the United States in developing the means to
destroy or disable satellites that the U.S. military depends on for everything from
gathering intelligence to guiding precision bombs, missiles and drones. Now the
Pentagon is trying to catch up — pouring billions more dollars into hardening its
defenses against anti-satellite weapons, training troops to operate in the event their
space lifeline is cut, and honing ways to retaliate against a new form of combat that
experts warn could affect millions of people, cause untold collateral damage and spread
to battlefields on Earth.”

Warrant: US is increasingly vulnerable in space

Bryan Bender. “Space war is coming — and the U.S. is not ready.” Politico. April, 2018.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/06/outer-space-war-defense-russia-
china-463067

Champion Briefs 194

Con Arguments March 2021

““We are now approaching a point where ‘Star Wars’ is not just a movie,” said Steve
Isakowitz, CEO of The Aerospace Corp., a government-funded think tank that serves as
the military’s leading adviser on space. He said the U.S. can no longer afford to take its
dominance for granted. "That supremacy in space has enabled us to have the world’s
greatest war-fighting capability ... whether it is our soldiers on the field, our drones that
fly overhead, our bombers that travel around the world, intelligence we collect," he told
POLITICO. "More and more every day, literally, we become more dependent on it.”

Warrant: America needs to ready itself to avoid a “Space Pearl Harbor”

Bryan Bender. “Space war is coming — and the U.S. is not ready.” Politico. April, 2018.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/06/outer-space-war-defense-russia-
china-463067

“If the U.S. is to avoid a ‘Space Pearl Harbor,’ it needs to take seriously the possibility
of an attack on the U.S. space system,” the report said. Some experts speculate that
military leaders never followed through on the warnings, in part because the terrorist
attacks later that year drew far more attention to what resulted in two ground wars in
the Middle East. One sign of the new urgency is President Donald Trump’s recent call
for establishing a “space force” — a separate military branch responsible for ensuring
American supremacy in space, a role now primarily played by the Air Force.”

Warrant: The US needs a space force to be ready for space warfare

Douglas Loverro. “Why the United States needs a Space Force.” Space News. June 2018.
https://spacenews.com/why-the-united-states-needs-a-space-force/

“Space needs jealous advocacy. When the Chinese shot down their own satellite in
2007, Air Force and other DoD leaders were heard saying that there was no way to

Champion Briefs 195

Con Arguments March 2021

defend space. The president got it right. We need a Space Force. Space is too critical
for the nation’s defense not to have an organization that speaks for its importance,
defends it against all comers, and jealously advocates for new missions and new
responsibilities. Space is too crucial to national security to be stalled by a lack of focus
and an unwillingness to respond until pushed. President Trump on June 18 ordered the
Pentagon to create a separate military service to focus on national security space.
Outside a cohort of people who have worked this issue for many years, the
announcement was met with a different mixture of reactions — Star Wars humor,
political derision and interservice sarcasm. The reactions reveal a broad
misunderstanding of what a Space Force would do or what it would look like.”

Warrant: The Space Force will dramatically enhance our space presence

Douglas Loverro. “Why the United States needs a Space Force.” Space News. June 2018.
https://spacenews.com/why-the-united-states-needs-a-space-force/

“What the president proclaimed was not the beginning of the militarization of space,
nor the start of a space arms race, but rather that military professionals who
concentrate on space needed their own organization to truly focus their efforts on a
singular task — to protect and defend U.S. and allied interests in space and to assure
their other service brethren never find themselves lacking the space support they
need. To do that would require a career of training, experiences, motivations, and
insights, and a mixture of skills and specialties with a focus on space, that can’t be
developed within the constraints of the current military branches. To develop the
proper culture of space professionals who marry their personal and organizational
identity to this domain, and jealously advocate for its advancement, takes more than a
loose assemblage of individuals from different career fields who dabble in space during
their career, but all too often view space as an assignment rather than as a home.”

Champion Briefs 196

Con Arguments March 2021

Analysis: This argument is strong because it gives the judge a sense of urgency. Foreground
why space is vital for our military capabilities and weigh the magnitude of losing space
capabilities to justify the space force.

Champion Briefs 197

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Space weapons create collateral damage

Argument: Space weapons are extremely powerful and will cause too much space
infrastructure damage if ever used.

Warrant: Space Force aims to collect the most powerful weapons possible

Garamone, Jim. “Esper: Air Force, Space Force Leading Charge to New Technologies.”
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 16 Sept. 2020,
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2349408/esper-air-
force-space-force-leading-charge-to-new-technologies/.

The secretary stated that America's air, space and cyber warriors "will be at the
forefront of tomorrow's high-end fight.” That mseans confronting near-peer
competitors China and Russia. That means shifting the focus from defeating violent
extremist groups to deterring great power competitors. It means fighting a high-
intensity battle that combines all domains of warfare, he said."In this era of great
power competition, we cannot take for granted the United States' long-held
advantages," Esper said. The last time an enemy force dropped a bomb on American
troops was in the Korean War. "China and Russia, seek to erode our longstanding
dominance in air power through long-range fires, anti-access/area-denial systems and
other asymmetric capabilities designed to counter our strengths," he said. "Meanwhile,
in space, Moscow and Beijing have turned a once peaceful arena into a warfighting
domain."

Warrant: There are many satellites that could be hit by a space weapon

Champion Briefs 198

Con Arguments March 2021

Billings, Lee. “War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever.” Scientific American, 10 Aug. 2015,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-in-space-may-be-closer-than-
ever/.

The emptiness of outer space might be the last place you’d expect militaries to vie
over contested territory, except that outer space isn’t so empty anymore. About 1,300
active satellites wreathe the globe in a crowded nest of orbits, providing worldwide
communications, GPS navigation, weather forecasting and planetary surveillance. For
militaries that rely on some of those satellites for modern warfare, space has become
the ultimate high ground, with the U.S. as the undisputed king of the hill. Now, as China
and Russia aggressively seek to challenge U.S. superiority in space with ambitious
military space programs of their own, the power struggle risks sparking a conflict that
could cripple the entire planet’s space-based infrastructure. And though it might begin
in space, such a conflict could easily ignite full-blown war on Earth.

Warrant: Satellites could be hurt in a space strike

Undark, Ramin Skibba. “The Ripple Effects of a Space Skirmish.” The Atlantic, 12 July
2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/07/space-warfare-
unregulated/614059/.

For example, the thousands of everyday satellites that already circle low-Earth orbit,
below an altitude of 1,200 miles, could potentially suffer collateral damage. More
than half of those satellites are from
the U.S.; many of the rest are from China and Russia. They provide key services like
internet access, GPS signals, long-distance communications, and weather information.
Any missile that smashes into a satellite—either as an attack or during a test—would
disperse thousands of bits of debris. Any one of those pieces, still hurtling at orbital
speeds, could take out another spacecraft and create yet more debris. “It’s very easy to

Champion Briefs 199

Con Arguments March 2021

pollute space,” Burbach said. “The debris doesn’t discriminate. If you create debris, it
might just as well come back and hit one of your own satellites. So I think we’re pretty
unlikely to see countries actually use those capabilities.” Still, he said, “it would be
worrying to see countries showing off that [they] can do it and start testing.”

Impact: Destroying satellites could be devastating for the world since we depend on them

Blatt, Talia. “Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Emerging Space Arms Race.” Harvard
International Review, 26 May 2020, https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-
weapons-and-the-emerging-space-arms-race/.

If debris knocks out a satellite, an increasingly likely possibility in a world with ASAT
tests, then the aforementioned conflict scenarios become more likely. Conflict aside,
ASAT-based debris clouds are terrifying in their own right. Public health, transportation,
climate science, and a litany of other crucial infrastructures are dependent on
satellites that are now at risk. Satellite GPS is a cornerstone of the modern economy;
some pundits believe that the slightest glitch in GPS satellites could shock the stock
market and further destabilize an unstable global economy. During the pandemic,
satellites are playing a crucial role in geospatial data collection for infectious disease
modeling. Essentially, it is hard to imagine a world without satellites, but that is a
possible outcome given that there are no reliable methods of withdrawing debris from
space.

Analysis: This is a good argument because the impact affects the entire glob. Space debris has
the potential to wipe out all of the benefits we get from using satellites. This could mean a
huge hit to the economy, or worse the immediate loss of life. This argument is thus very easy
to weigh on scope.

Champion Briefs 200

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Space weapons are too expensive

Argument: Space weapons would cost billions of dollars, which could increase the national debt
tremendously and harm the economy.

Warrant: Space Force aims to invest in the most cutting edge technology

Garamone, Jim. “Esper: Air Force, Space Force Leading Charge to New Technologies.”
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 16 Sept. 2020,
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2349408/esper-air-
force-space-force-leading-charge-to-new-technologies/.

The military guidebook for the future is the National Defense Strategy. The strategy
calls on the military to divest legacy systems, reinvest savings in higher priority
systems and make the tough choices required to break from the status quo and
continue outpacing the competition, Esper said. The fiscal 2020 Defense Department
research and development budget is the largest in history, he said, and it concentrates
on critical technologies such as hypersonic weapons, directed energy and autonomous
systems. "In the Air Force, specifically, we are modernizing our force for the 21st
century with aircraft such as the B-21, the X-37 and the Next Generation Air
Dominance platform," Esper said. "Equally important, we are transforming the way we
fight through the implementation of novel concepts such as Dynamic Force
Employment, which provides scalable options to employ the joint force while preserving
our capabilities for major combat."

Warrant: Space weapons could cost hundreds of billions

Staff Writer. “Report Says Many Space Weapons Systems Would Carry Huge Cost - Via
Satellite -.” Via Satellite, 12 Nov. 2007,

Champion Briefs 201

Con Arguments March 2021

https://www.satellitetoday.com/uncategorized/2007/11/12/report-says-many-
space-weapons-systems-would-carry-huge-cost/.
Placing weapons in space or installing systems in orbit to defend space assets such as
satellites from attack could be inordinately expensive, according to a report from the
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). Price tags for various types of
systems could range from the tens of billions of dollars to hundreds of billions,
according to CSBA figures based on its own calculations and estimates of other
experts, in the report by Steven M. Kosiak, vice president – budget studies with CSBA,
a defense-oriented Washington think tank. Many castigate any move to place weapons
in space, wishing it to remain a peaceful realm with a right of free passage for all, and
Kosiak states that it appears no nation has yet placed weapons in orbit. At the same
time, he notes that some observers say it is only a matter of time before weapons of
war arrive at the final frontier. He examines four categories of possible weaponization of
space:
Systems to defend the United States and its interests against ballistic missile strikes.
Space-based weapon systems that could, while in orbit, attack ground-based targets,
both those actually on the surface of the planet and enemy airborne threats.
Systems to destroy or disable enemy satellites, effectively meaning a U.S. satellite that
would assail enemy spacecraft in orbit.
A system to defend U.S. satellites against enemy anti-satellite weapons.

Warrant: Even an austere arsenal would cost hundreds of billions

Grego, Laura. “No, Space-Based Missile Defense Will Not Cost Only $20 Billion. (Spoiler:
That’s Only the Launch Costs.).” Union of Concerned Scientists, 24 Sept. 2018,
https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/space-based-missile-defense-will-not-cost-
only-20-billion.

Champion Briefs 202

Con Arguments March 2021

This also sets aside the fact that the total mass of interceptors needed on orbit is quite
sensitive to assumptions such as how many missiles the system is expected to counter,
whether those missiles are solid- or liquid-fueled, and the amount of decision time
required—conditions that are explored in studies such as those coordinated by the
American Physical Society in 2003 and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering
& Medicine in 2012. The National Academies study concluded that the life cycle costs
for even an “austere and limited-capability” set of 650 satellites would be at least
$300 billion in 2010 dollars, or 10 times more expensive than other missile defense
options they examined. This estimate included the costs that Griffin did not, which are
clearly substantial.

Impact: Military spending increases the deficit and harms economic growth

Hiller, Patrick. “The Effects of Military Spending on Economic Growth · Peace Science
Digest.” Peace Science Digest, 2 Jan. 2018,
https://peacesciencedigest.org/effects-military-spending-economic-growth/.

Increased military spending leads to slower economic growth. Military spending tends
to have a negative impact on economic growth. Over a 20-year period, a 1% increase
in military spending will decrease a country’s economic growth by 9%. Increased
military spending is especially detrimental to the economic growth of wealthier
countries. The debate over how military spending impacts a country’s economy has
been fiercely argued, and the results of studies trying to understand this relationship
have been mixed. Early researchers ran into trouble due to inadequate time frame or
country data. Others have studied only certain types of countries or periods in time,
leading to results that could arguably be caused by other social, political, or economic
factors. Past research, for example, was highly influenced by military spending data in
the Cold War era. After the Cold War, the reduced military spending was matched with
an era of strong economic growth, which provided for a very different economic

Champion Briefs 203

Con Arguments March 2021

environment than what was seen during periods of high military spending during the
Cold War era. To overcome past limitations, this study analyzes military spending by a
large and diverse group of countries over the span of 45 years, with special attention
to global events that may otherwise influence major economies.

Analysis: This is a good argument because the impact extends far beyond merely the military
impacts related to Space Force. The threat to the US economy means that millions of
impoverished people could be impacted by the decision to spend more on space weapons. This
allows the con to easily outweigh on scope.

Champion Briefs 204

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Space Force will create a space weapons arms race

Argument: With the accumulation of new space weapons, other nations will be inspired to do
the same, creating an arms race.

Warrant: Space weapons will make space into a war-fighting domain

Hennigan, JW. “America Really Does Have a Space Force. We Went Inside to See What It
Does.” Time, 23 July 2020, https://time.com/5869987/spaceforce/.

Regardless of the seemingly contradictory Russian positions, some U.S. critics and
arms–control analysts say the creation of Space Force makes conflict more likely. A
new orbital arms race has turned space into a “war-fighting domain,” like air, land and
sea, and will funnel billions of dollars to newfangled technology that increases the
possibility of war, both up there and down here. A separate branch of the armed forces
for space, these critics fear, risks militarizing U.S. space policy and promoting weapons
in space. On June 17, the Pentagon unveiled a Defense Space Strategy that made clear
the U.S. will counter Russian and Chinese space weapons, coordinate with allies and
prepare for war in space. Those looking for a less martial alternative point to Cold War
treaties that reduced the chances of conflict with the USSR. Despite the advancements
of space weapons, there are no enforceable rules for military action in space. The 1967
Outer Space Treaty forbids countries from deploying “nuclear weapons or any other
kinds of weapons of mass destruction” in space. But that language is broad, arms–
control analysts say, and could not foresee the rapid pace of technology now in
development. “In the absence of any international agreements about protecting
satellites and the outer-space environment, more countries are developing weapons
that can destroy satellites in orbit,” says Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned
Scientists.

Champion Briefs 205

Con Arguments March 2021

Warrant: Tensions are rising over space weapons

Billings, Lee. “War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever.” Scientific American, 10 Aug. 2015,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-in-space-may-be-closer-than-
ever/.

The long-simmering tensions are now approaching a boiling point due to several
events, including recent and ongoing tests of possible anti-satellite weapons by China
and Russia, as well as last month’s failure of tension-easing talks at the United
Nations. Testifying before Congress earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper echoed the concerns held by many senior government officials about the
growing threat to U.S. satellites, saying that China and Russia are both “developing
capabilities to deny access in a conflict,” such as those that might erupt over China’s
military activities in the South China Sea or Russia’s in Ukraine. China in particular,
Clapper said, has demonstrated “the need to interfere with, damage and destroy” U.S.
satellites, referring to a series of Chinese anti-satellite missile tests that began in 2007.

Warrant: Russia could encourage the US to join an arms race

Bateman, Aaron. “As Russia Stalks US Satellites, a Space Arms Race May Be Heating Up.”
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 22 May 2020,
https://thebulletin.org/2020/05/as-russian-satellites-stalk-us-ones-is-a-space-
arms-race-heating-up/.

Moscow’s aggressive behavior in space could prompt the United States to pursue
more assertive policies, like the reinvigoration of Cold War-era anti-satellite weapons
programs. In 2019, former Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson said that at some
point, the United States needs the ability to “hit back.” Russia’s destabilizing actions in

Champion Briefs 206

Con Arguments March 2021

space could, therefore, fuel a dangerous arms race in space. The coronavirus pandemic
is further eroding the strength of international institutions like the World Health
Organization and countries seem to be retreating into nationalist positions. At this
critical moment, security challenges that have important implications for the future of
humanity must not be dismissed. The post-Cold War-era treaty New START has
provisions that protect national security satellites from interference. The treaty is set
to expire in 2021, and it is not clear if the United States and Russia will successfully
negotiate an extension. Even though countries of the world are facing an
unprecedented crisis, now is the time to bolster international cooperation beyond
Earth’s atmosphere.

Impact: Arms races increase the risk of conflict

Gangopadhyay, Partha. “Is an Arms Race Just a Race to the Bottom? | SIPRI.”
STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 26 Sept. 2013,
https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2013/arms-race-just-race-bottom.

This action–reaction framework is consistent with several prominent international

relations models such as the security dilemma, the spiral model, and structural neo-
realist theory. It is well-documented in the existing literature that military spending
can pose a security dilemma, when a state chooses to retaliate to the military build-up
of another state because it is unaware of the rival’s true intentions. The reciprocated
increases in arming potentially engender a spiral of hostilities, increasing the chances
for the outbreak of armed conflict. In the latest works on arms races it is usually
assumed that a sequence of states, or leaders of these states, each chooses in turn one
of two options, A (to arm) or B (not to arm), with each state observing all of its
predecessors’ choices. They have common preferences among the two choices but do
not know which is better. Each state knows the costs and benefits of its own military
build-up, but it is unsure of the costs and benefits of its rivals in the arms race.

Champion Briefs 207

Con Arguments March 2021

Analysis: This is a good argument because it shows that there might be a war between
superpowers developing space weapons. Such a war could kill millions if not billions. Thus, this
argument is very easy to weigh on scope and magnitude.

Champion Briefs 208

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Space weapons have a high chance of miscalculation

Argument: Space weapons posturing has the potential to be misconstrued as offensive, which
could trigger a miscalculation.

Warrant: Few regulations could easily lead to escalation

Undark, Ramin Skibba. “The Ripple Effects of a Space Skirmish.” The Atlantic, 12 July
2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/07/space-warfare-
unregulated/614059/.

So far, there are relatively few international policies or norms about what’s allowed in
modern-day space and what’s not. The SWF report notes that an incident or
misunderstanding could escalate tensions if it’s perceived as an attack. The lack of
guidance has left room for a range of activities. Weeden said that in December 2019,
the Trump administration signaled its intention to strengthen the United States’ space
weaponry and protect its spacecraft from possible attacks by Russia and China by
transforming the Air Force Space Command into the U.S. Space Force. That shift
“brought a full-time operational focus to the space domain, which was a needed
change,” wrote Lieutenant Colonel Christina Hoggatt, a Space Force spokesperson, in a
statement to Undark. With these forces, the Defense Department seeks to “strengthen
deterrence” and improve capabilities to “defend our vital assets in space,” she wrote.
This emphasis, Burbach said, likely means that the U.S. military will focus on making
satellites more resilient to attack, rather than developing offensive weapons.

Warrant: Space weapons tend to be very offensive

Champion Briefs 209

Con Arguments March 2021

Trevithick, Joseph. “Space Force Just Received Its First New Offensive Weapon.” The
Drive, 13 Mar. 2020, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32570/space-
force-just-received-its-first-new-offensive-weapon.

U.S. Space Force has begun operating a new offensive weapon system, an upgraded
version of a ground-based satellite communications jamming system, for the first time
in its short history. The first iteration of the Counter Communications System entered
U.S. Air Force service in 2004 and the program has now gotten transferred to the
newest branch of the American military. The Space Force declared it had reached initial
operational capability with the Counter Communications System Block 10.2, or CCS
B10.2, on Mar. 9. The Harris Corporation, which merged with L3 Technologies last year
to form L3Harris Technologies, had received the contract from the Air Force to develop
this upgraded variant of the system in 2014. The National Defense Authorization Act
for the 2020 Fiscal Year, which Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed in
December 2019, officially established Space Force as a separate service within the
Department of the Air Force. Units and assets previously assigned to Air Force Space
Command now form the core of the new service, which is still very much in the process
of standing up. "CCS is the only offensive system in the United States Space Force
arsenal," Lieutenant Colonel Steve Brogan, the Combat Systems branch materiel
leader within the Space Force's Space and Missile Systems Center's (SMC) Special
Programs Directorate, said in an official news piece about the system in January 2020.
"This upgrade puts the 'force' in Space Force and is critical for Space as a warfighting
domain."

Warrant: Space weapons make miscalculation more likely

Blatt, Talia. “Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Emerging Space Arms Race.” Harvard
International Review, 26 May 2020, https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-
weapons-and-the-emerging-space-arms-race/.

Champion Briefs 210

Con Arguments March 2021

Additionally, accidental warfare, or strategic miscalculation, is uniquely likely in space.

It is much easier to hold an adversary’s space systems in jeopardy with destructive
ASATs than it is to sustainably defend a system, which is expensive and in some cases
not technologically feasible because of limitations on satellite movement. Space is
therefore considered offense-dominant; offensive tactics like weapons development
are prioritized over defensive measures, such as improving GPS or making satellites
more resistant to jamming. As a result, countries are left with poorly defended space
systems and rely on offensive posturing, which increases the risk that their actions are
perceived as aggressive and incentivizes rapid, risky counterattacks because militaries
cannot rely on their spaced-based systems after first strikes. As a result, countries are
left with poorly defended space systems and rely on offensive posturing, which
increases the risk that their actions are perceived as aggressive and incentivizes rapid,
risky counterattacks because militaries cannot rely on their spaced-based systems
after first strikes.

Impact: A single strike could kill 90 percent of the US

Knox, Patrick. “China’s Secret Space Weapons Could Kill 90% of People on US Soil,
Report Warns.” The US Sun, 28 June 2020, https://www.the-
sun.com/news/1052363/space-weapons-kill-90-of-people-us-mainland/.

The report by the EMP Task Force on Homeland and National Security, a coalition of
industry, security and government officials, lays bare a doomsday scenario of a
preemptive attack. EMPs use low-yield nuclear weapons detonated in the atmosphere
to create a wave of energy that fries electronic equipment and may knock out the
power grid. A cyber attack would then be used to cripple the internet. With no power,
the nation would be plunged into chaos which could lead to rioting and famine. The
task force claims an EMP would result in a meltdown in the economy and society

Champion Briefs 211

Con Arguments March 2021

which could kill between 70 and 90 percent — or 295million people. Its report was
published as relations between the two powers collapse amid the coronavirus
pandemic, which President Donald Trump continues to blame on China.

Analysis: This is a good argument because the impact is very easy to weigh on magnitude and
scope. If a space weapon is launched accidentally, this could potentially kill millions of people.
This means that it is very easy to outweigh any argument that the pro may bring up.

Champion Briefs 212

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Space weapons have no international regulations

Argument: Without international regulations, the possibility of warcrimes and unintentional

conflict is much higher in space.

Warrant: There are no settled methods for space war deterrence

Manson, Katrina, and Christian Shepherd. US Military Officials Eye New Generation of
Space Weapons. 2 Sept. 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/d44aa332-f564-
4b4a-89b7-1685e4579e72.

No generally agreed deterrence theory exists for space, but such approaches have
traditionally relied on the threat of deploying overwhelming force to discourage
others. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans nuclear weapons in space, leaving the field
open to other weapons, such as ground-based jammers and anti-satellite missiles. US
military officials have been alarmed by the number of space launches by China in
recent years. Thirty-two successful launches occurred last year and more than 40 are
forecast for this year. In June, Beijing completed its constellation of 35 BeiDou third-
generation satellites, which run the country’s alternative to GPS. China has promoted
BeiDou as an alternative to GPS to regional partners as part of its “belt and road”
initiative, a high-profile investment plan to build up its trade ties and geopolitical clout
across Eurasia. Beijing has already approved the military-grade version for use by
Pakistan.

Warrant: The United States has been unwilling to join Space Weapon treaties

Pappalardo, Joe. “Space Weapons Are Coming and Nothing Can Stop Them Now.”
Popular Mechanics, 25 Jan. 2018,

Champion Briefs 213

Con Arguments March 2021

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a15884747/no-treaty-will-
stop-space-weapons/.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is fired up. In comments to the Russian media this
month, Lavrov excoriated the United States for refusing to back the Prevention of an
Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), a treaty to ban the placement of conventional
weapons in space. “The United States continues nurturing plans to militarize outer
space, I mean the deployment of weapons in outer space,” Lavrov said. “Which will,
naturally, have very adverse consequences for problems of international security.” The
Obama administration wouldn't go for the treaty, and neither will the Trump White
House. It's not hard to see why. The Air Force has flown a secretive unmanned space
plane into orbit and tested hypersonic weapons that, if they ever work, could strike
targets worldwide. The Pentagon has launched satellites that can maneuver to keep an
eye on other spacecraft, which is a defensive move—but also could be the first step
toward attacking them.

Warrant: Possible misuse of space weapons necessitates treaties to regulate them

UN. Stronger Rules Must Guarantee Outer Space Remains Conflict-Free, First Committee
Delegates Stress, Calling for New Laws to Hold Perpetrators Accountable |
Meetings Coverage and Press Releases. 17 Oct. 2017,
https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/gadis3583.doc.htm.

Amid fears of an arms race in outer space, coupled with the transformation of that
domain into a zone of conflict, several speakers in the First Committee (Disarmament
and International Security) warned today against its misuse, with some calling for new
laws and mechanisms to hold perpetrators accountable. While space exploration
offered abundant opportunities as a global common good, there were no
comprehensive legal and regulatory mechanisms to prevent States from using it for

Champion Briefs 214

Con Arguments March 2021

military purposes, Kazakhstan’s representative said. Speaking on behalf of the

Non-Aligned Movement, Indonesia’s delegate called for negotiations in the Conference
on Disarmament of a universal legally binding instrument on the prevention of an arms
race in outer space. Similarly, Paraguay’s representative called for action to address the
issue of damages caused by space activities and the creation of an appropriate legal
regime regulating that aspect.

Impact: Past treaties have successfully stopped deadly conflict

Graham, Thomas. “Space Weapons and the Risk of Accidental Nuclear War | Arms
Control Association.” Arms Control Association, 2005,
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-12/features/space-weapons-risk-
accidental-nuclear-war.

Yet, where would we be without the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? Likely, more
than 40 states would be armed with nuclear weapons, meaning that every conflict
would run the risk of going nuclear, and nuclear weapons would be so widespread it
would be impossible to keep them out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Where
would we be without the strategic arms limitation and reduction agreements of the
1970s, 1980s, and 1990s? Likely, the United States and Russia would have so many
nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles, they could never be controlled.
Where would we be without the Outer Space Treaty? Nuclear weapons could be
orbiting the Earth with the capability to strike anywhere, anytime without warning.
Where are we now in the wake of the dissolution of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty? We possibly could be on the verge of actively considering the development and
deployment of space-based ABM systems that would address no current or foreseeable
threat but could unhinge strategic stability.

Champion Briefs 215

Con Arguments March 2021

Analysis: This is a good argument because it essentially shows why increasing space weapons
will inevitably lead to war. There are no regulations in place to stop that. Thus, this impact has a
high probability and is very easy to weigh.

Champion Briefs 216

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Space Force will increase quantity and threat of space debris

Argument: Increased tensions due to militarization of space will only create conflict and
therefore more space debris.

Warrant: Tensions are rising over space weapons

Billings, Lee. “War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever.” Scientific American, 10 Aug. 2015,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-in-space-may-be-closer-than-
ever/.

The long-simmering tensions are now approaching a boiling point due to several
events, including recent and ongoing tests of possible anti-satellite weapons by China
and Russia, as well as last month’s failure of tension-easing talks at the United
Nations. Testifying before Congress earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper echoed the concerns held by many senior government officials about the
growing threat to U.S. satellites, saying that China and Russia are both “developing
capabilities to deny access in a conflict,” such as those that might erupt over China’s
military activities in the South China Sea or Russia’s in Ukraine. China in particular,
Clapper said, has demonstrated “the need to interfere with, damage and destroy” U.S.
satellites, referring to a series of Chinese anti-satellite missile tests that began in 2007.

Warrant: There are many satellites that could be hit by a space weapon

Billings, Lee. “War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever.” Scientific American, 10 Aug. 2015,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-in-space-may-be-closer-than-
ever/.

Champion Briefs 217

Con Arguments March 2021

The emptiness of outer space might be the last place you’d expect militaries to vie
over contested territory, except that outer space isn’t so empty anymore. About 1,300
active satellites wreathe the globe in a crowded nest of orbits, providing worldwide
communications, GPS navigation, weather forecasting and planetary surveillance. For
militaries that rely on some of those satellites for modern warfare, space has become
the ultimate high ground, with the U.S. as the undisputed king of the hill. Now, as China
and Russia aggressively seek to challenge U.S. superiority in space with ambitious
military space programs of their own, the power struggle risks sparking a conflict that
could cripple the entire planet’s space-based infrastructure. And though it might begin
in space, such a conflict could easily ignite full-blown war on Earth.

Warrant: Satellites could be hurt in a space strike

Undark, Ramin Skibba. “The Ripple Effects of a Space Skirmish.” The Atlantic, 12 July
2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/07/space-warfare-
unregulated/614059/.

For example, the thousands of everyday satellites that already circle low-Earth orbit,
below an altitude of 1,200 miles, could potentially suffer collateral damage. More
than half of those satellites are from
the U.S.; many of the rest are from China and Russia. They provide key services like
internet access, GPS signals, long-distance communications, and weather information.
Any missile that smashes into a satellite—either as an attack or during a test—would
disperse thousands of bits of debris. Any one of those pieces, still hurtling at orbital
speeds, could take out another spacecraft and create yet more debris. “It’s very easy to
pollute space,” Burbach said. “The debris doesn’t discriminate. If you create debris, it
might just as well come back and hit one of your own satellites. So I think we’re pretty
unlikely to see countries actually use those capabilities.” Still, he said, “it would be
worrying to see countries showing off that [they] can do it and start testing.”

Champion Briefs 218

Con Arguments March 2021

Impact: Destroying satellites could be devastating for the world since we depend on them
Blatt, Talia. “Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Emerging Space Arms Race.” Harvard
International Review, 26 May 2020, https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-
weapons-and-the-emerging-space-arms-race/.

If debris knocks out a satellite, an increasingly likely possibility in a world with ASAT
tests, then the aforementioned conflict scenarios become more likely. Conflict aside,
ASAT-based debris clouds are terrifying in their own right. Public health, transportation,
climate science, and a litany of other crucial infrastructures are dependent on
satellites that are now at risk. Satellite GPS is a cornerstone of the modern economy;
some pundits believe that the slightest glitch in GPS satellites could shock the stock
market and further destabilize an unstable global economy. During the pandemic,
satellites are playing a crucial role in geospatial data collection for infectious disease
modeling. Essentially, it is hard to imagine a world without satellites, but that is a
possible outcome given that there are no reliable methods of withdrawing debris from
space.

Analysis: The creation of a Space Force will inevitably lead to space weaponization, and an
increased amount of space debris. Without regulations in place, the U.S. military will be largely
unchecked when it comes to weapons testing and satellite destruction.

Champion Briefs 219

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Creating a space force is a violation of the Outer Space Treaty

Argument: The creation of a space force will violate the terms of the Outer Space Treaty

Warrant: The Outer Space Treaty forbids deployment of weapons in space

Hennigan, JW. “America Really Does Have a Space Force. We Went Inside to See What It
Does.” Time, 23 July 2020, https://time.com/5869987/spaceforce/.

Regardless of the seemingly contradictory Russian positions, some U.S. critics and
arms–control analysts say the creation of Space Force makes conflict more likely. A
new orbital arms race has turned space into a “war-fighting domain,” like air, land and
sea, and will funnel billions of dollars to newfangled technology that increases the
possibility of war, both up there and down here. A separate branch of the armed forces
for space, these critics fear, risks militarizing U.S. space policy and promoting weapons
in space. On June 17, the Pentagon unveiled a Defense Space Strategy that made clear
the U.S. will counter Russian and Chinese space weapons, coordinate with allies and
prepare for war in space. Those looking for a less martial alternative point to Cold War
treaties that reduced the chances of conflict with the USSR. Despite the advancements
of space weapons, there are no enforceable rules for military action in space. The 1967
Outer Space Treaty forbids countries from deploying “nuclear weapons or any other
kinds of weapons of mass destruction” in space. But that language is broad, arms–
control analysts say, and could not foresee the rapid pace of technology now in
development. “In the absence of any international agreements about protecting
satellites and the outer-space environment, more countries are developing weapons
that can destroy satellites in orbit,” says Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned
Scientists.

Warrant: Tensions are rising over space weapons

Champion Briefs 220

Con Arguments March 2021

Billings, Lee. “War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever.” Scientific American, 10 Aug. 2015,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-in-space-may-be-closer-than-
ever/.

The long-simmering tensions are now approaching a boiling point due to several
events, including recent and ongoing tests of possible anti-satellite weapons by China
and Russia, as well as last month’s failure of tension-easing talks at the United
Nations. Testifying before Congress earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper echoed the concerns held by many senior government officials about the
growing threat to U.S. satellites, saying that China and Russia are both “developing
capabilities to deny access in a conflict,” such as those that might erupt over China’s
military activities in the South China Sea or Russia’s in Ukraine. China in particular,
Clapper said, has demonstrated “the need to interfere with, damage and destroy” U.S.
satellites, referring to a series of Chinese anti-satellite missile tests that began in 2007.

Warrant: Russia could encourage the US to join an arms race

Bateman, Aaron. “As Russia Stalks US Satellites, a Space Arms Race May Be Heating Up.”
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 22 May 2020,
https://thebulletin.org/2020/05/as-russian-satellites-stalk-us-ones-is-a-space-
arms-race-heating-up/.

Moscow’s aggressive behavior in space could prompt the United States to pursue
more assertive policies, like the reinvigoration of Cold War-era anti-satellite weapons
programs. In 2019, former Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson said that at some
point, the United States needs the ability to “hit back.” Russia’s destabilizing actions in
space could, therefore, fuel a dangerous arms race in space. The coronavirus pandemic
is further eroding the strength of international institutions like the World Health
Organization and countries seem to be retreating into nationalist positions. At this

Champion Briefs 221

Con Arguments March 2021

critical moment, security challenges that have important implications for the future of
humanity must not be dismissed. The post-Cold War-era treaty New START has
provisions that protect national security satellites from interference. The treaty is set
to expire in 2021, and it is not clear if the United States and Russia will successfully
negotiate an extension. Even though countries of the world are facing an
unprecedented crisis, now is the time to bolster international cooperation beyond
Earth’s atmosphere.

Impact: Arms races increase the risk of conflict

Gangopadhyay, Partha. “Is an Arms Race Just a Race to the Bottom? | SIPRI.”
STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 26 Sept. 2013,
https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2013/arms-race-just-race-bottom.

This action–reaction framework is consistent with several prominent international

relations models such as the security dilemma, the spiral model, and structural neo-
realist theory. It is well-documented in the existing literature that military spending
can pose a security dilemma, when a state chooses to retaliate to the military build-up
of another state because it is unaware of the rival’s true intentions. The reciprocated
increases in arming potentially engender a spiral of hostilities, increasing the chances
for the outbreak of armed conflict. In the latest works on arms races it is usually
assumed that a sequence of states, or leaders of these states, each chooses in turn one
of two options, A (to arm) or B (not to arm), with each state observing all of its
predecessors’ choices. They have common preferences among the two choices but do
not know which is better. Each state knows the costs and benefits of its own military
build-up, but it is unsure of the costs and benefits of its rivals in the arms race.

Champion Briefs 222

Con Arguments March 2021

Analysis: The United States will ultimately use this chance to weaponize space. By beginning an
arms race in space, the U.S. will run afoul of the most crucial regulation that exists to prevent
anarchy in space.

Champion Briefs 223

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Creation of the Space Force undermines the Air Force

Argument: Creating a Space Force will constrain the Air Force

Sandra Erwin, 9-18-2018, "Air Force Association opposes establishment of a Space

Force, says air and space are ‘indivisible’," SpaceNews,
https://spacenews.com/air-force-association-opposes-establishment-of-a-space-
force-says-air-and-space-are-indivisible/

The association supports some elements of the Trump administration’s and the Defense
Department’s proposed actions such as the standup of a combatant command, U.S.
Space Command. “Rapidly reducing U.S. space capability gaps, while re-establishing U.S.
Space Command, is the best way to address advancing threats to space.” But creating a
separate service would be damaging, the association contends. “From an employment
perspective, effects from air and space have been integrated and are indivisible. The
U.S. Air Force may want to reflect this reality so it is better understood by Americans by
considering renaming the U.S. Air Force to the U.S. Aerospace Force.” AFA agrees with
other Space Force critics that the cost of a separate service is an unnecessary burden at
a time when military budgets are strained. “The Space Force proposal is a resource
question writ large,” the position paper says. “Too much mission, too few dollars.
Standing up a separate space bureaucracy amplifies the problem by driving more
money to a headquarters function, not space operations. Congress has constrained
space capabilities, not the Air Force, by underfunding the service.” Before Congress
debates this issue, more questions need to be answered about U.S. military space policy
and posture, AFA says. “Currently there are no space arms which are fundamental to
setting up an armed service. Constraints to fully-weaponized space capability must be
debated and changed by Congress to allow the Air Force to mature space warfare
theory and concepts of operation for war in, from, and through space.” Before
establishing a new armed service, “realistic concepts of operation to hold an enemy at

Champion Briefs 224

Con Arguments March 2021

risk from space must be considered and debated before establishing a separate space
armed force.” AFA points out that the U.S. Air Force is the “steward” of key space
capabilities that support the U.S. military, its allies and the nation’s economy. “As Air
Force Chief of Staff Thomas D. White said in 1958, ‘Air and space are not two separate
media to be divided by a line and to be readily separated into two distinct categories;
they are in truth a single indivisible field of operations.’”

Warrant: Space Force does not serve an offensive role

Fred Kaplan, 6-21-2018, "Trump’s “Space Force” Idea Is a Terrible Solution to a Real
Problem," Slate Magazine, https://slate.com/news-and-
politics/2018/06/trumps-space-force-idea-is-a-terrible-solution-to-a-real-
problem.html

One might think that the directors of these organizations would have an interest in
defending their extremely expensive satellites, but they appear not to. This neglect is
what has led some, well before Trump, to propose an autonomous Space Force. The
idea is that, rather than being stacked with—and reporting to—traditional Air Force
officers, most of them fighter pilots with a drive for offensive combat operations, the
specialists of the Space Force would be attuned to the needs, properties, and
vulnerabilities of satellites and the systems connected to them. If Trump thinks that
U.S.–South Korean military exercises are too expensive, those costs are trivial compared
to the infrastructure of a sixth service. But in fact, this is not likely what would happen—
and it’s certainly not what should happen. The special thing about satellites and the
organizations that control or operate them (Air Force Space Command, the NRO, and
other smaller outfits) is that they are, by nature, subordinate to other branches of the
armed forces—to wars that are fought not in outer space but on Earth or in the
atmosphere. Space assets service air, naval, and ground forces by providing them with
intelligence, communications, and guidance for missiles and smart bombs. Placing

Champion Briefs 225

Con Arguments March 2021

these vital assets under the command of a four-star general in a separate service—and
imbuing its officers and enlisted personnel with the élan of an elite force that doesn’t
answer to the other services of the armed forces and that, in fact, competes with them
for resources—would run counter to the nation’s needs.

Argument: Space Force takes funds and people from Air Force

Col. Keith Zuegel (Ret.), 8-3-2020, "Washington isn’t listening to the Air Force and Space
Force," Defense News,
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/08/03/washington-
isnt-listening-to-the-air-force-and-space-force/

The nascent Space Force needs investment to increase capability and the authorities
to organize for efficacy to meet the capabilities that were promised when it was
founded in December 2019. It needs to become joint — not just have personnel change
name tags from U.S. Air Force to U.S. Space Force. And the National Reconnaissance
Office should be part of the Space Force. The Department of the Air Force needs stable
and predictable funding — at adequate funding levels. Continuing resolutions degrade
readiness. Currently, two services — both the Air Force and the Space Force — must
train and equip their forces within the Air Force’s original budget level. What is a
continuing resolution? What is a continuing resolution? A CR usually means the regular
process of passing 12 appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year has failed. By: Joe
Gould To ensure our military is ready, it must take care of its people — active, Guard,
reserve and civilians. That means commensurate pay, preserving medical billets,
maintaining access to medical services and facilities, eliminating restrictive licensure
requirements that limit the ability of military spouses to transition to new
professional jobs after moving, sufficient child care centers, and adequate military
housing. Planned reforms of the DoD’s Military Health System would eliminate up to
18,000 military medical personnel — 4,000 from the Air Force, 7,000 from the Army

Champion Briefs 226

Con Arguments March 2021

and 5,000 from the Navy. Dozens of military treatment facilities would be downsized,
with access limited to active-duty personnel. The services need legislative relief to
overcome a six-month restriction before hiring military retirees possessing a security
clearance. The U.S. Air Force remains the world’s predominant air force; however, its
dominance is endangered. Air superiority is not a birthright. The fledgling U.S. Space
Force remains the world’s leader in military space; however, without resources and
congressional focus, it will be challenged by other world powers. This is the fourth
quarter of the budget season, so Congress should recognize and support both services
now — before it’s too late.

Warrant: There are too few officers and personal in STEM for both

Spirtas, Michael, Yool Kim, Frank Camm, Shirley M. Ross, Debra Knopman, Forrest E.
Morgan, Sebastian Joon Bae, M. Scott Bond, John S. Crown, and Elaine Simmons,
2020 “Creating a Separate Space Force: Challenges and Opportunities for an
Effective, Efficient, Independent Space Service.” Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10103.html.

The Space Force will need people skilled in space operations, space intelligence, space
acquisition, and other STEM disciplines. The new service will face two challenges to
building and maintaining such a workforce: Difficulty sustaining small career fields:
Given the relatively small numbers in the Space Force, it will be challenging to have
uniformed personnel spend their full careers there. Analysis suggests that, although
some career fields will be organic to the Space Force, many will be manned by Air Force
officers on assignment. For the subset of Air Force career fields that requires
substantive space knowledge to serve effectively in the Space Force, the Air Force will
need to develop a "space track" to ensure the additional training and development
necessary for officers who will serve in the Space Force. This will require close
coordination between the two services to ensure that there are healthy career fields

Champion Briefs 227

Con Arguments March 2021

that support the needs of both. Shortfalls in general officer throughput: For the same
reasons as above, the Space Force will likely need to draw about one-half of its
general officers from the Air Force or other services for the foreseeable future.

Analysis: In order to create Space Force, resources and personnel will be diverted from the Air
Force, who previously administered these affairs. The result would mean less money and
talented workers for the Air Force, which could potentially hamper their ability to respond to a
conflict.

Champion Briefs 228

Con Arguments March 2021

CON: Creating a Space Force will lead to monopolization of space

Argument: The US should not attempt to pursue hegemony in space because it will lead to
greed and conflict.

Warrant: Space is a resource, much like any other. It’s finite, but valuable.

Liu Weidong, 12-20-2019, "Will US Space Force take hegemony to cosmos?,"Global

Times. 20 Dec. 2019. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1175302.shtml

But this could only be wishful thinking. On the other hand, space is a public domain, and
it is thus highly unlikely to be privatized. In warfare on Earth, countries generally fight
for land. But in space competition, an area can't be occupied, a country can launch
space force and satellites as long as it is capable. Space, just like the Antarctic and the
Arctic, is a natural resource for all human beings, which should not be overly
militarized. Space militarization will increase the risk of conflicts and is a waste of
resources. There are precedents for peaceful utilization of space. For example, the
Soviet Union and the US used to cooperate in space exploration. Every country should
promote peaceful use of space and try not to utilize it as a platform to attack or
threaten other countries. Thus, the world will be able to make better use of space to
benefit humanity. Only countries longing for hegemony will overemphasize
dominance, which will face resistance from most other countries. The international
community can try to create pressure on the US to discourage it from setting up a
space force. However, it may not be an ideal step. Even though the world sets up
relevant international laws or mechanisms, the US can choose to turn a blind eye to
them. Hence, external restrictions on the US could be weak. All in all, the only power
that can actually influence the US government is its own people. American people need
to awaken their government and make it realize the power of the ballot.

Champion Briefs 229

Con Arguments March 2021

Warrant: China is the nation close to hegemony in America

Greg Autry, Steve Kwast, 12-8-2018, "America Is Losing the Second Space Race to
China," Foreign Policy. 8 Dec. 2018. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/22/america-is-losing-the-second-space-race-
to-china/

The current U.S. space defense strategy is inadequate and on a path to failure.
President Donald Trump’s vision for a Space Force is big enough. As he said on June 18,
“It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have
American dominance in space.” But the Air Force is not matching this vision. Instead, the
leadership is currently focused on incremental improvements to existing equipment and
organizational structures. Dominating the vast and dynamic environment of space will
require revolutionary capabilities and resources far deeper than traditional Department
of Defense thinking can fund, manage, or even conceive of. Success depends on a much
more active partnership with the commercial space industry— and its disruptive
capabilities. U.S. military space planners are preparing to repeat a conflict they imagined
back in the 1980s, which never actually occurred, against a vanished Soviet empire.
Meanwhile, China is executing a winning strategy in the world of today. It is burning
hard toward domination of the future space markets that will define the next century.
They are planning infrastructure in space that will control 21st-century
telecommunications, energy, transportation, and manufacturing. In doing so, they will
acquire trillion-dollar revenues as well as the deep capabilities that come from
continuous operational experience in space. This will deliver space dominance and
global hegemony to China’s authoritarian rulers.

Warrant: US pursuing hegemony in space lets the government

Champion Briefs 230

Con Arguments March 2021

Wang Yiwei, 05-12-2020, "US shows ambition for space hegemony amid grim COVID-19
situation," Global Times. 12 May, 2020. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1188170.shtml

Yet the US fantasizes to make the moon and space its own by getting there first.
Planting a US flag on the moon during the first moon landing by the Apollo program in
1969 can be argued as a proof. Such a monopolistic approach is frequently practiced
today. For instance, reports show that the Trump administration allegedly offered a
German medical company "large sums of money" in March for exclusive rights to a
possible COVID-19 vaccine. In response to the egoistic US, China stresses the power of
international justice and the safeguarding of regional peace through the development
of high technology. If the US is allowed unfettered expansion of its hegemony and
monopoly in space, the future of the entire human race will become absolutely dark.
Space has become a new military frontier for a growing number of countries. The US-
proposed initiative now marks NASA's growing role as a diplomatic platform to deliver
Trump's foreign policy. NASA, like the Federal Reserve System, bills itself as an
independent agency, but it is increasingly tied to the US government as a blunt political
tool for the country to lead the world. Trump showed his naked ambitions for moon
explorations amid the ugliest moments of the COVID-19 crisis in the US. This signals
that the US will never prioritize people's lives and health during major crises. Living in
such a liberal country, Americans have to take care of their own existence, because
their government is too busy seeking space hegemony in outer space.

Warrant: The Space Force is not the way to create hegemony in Space

Charles Beames. 01-28-2021. “The Innovation that Will Secure US Security in Space.”
Aviation Week Network. 28 Jan. 2021. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/commercial-space/opinion-innovation-
will-ensure-us-security-space

Champion Briefs 231

Con Arguments March 2021

The West is once again threatened by a hegemonic national security rival. This time,
America’s archnemesis is characterized by planning for a long contest that will feature
fast-forward economics, global diplomacy, military muscle and information
manipulation: China, it appears, is preparing to use its economic power to win. While
maintaining its deep belief in Marx’s communist vision, the Chinese one-party
government has fashioned a national economy that learned from the Soviet Union’s
mistakes. Through friendly engagement with Western economies, China strengthens its
own economy and weakens the West’s, nudging the world toward the worldview of the
Chinese Communist Party. What then, are the best avenues for the U.S. to win this
new near-peer space competition? They are the same ones that delivered victory in
the last century: free markets, real economic growth and the productivity that often
follows. This time, however, we must keep in mind that our rival is a keen student
that has learned from our earlier successes—and Soviet failures. The American
response must not repeat the Cold War strategy of outspending our rival in government
programs. Instead, the U.S. long game must put the commercial industry first:
deliberately buy goods and services from our commercial domestic market, only
providing government solutions when the commercial market cannot meet
requirements. Unlike other military services, there are no real “weapons” in space.
Much of what the government is developing for civil and national security space needs
also exists as products or services in the commercial market. By encouraging the
commercial industry to grow and not competing against it, the U.S. will secure a long-
term strategy leading to unrivaled space leadership. The U.S. economy has generated
growth and prosperity unmatched in human history, with billions of dollars being
invested every year into profitable commercial space companies. To outpace China
militarily and economically, the new administration must double down on space
privatization projects like NASA’s Commercial Crew and Commercial Resupply Programs
started under the Obama administration. The Trump administration correctly
reprioritized the importance of space for national security, but it directed too much

Champion Briefs 232

Con Arguments March 2021

government spending to legacy space projects and fell short in encouraging the next
generation of commercial space companies.

Analysis: Space is truly the final frontier, but one must ask whether the United States can be
trusted to militarize such a frontier in this regard. The U.S. military has played a questionable
role in the past, often using its might to justify expansionism and abuse. Con teams should
argue that this is a prime situation for that to occur once again.

Champion Briefs 233

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force establishes diversity norms

Answer: Space Force does little to impact diversity norms. If anything, further militarization will
only serve to exacerbate diversity norms.

Warrant: Militarism disproportionately harms minorities

Guerlain, Pierre, 11-22-2013, "The Social and Economic Consequences of US Militarism,"

Open Edition Journals. 22 Nov. 2013. Web. 5 Feb. 2021.
https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/5371?lang=en

Minorities, especially African-Americans, are over-represented among soldiers (but not

in the officer corps) for their job opportunities are poorer than for other groups. Elites,
that is the ruling class, send lower or working-class men and women to fight the wars
they decide to run from the safety of their offices. Militarism is thus a class and race
issue too. More African-Americans and more poor people are killed or wounded or
suffer from severe Stress Related Disorders (SRD) than other groups. Michael Moore
pointed out in one of his movies, Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), that only one Representative
had a family member fighting in Iraq. The rich decide on wars that the poor fight and die
for. When they return home they face unemployment again and if they need medical
treatment they may not get it.26 Chalmers Johnson uses the expression Hannah Arendt
coined to describe Eichmann, “desk murderer”, to refer to political leaders like Bush and
Cheney who send soldiers in harm’s way from the safety of their offices and homes.
Disrespect for US and international law and outright lies about weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq certainly make the expression ap

Warrant: Military spending takes up discretionary spending

Charles Koch Institute Staff. 2021."The Military Spending Debate," Charles Koch

Champion Briefs 235

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Foundation. 2021. Web. 5 Feb. 2021

https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/foreign-policy/the-military-
spending-debate/

Every year, the federal budget is formed of two categories: mandatory and discretionary
spending. Congress has already committed to so-called mandatory spending, which
covers most major entitlement programs and is a little over half of total federal
spending (estimated at 53 percent of the budget in 2019). The discretionary budget is
the money that Congress debates every year, funding the military, education, and
other domestic programs. At about $1 trillion, military-related spending is by far the
largest part of the discretionary budget. It takes up around 21 percent of total federal
spending, or a little under half of the money that Congress can directly choose how to
spend. In recent years, both the Republican and Democratic parties have
enthusiastically accommodated high military spending. The budget process has been
characterized by bipartisan deals that allow Republicans to raise military spending in
exchange for allowing Democrats to raise the amount assigned to domestic programs. In
2018, Congress approved a budget that increased discretionary spending caps over the
next two years by roughly $160 billion for Pentagon spending and $128 billion for
domestic programs. Decades ago, this might not have been a problem, but the fiscal
realities are different today: The United States is in over $20 trillion of debt and runs
budget deficits in the many hundreds of billions of dollars. Unfortunately, the military
spending debate often fails to take this into account. Whether you think that Congress
should spend more on domestic programs, pay down the debt, or return money to
taxpayers, $1 trillion is a hefty price tag.

Warrant: Space Force adds onto an already high military budget

Mike Gruss, Aaron Mehta, 3-6-2019, "Space Force to cost $2 billion, include 15,000

Champion Briefs 236

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

personnel in first five years," Defense News. 6 Mar. 2020. Web. 5 Feb. 2021.
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2019/03/01/space-force-to-cost-2-
billion-include-15000-personnel-in-first-five-years/

The Trump administration plans to spend $2 billion in new funding over a five-year
period to create its Space Force, during which roughly 15,000 space-related personnel
will transfer from existing roles. Officials unveiled those details and the Pentagon’s
legislative proposal for the new military service March 1. Defense leaders sent the
formal proposal to Congress Feb. 27 after President Donald Trump ordered its creation
in June. While many of the details have yet to be determined — will the service have a
bootcamp (unclear), its own service academy (no), their own uniforms (possible) or
recruitment centers (probably) — a Space Force would share resources such as an
acquisition chief, general counsel and chaplains with the broader Department of the Air
Force.

Warrant: Underfunding of discretionary programs harm vulnerable populations

Elliott Negin, 9-14-2020, "It’s Time to Rein in Inflated Military Budgets," Scientific
American. 14 Sep. 2020. Web. 5 Feb. 2021.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-rein-in-inflated-military-
budgets/

While the Pentagon budget routinely eats up more than half of annual U.S.
discretionary spending, a host of other interrelated threats that undermine national
security writ large go chronically underfunded, including the current public health,
environmental and climate crises, all of which disproportionately harm low-income
communities and communities of color. Certainly, these crises predate the Trump
administration. But in its zeal to dismantle government regulations and slash critical
programs, it has greatly exacerbated them. At the same time, its fiscal year (FY) 2021

Champion Briefs 237

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

budget calls for spending $740.5 billion on the Pentagon, $100 billion more than when
President Trump took office and the most since World War II. In late July, both houses of
Congress approved that request

Analysis: Many of the best responses to this argument are to look into the resources the Space
Force takes up. The creation of it carries a massive price tag that would exacerbate the
problems that already exist with military spending, namely the crowd out effect. If teams can
show that the increase in military spending would decrease funds going towards social
programs, they can link in to harms to vulnerable populations within the US. The weighing
there becomes easy on scope because even if aff links into improving diversity within the space
force, neg can impact to all vulnerable populations in America.

Champion Briefs 238

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force would let the US serve as a police force

Answer: Space policing is unnecessary, serves as a justification for militarism.

Warrant: We are not at a point, or close to a point, where space would need to be policed

Lauren Tousignant, 2-10-2017, "Do we need to establish a police force in space?," New
York Post. 10 Feb. 2017. Web. 8 Feb 2021. https://nypost.com/2017/02/10/do-
we-need-to-establish-a-police-force-in-space/

But Johnson explained that we would really only need some type of police force if
countries decided to sovereign in space — which is currently prohibited under Article II
of the treaty. The boundaries of international law have a limit and “we haven’t
developed there as a civilization,” Johnson told The Post. Space has no governor, so it
can’t be governed.Furthermore, space exploration remains so risky that countries still
have to rely on one other if they want a rewarding mission. Research and data needs
to be shared with absolute transparency in order for any country’s space program to
have success. On December 7, 2016, in anticipation of the treaty’s 50th anniversary, the
State Department issued its first statement on OST in 30 years, pledging the United
States’ dedication to the treaty’s framework for the next 50 years and beyond. “As a
place that has no police force,” said Johnson. “[Space is] a place we’ve seen, by and
large, 50 years of really great cooperation.” So if the idea of space police sounds like a
futuristic, science fiction trope, or an out-of-this-world buddy cop comedy, it pretty
much is — at least for now.

Warrant: There is already legal parameters for actions in outer space

Loren Grush, 1-27-2017, "How an international treaty signed 50 years ago

Champion Briefs 239

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

became the backbone for space law," Verge. 27 Jan. 2017. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/27/14398492/outer-space-treaty-50-
anniversary-exploration-guidelines

Fifty years ago today, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom
opened a treaty for signature that would become the backbone for international
space law. It was a United Nations-approved agreement called the Outer Space Treaty,
and 104 nations have become parties to the document since it was signed and enacted
in 1967. Since then, the treaty has helped ensure the peaceful exploration of space, as
well as provide a lasting framework for how nations are supposed to behave in Earth
orbit and beyond. In reality, the “Outer Space Treaty” is just a nickname. The
document’s full title is the “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.” It’s
a lengthy name, but it sums up the essence of the treaty well: it’s a list of principles for
what nations can and cannot do in space and on other worlds. For example, nations
can’t claim an asteroid as theirs, and they also should prevent contaminating foreign
planets.

Non Unique: Countries are already self policing their space actions

Frank A. Rose, 3-14-2019, "America in space: Future visions, current issues," Brookings.
14 Mar. 2019. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/america-in-space-future-visions-
current-issues/

One of the most successful diplomatic efforts to date to address the orbital debris
challenge has been the U.N. Debris Mitigation Guidelines, approved by the U.N.
General Assembly in 2007. The guidelines are based on recommendations initially
developed by the Inter-Agency Debris Coordination Committee (IADC), which consists of

Champion Briefs 240

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

representatives from the world’s major space agencies such as the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), European Space Agency (ESA), and Russian State
Corporation for Space Activities (ROSCOSMOS). The objective of these guidelines is to
minimize the creation of man-made debris in Earth’s orbit and reduce the threat to
human and robotic space flight.The guidelines focus on limiting the amount of debris
released during normal operations, reducing the probability of accidental collision in
orbit, and avoiding intentional destruction and other harmful activities. While the
guidelines themselves are not legally binding in international law, several countries
have incorporated the guidelines into their domestic laws and regulations. The
guidelines have also established a precedent as to what a responsible space actor does
in orbit, and helped develop a strong international norm against conducting debris-
generating events in outer space, such as China’s 2007 anti-satellite test.

Turn: Space Force creates far more space junk

Rick Noack, 8-10-2018, "Analysis," The Washington Post. 10 Aug. 2018. Web. 8 Feb.
2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/08/10/trumps-proposed-
space-force-could-worsen-earths-orbital-debris-problem/

When Vice President Pence announced plans to create a “Space Force” military
command by 2020 on Thursday, social media was flooded with Star Trek theme music,
astronaut GIFs and suggestions for the Space Force’s future logo. But to some space
experts, Pence’s de facto call to arms was less of a laughing matter. Long before Pence
referred to space as a potential future “battlefield,” China attempted to extend its
military might there, culminating in a 2007 military antisatellite test in the low Earth
orbit — within 1,240 miles of our planet — that has the highest density of satellites.
Analysts estimate that 25 percent of today’s space debris originated in this single 2007

Champion Briefs 241

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

test when the Chinese military blasted apart one of its own weather satellites with a
missile at an altitude of 537 miles.

Analysis: There are quite a few routes to take to address the space police argument. The most
effective may be to look at the current international space agreements and use those as ways
to diminish the urgency of a country jumping in and taking the lead in space. Another thing to
consider is that America is already one of the countries at the front of the space race, so asking
questions and making analytic responses questioning whether America would a) be able to be a
police force with other countries also possessing power in space b) become the police force if
they aren’t policing already and c) have a greater benefit in policing other countries than harm
by being more active in space, all could work to mitigate the offense coming off of this
argument.

Champion Briefs 242

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: US hegemony in space

Answer: Pursuing space hegemony will lead to militarization by the U.S and China.

Turn: The US should not attempt to pursue hegemony in space because over militarization is
bad

Liu Weidong, 12-20-2019, "Will US Space Force take hegemony to cosmos?,"Global

Times. 20 Dec. 2019. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1175302.shtml

But this could only be wishful thinking. On the other hand, space is a public domain, and
it is thus highly unlikely to be privatized. In warfare on Earth, countries generally fight
for land. But in space competition, an area can't be occupied, a country can launch
space force and satellites as long as it is capable. Space, just like the Antarctic and the
Arctic, is a natural resource for all human beings, which should not be overly
militarized. Space militarization will increase the risk of conflicts and is a waste of
resources. There are precedents for peaceful utilization of space. For example, the
Soviet Union and the US used to cooperate in space exploration. Every country should
promote peaceful use of space and try not to utilize it as a platform to attack or
threaten other countries. Thus, the world will be able to make better use of space to
benefit humanity. Only countries longing for hegemony will overemphasize
dominance, which will face resistance from most other countries. The international
community can try to create pressure on the US to discourage it from setting up a
space force. However, it may not be an ideal step. Even though the world sets up
relevant international laws or mechanisms, the US can choose to turn a blind eye to
them. Hence, external restrictions on the US could be weak. All in all, the only power
that can actually influence the US government is its own people. American people need
to awaken their government and make it realize the power of the ballot.

Champion Briefs 243

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Warrant: China is the nation close to hegemony in America

Greg Autry, Steve Kwast, 12-8-2018, "America Is Losing the Second Space Race to
China," Foreign Policy. 8 Dec. 2018. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/22/america-is-losing-the-second-space-race-
to-china/

The current U.S. space defense strategy is inadequate and on a path to failure.
President Donald Trump’s vision for a Space Force is big enough. As he said on June 18,
“It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have
American dominance in space.” But the Air Force is not matching this vision. Instead, the
leadership is currently focused on incremental improvements to existing equipment and
organizational structures. Dominating the vast and dynamic environment of space will
require revolutionary capabilities and resources far deeper than traditional Department
of Defense thinking can fund, manage, or even conceive of. Success depends on a much
more active partnership with the commercial space industry— and its disruptive
capabilities. U.S. military space planners are preparing to repeat a conflict they imagined
back in the 1980s, which never actually occurred, against a vanished Soviet empire.
Meanwhile, China is executing a winning strategy in the world of today. It is burning
hard toward domination of the future space markets that will define the next century.
They are planning infrastructure in space that will control 21st-century
telecommunications, energy, transportation, and manufacturing. In doing so, they will
acquire trillion-dollar revenues as well as the deep capabilities that come from
continuous operational experience in space. This will deliver space dominance and
global hegemony to China’s authoritarian rulers.

Warrant: US pursuing hegemony in space lets the government act dangerously

Champion Briefs 244

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Wang Yiwei, 05-12-2020, "US shows ambition for space hegemony amid grim COVID-19
situation," Global Times. 12 May, 2020. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1188170.shtml

Yet the US fantasizes to make the moon and space its own by getting there first.
Planting a US flag on the moon during the first moon landing by the Apollo program in
1969 can be argued as a proof. Such a monopolistic approach is frequently practiced
today. For instance, reports show that the Trump administration allegedly offered a
German medical company "large sums of money" in March for exclusive rights to a
possible COVID-19 vaccine. In response to the egoistic US, China stresses the power of
international justice and the safeguarding of regional peace through the development
of high technology. If the US is allowed unfettered expansion of its hegemony and
monopoly in space, the future of the entire human race will become absolutely dark.
Space has become a new military frontier for a growing number of countries. The US-
proposed initiative now marks NASA's growing role as a diplomatic platform to deliver
Trump's foreign policy. NASA, like the Federal Reserve System, bills itself as an
independent agency, but it is increasingly tied to the US government as a blunt political
tool for the country to lead the world. Trump showed his naked ambitions for moon
explorations amid the ugliest moments of the COVID-19 crisis in the US. This signals
that the US will never prioritize people's lives and health during major crises. Living in
such a liberal country, Americans have to take care of their own existence, because
their government is too busy seeking space hegemony in outer space.

Warrant: The Space Force is not the way to create hegemony in Space

Charles Beames. 01-28-2021. “The Innovation that Will Secure US Security in Space.”
Aviation Week Network. 28 Jan. 2021. Web. 8 Feb. 2021.
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/commercial-space/opinion-innovation-
will-ensure-us-security-space

Champion Briefs 245

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

The West is once again threatened by a hegemonic national security rival. This time,
America’s archnemesis is characterized by planning for a long contest that will feature
fast-forward economics, global diplomacy, military muscle and information
manipulation: China, it appears, is preparing to use its economic power to win. While
maintaining its deep belief in Marx’s communist vision, the Chinese one-party
government has fashioned a national economy that learned from the Soviet Union’s
mistakes. Through friendly engagement with Western economies, China strengthens its
own economy and weakens the West’s, nudging the world toward the worldview of the
Chinese Communist Party. What then, are the best avenues for the U.S. to win this
new near-peer space competition? They are the same ones that delivered victory in
the last century: free markets, real economic growth and the productivity that often
follows. This time, however, we must keep in mind that our rival is a keen student
that has learned from our earlier successes—and Soviet failures. The American
response must not repeat the Cold War strategy of outspending our rival in government
programs. Instead, the U.S. long game must put the commercial industry first:
deliberately buy goods and services from our commercial domestic market, only
providing government solutions when the commercial market cannot meet
requirements. Unlike other military services, there are no real “weapons” in space.
Much of what the government is developing for civil and national security space needs
also exists as products or services in the commercial market. By encouraging the
commercial industry to grow and not competing against it, the U.S. will secure a long-
term strategy leading to unrivaled space leadership. The U.S. economy has generated
growth and prosperity unmatched in human history, with billions of dollars being
invested every year into profitable commercial space companies. To outpace China
militarily and economically, the new administration must double down on space
privatization projects like NASA’s Commercial Crew and Commercial Resupply Programs
started under the Obama administration. The Trump administration correctly
reprioritized the importance of space for national security, but it directed too much

Champion Briefs 246

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

government spending to legacy space projects and fell short in encouraging the next
generation of commercial space companies.

Analysis: In response to this argument teams should question both the importance of
hegemony in space and whether the space force is the best way to access it. If teams can prove
that there are other ways to ensure hegemony without the space force, the aff team loses
much of their uniqueness to their case and it will be hard for them to fully access the offense on
their contention. Teams can also combine that approach with a disad about the unique harms
of the space force (arms race, etc) in order to create offense for themselves off of the
argument.

Champion Briefs 247

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force is crucial for further space research

Answer: Space weapons would cost billions of dollars, which is far too expensive to justify the
benefits of space research.

Warrant: Space Force aims to invest in the most cutting edge technology

Garamone, Jim. “Esper: Air Force, Space Force Leading Charge to New Technologies.”
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 16 Sept. 2020,
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2349408/esper-air-
force-space-force-leading-charge-to-new-technologies/.

The military guidebook for the future is the National Defense Strategy. The strategy
calls on the military to divest legacy systems, reinvest savings in higher priority
systems and make the tough choices required to break from the status quo and
continue outpacing the competition, Esper said. The fiscal 2020 Defense Department
research and development budget is the largest in history, he said, and it concentrates
on critical technologies such as hypersonic weapons, directed energy and autonomous
systems. "In the Air Force, specifically, we are modernizing our force for the 21st
century with aircraft such as the B-21, the X-37 and the Next Generation Air
Dominance platform," Esper said. "Equally important, we are transforming the way we
fight through the implementation of novel concepts such as Dynamic Force
Employment, which provides scalable options to employ the joint force while preserving
our capabilities for major combat."

Warrant: Space weapons could cost hundreds of billions

Staff Writer. “Report Says Many Space Weapons Systems Would Carry Huge Cost - Via
Satellite -.” Via Satellite, 12 Nov. 2007,

Champion Briefs 248

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

https://www.satellitetoday.com/uncategorized/2007/11/12/report-says-many-
space-weapons-systems-would-carry-huge-cost/.
Placing weapons in space or installing systems in orbit to defend space assets such as
satellites from attack could be inordinately expensive, according to a report from the
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). Price tags for various types of
systems could range from the tens of billions of dollars to hundreds of billions,
according to CSBA figures based on its own calculations and estimates of other
experts, in the report by Steven M. Kosiak, vice president – budget studies with CSBA,
a defense-oriented Washington think tank. Many castigate any move to place weapons
in space, wishing it to remain a peaceful realm with a right of free passage for all, and
Kosiak states that it appears no nation has yet placed weapons in orbit. At the same
time, he notes that some observers say it is only a matter of time before weapons of
war arrive at the final frontier. He examines four categories of possible weaponization of
space:
Systems to defend the United States and its interests against ballistic missile strikes.
Space-based weapon systems that could, while in orbit, attack ground-based targets,
both those actually on the surface of the planet and enemy airborne threats.
Systems to destroy or disable enemy satellites, effectively meaning a U.S. satellite that
would assail enemy spacecraft in orbit.
A system to defend U.S. satellites against enemy anti-satellite weapons.

Warrant: Even small investments would cost hundreds of billions

Grego, Laura. “No, Space-Based Missile Defense Will Not Cost Only $20 Billion. (Spoiler:
That’s Only the Launch Costs.).” Union of Concerned Scientists, 24 Sept. 2018,
https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/space-based-missile-defense-will-not-cost-
only-20-billion.

Champion Briefs 249

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

This also sets aside the fact that the total mass of interceptors needed on orbit is quite
sensitive to assumptions such as how many missiles the system is expected to counter,
whether those missiles are solid- or liquid-fueled, and the amount of decision time
required—conditions that are explored in studies such as those coordinated by the
American Physical Society in 2003 and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering
& Medicine in 2012. The National Academies study concluded that the life cycle costs
for even an “austere and limited-capability” set of 650 satellites would be at least
$300 billion in 2010 dollars, or 10 times more expensive than other missile defense
options they examined. This estimate included the costs that Griffin did not, which are
clearly substantial.

Impact: Military spending harms economic growth

Hiller, Patrick. “The Effects of Military Spending on Economic Growth · Peace Science
Digest.” Peace Science Digest, 2 Jan. 2018,
https://peacesciencedigest.org/effects-military-spending-economic-growth/.

Increased military spending leads to slower economic growth. Military spending tends
to have a negative impact on economic growth. Over a 20-year period, a 1% increase
in military spending will decrease a country’s economic growth by 9%. Increased
military spending is especially detrimental to the economic growth of wealthier
countries. The debate over how military spending impacts a country’s economy has
been fiercely argued, and the results of studies trying to understand this relationship
have been mixed. Early researchers ran into trouble due to inadequate time frame or
country data. Others have studied only certain types of countries or periods in time,
leading to results that could arguably be caused by other social, political, or economic
factors. Past research, for example, was highly influenced by military spending data in
the Cold War era. After the Cold War, the reduced military spending was matched with
an era of strong economic growth, which provided for a very different economic

Champion Briefs 250

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

environment than what was seen during periods of high military spending during the
Cold War era. To overcome past limitations, this study analyzes military spending by a
large and diverse group of countries over the span of 45 years, with special attention
to global events that may otherwise influence major economies.

Impact: The benefits obtained by investing in space research are simply outweighed by the cost
of conducting said research. While water filters, Tang, and velcro are nice examples of how
space research can lead to breakthroughs, there are other means of conducting research that
are far more cost effective.

Champion Briefs 251

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force improves the economy

Answer: the industry that would grow is the military industrial complex

Linda Billings, 10-26-2018, "A US Space Force? A Very Bad Idea!," TaylorFrancis,
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14746700.2018.1522732

The current U.S. administration’s bent toward war-mongering is good for business and
bad for national security. Preparing for war in space will be expensive, and the
aerospace industry will profit greatly from it if the initiative goes forward. According
to Defense News, the top five U.S. Department of Defense contractors in 2018 are (in
order from #1) Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, and
Boeing. These corporations may not be the leading DOD contractors for space-related
assets, but their financials provide some indication of their positions in the military-
industrial complex. For example, Lockheed Martin took in $48 billion in defense
revenues in 2017; revenue from defense = 94 percent of total revenues. In its 2017
annual report, the company reported a $6 billion profit on sales of $51 billion. Raytheon
took in $23.6 billion in defense revenue in 2017; revenue from defense = 93 percent of
total revenues. In its 2017 annual report, the company reported a $2 billion profit on
$25.3 billion in net sales. Citizens of my country—to which I am devoted—can, and
should, press their elected officials to abide by the central tenet of the Outer Space
Treaty and preserve space for peaceful purposes. Instead of preparing for
“warfighting” in space, the United States could—and should—take a global leadership
role in pursuing diplomatic and other avenues for preempting any possibility of
warfighting in space. It’s the right thing to do.

Impact: Growth of the military industrial complex encourages conflict

Champion Briefs 252

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Samson Nzeribe and Mukhtar Imam, 5-1-2018, "Military Industrial Complex: A Catalyst
For Conflicts And Wars," ResearchGate,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325813242_Military_Industrial_Com
plex_A_catalyst_for_conflicts_and_wars/stats

This essay has sought to argue that the U.S. military-industrial complex is indeed a
catalyst for contemporary wars and will in no small measure spark major future
conflicts and strife. It would also do us good to bear in mind that the paper is rational in
its acceptance that the military complex as it was, was the unintentional result of both
a desire to stabilize the global capitalist system and to protect national security
interests, but that military spending is now closely linked to the personal interests of a
small, influential group of elites. In the first section, it was illustrated that the context
of the Second World War made increased military expenditures a necessary means to
other ends, although the powerful elite that would eventually come to benefit from
these expenditures was already in place. Once in place, these power elite have
constantly needed to justify the disproportionate allocation of national resources to
the military establishment. Emphasizing the economic benefits of military investment
by drawing on Keynesian theory is a way of doing so, but military Keynesianists seem to
give a one-sided account of the theory, one that suits their interests

Analysis: This answer gives you independent offense against the pro to claim that the growth in
industry is military in nature. As those industries profit from conflict, the pro incites conflict.
This can be set up in cross by asking “what industries specifically benefit from Space Force?”

Answer: Military based economic growth is at best short term due to overkill

Pierre Guerlain, 11-22-2013, "The Social And Economic Consequences Of Us Militarism,"

Culture And Society, https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/5371?lang=en#ftn19

Champion Briefs 253

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Melman focused on all the industrial and educational goods which could not be
produced in a “perpetual war economy” which had gone into “overkill”, that is
organized its economic system around so-called defense. He pointed out that Japan and
Germany were doing much better than the US economically because they were not
spending as much on arms. This has become the only position on the left and is shared
by libertarians and conservatives like Andrew Bacevich, a retired colonel and
international relations scholar who has published a lot on the cost of US imperialism.18
19 And also: “In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts
resources (...) 13The concept of “overkill” enables us to somewhat reconcile the two
positions about the effects of military Keynesianism. Indeed, after an initial phase of
Keynesian stimulus lasting about 6 years, military spending destroys jobs and
prosperity. So even from a purely economic point of view totally divorced from ethics,
excessive military spending is bad for any society. This is the main conclusion of a 2007
report by economist Dean Baker: “After an initial demand stimulus, the effect of
increased military spending turns negative around the sixth year. After 10 years of
higher defense spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in the baseline
scenario with lower defense spending.”19

Analysis: this statistic will likely help teams as it is greater than jobs created. However, the
evidence is not specific to the space force. It is critical that teams get smart by pointing out that
jobs are likely taken from the Air Force resulting in no net gain.

Answer: Space War is bad for business

Kenneth Hicks, 9-23-2018, "Astronomy: Space Force would encourage weaponizing, not
exploring, space," Columbus Dispatch,
https://www.dispatch.com/news/20180923/astronomy-space-force-would-
encourage-weaponizing-not-exploring-space

Champion Briefs 254

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Except for the occasional James Bond movie, in which some evil scientist wants to take
over the world, it appears that in real life, sanity has prevailed. If the United States had a
weapon in orbit, the Chinese or the Russians (or both) probably would know about it
and try to destroy it. Of course, I’m guessing here because I don’t have a security
clearance for such matters. But it just makes sense that no nation could keep a nuclear
space weapon secret for very long. So, why am I bringing this up? Some politicians have
suggested lately that the United States should expand defensive efforts into space. In
my opinion, this is a bad idea. The U.S. has so much more to lose than to gain by
establishing a defensive Space Force. For starters, it would deter the commercial
development of space. Companies such as Space-X or Blue Origin, which dream of
ferrying customers to space, must see how such policies would hurt business. Imagine
that your sightseeing expedition is in danger of being mistakenly targeted by another
nation’s armed satellite. Not good for ticket sales.

Analysis: this argument should go along with weighing of your con impact scenario. If you can
prove that creation of a Space Force increases perception of a hostile Space you can win that
people probably don’t want to do business up there. Furthermore, if you win the probability of
a conflict you can outweigh on magnitude.

Champion Briefs 255

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force stops satellite warfare

Answer: Space Force could make the problem worse by creating debris

Charles Powell, 7-14-2020, "Saving Space from ‘Star Wars’-Style Misperceptions," War
on the Rocks, https://warontherocks.com/2020/07/saving-space-from-star-wars-
style-misperceptions/

In some senses, this shift is inevitable. In 2005, NASA conducted a study and found that
even if no new launches were conducted, the population of tracked debris would
increase faster than atmospheric drag would remove objects based on future
collisions alone. The timescale for these impacts to be realized is unclear. Weaponizing
Space At a National Space Council meeting last year, Vice President Mike Pence asserted
that the United States was already in a space race, implying that Russia and China have
actively weaponized space and the United States must respond in kind. The U.S.
intelligence community assesses that Russian and Chinese development of direct-ascent
anti-satellite weapons is largely to counter the perceived advantage the United States
enjoys in space. These systems have been tested in some form by China, India, and the
United States, and most recently by Russia just a few months ago. Amid this discussion
of competition, however, it is still unclear how such a weapon system could be used
effectively, and whether there is wisdom in any nation fielding these capabilities.
Almost all scenarios in which a kinetic anti-satellite weapon can be deployed are
inherently self-harming, no matter the operator. Kinetic weapons, whether space- or
ground-based, create huge plumes of orbital debris and serve limited strategic value.

Answer: Other factors can damage satellites

Warrant: Space weather take out satellites

Champion Briefs 256

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Herbert O. Funsten August 27, 2020, 8-27-2020, "Three big threats to satellites — and
what to do about them (op-ed)," Space, https://www.space.com/satellite-
threats-solutions-los-alamos-op-ed.html

Space might seem like an empty, vacuous void, but in reality, the space environment
is extraordinarily dynamic. Our solar system is bathed in a continuous shower of
cosmic rays and salvos of energetic particles from solar storms — all of which can
penetrate a satellite, microscopically fry its electronics, and, in extreme cases, render
it useless.

Warrant: nuclear explosions can hurt Satellites

Herbert O. Funsten August 27, 2020, 8-27-2020, "Three big threats to satellites — and
what to do about them (op-ed)," Space, https://www.space.com/satellite-
threats-solutions-los-alamos-op-ed.html

If an adversary wanted to disable hundreds of satellites and severely hobble a

country, launching a nuclear weapon into low-Earth orbit (LEO) and detonating it
could do the trick. Although nuclear explosions in space have been banned since 1963
by international treaty, we need to be able to protect our space assets from a rogue
nuclear event by knowing where we can move our satellites and for how long. We
would also like to know if there are ways to reduce or eliminate any artificial radiation
belt created by the blast.

Warrant: other satellites may collide

Herbert O. Funsten August 27, 2020, 8-27-2020, "Three big threats to satellites — and
what to do about them (op-ed)," Space, https://www.space.com/satellite-
threats-solutions-los-alamos-op-ed.html

Champion Briefs 257

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Currently, almost 3,000 operational satellites orbit Earth, and that number is rising
due to the proliferation of launch opportunities for small satellites, primarily into LEO.
Soon, we Earthlings will likely be launching more than 1,100 satellites per year, rapidly
increasing the risk of collisions. Just one small crash could result in debris of thousands
of BB-sized pellets hurtling through space in different directions at thousands of miles
per hour. If just a few of those BBs hit another satellite, the shredded satellite would
create more orbital debris, starting a runaway chain reaction.

Analysis: this argument attacks the prime pro claim that the space force is needed to stop
satellites from being destroyed by proving that satellites will be destroyed regardless. Teams
should use this then show how space force makes the problem worse with kinetic weapon
tests.

Answer: Other organizations can solve the problem

Linda Billings, 10-26-2018, "A US Space Force? A Very Bad Idea!," Taylor & Francis,
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14746700.2018.1522732

While Trump administration officials have been insistent that this is the case, the claim
that space is a warfighting domain is a construct, not a fact. It also should be noted that
the United States already has an Air Force Space Command (AFSC) in place, activated
in 1982 and currently employing 30,000 people worldwide. AFSC says it “provides
military focused space capabilities with a global perspective to the joint warfighting
team.” Most citizens currently know little to nothing about what AFSC does or about
classified U.S. space activities and capabilities such as spy satellite systems and the X-37,
a reusable, uncrewed, military spaceplane first launched into Earth orbit in 2010 (as of
2017 the U.S. Air Force had launched five X-37 missions).

Champion Briefs 258

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Analysis: This will be a common argument on the topic and force the pro to prove why Space
Force is uniquely key. This can be done in cross by getting them to concede that other
organizations can solve. Teams need to remember that defense alone does not win a round.

Answer: Actors can make satellite destruction look like an accident

Barrow, Gregory D. "The Vacuum of Reason: A Case Against Trump's Space Force
Proposal." (2019).
https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/61800/Barrow%2C
%20Gregory%20D..pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

There are far fewer treaties governing the use of force in space, and attacks on
satellites can be made to appear much more accidental (i.e. two satellites colliding)
than a nuclear strike. 32 This means that countries that act provocatively in space have
less to fear in the way of international sanctions and retaliation than those who would
threaten nuclear belligerence. As such, MAD is not guaranteed to prevent America’s
adversaries from aggression, especially those whose governments espouse more
extremist views.33 For these reasons, the U.S. must rethink how it defends American
assets in space.

Analysis: lots of teams will try to use a deterrence link into satellites. However, if actors can
make attacks look like an accident there is no reason to expect credible deterrence. Therefore,
aggressors will continue even if space force happens.

Champion Briefs 259

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force improves military readiness

Answer: Space Force is not needed

Barrow, Gregory D. "The Vacuum of Reason: A Case Against Trump's Space Force
Proposal." (2019). https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/61800

Nonetheless, given the executive actions that the President has already carried out to
support his emphasis on space innovation, namely the resurrection of USSPACECOM,
there is no logical need to create a sixth branch of the armed forces to help bolster
American space readiness. The concept that the Space Force would need to exist to
provide manpower for USSPACECOM is nonsensical, as none of the other 10 combatant
commands that exist today require their own service to supply personnel.190 Rather,
when troops deploy to U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) or U.S. Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM), for example, they remain in their service and
simply work together with members of other branches in a joint environment. A
soldier deploying to USSOUTHCOM does not leave the Army to join the ‘South Force,’
nor does a sailor deploying to USSOCOM leave the Navy to join the ‘Special Force.’ As
such, there is no reason that troops supporting the revived USSPACECOM need to
abandon their service to join the Space Force.

Analysis: This takes out the majority of uniqueness on the issue and forces the pro to prove
why Space Force is uniquely key. Furthermore, the empirics in the evidence will assist teams in
convincing lay judges and can be flushed out during cross.

Answer: Space Force readiness risks provoking other nations

Champion Briefs 260

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

John A. Tirpak, 10-18-2020, "Space Force Grappling With How to Define Readiness," Air
Force Magazine, https://www.airforcemag.com/space-force-grappling-how-to-
define-readiness/

The new service is trying to determine what will decide if its organizations are ready, in
the form of the advanced training, exercises, and “experiences they need to be ready …
on-orbit, against a near-peer competitor.” The “day-to-day” won’t change, Saltzman
said, “but I want to make sure we’re capturing the broader advanced training,
operational test, [tactics, techniques, and procedures] developments, and
enhancements … All the things we’ve learned it takes to be truly ready for the high-end
fight.” “We have to understand the space mission differently,” he added. Space Force
must do the balancing act of being unpredictable while at the same time not spooking
adversaries into thinking an attack is underway, Saltzman said. “You want to be
provocative, unpredictable, so that you can kind of keep your competitors … off
balance, and at the same time demonstrate norms of behavior that we would call
‘safe,’” he said. The terrestrial analogies would be “safe intercepts … in the air world,
and the laws of the sea that keep people safe over the waters. In an ideal world, that’s
what we would want to pursue.” Once everyone agrees to safe practices and norms in
space, it will be easier to identify nefarious activity, Saltzman said. For now, he added,
it’s “hard to tell if something is provocative, an act of war, or just sloppy behavior, or
maybe operator error.”

Answer: Other military branches’ lack of readiness kills solvency

Stephen Losey, 11-20-2020, "Here’s how bad the military’s aircraft readiness has
gotten," Air Force Times, https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-
force/2020/11/19/heres-how-bad-the-militarys-aircraft-readiness-has-gotten/

Champion Briefs 261

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A new report from the Government Accountability Office released Thursday shows just
how bad the problem has gotten — not just in the Air Force, but also in the Navy,
Marine Corps and Army. In the report, which was requested by Congress, GAO said that
it studied readiness rates for 46 aircraft across those four services between fiscal 2011
and fiscal 2019. Of those, only three met their annual mission-capable goals for a
majority of those years: The Navy’s EP-3E Aries II and E-6B Mercury and the Air Force’s
UH-1N Huey helicopter. The EP-3 hit seven of its annual goals, the E-6B hit it during five
years, and the UH-1N met its goal during all nine years. Even more concerning, 24 of the
aircraft GAO reviewed never met their annual goals once in that nine-year span. The
average annual mission-capable rates for selected Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps
aircraft decreased overall since 2011, according to the GAO. The average mission-
capable rate for the selected Army aircraft slightly increased.

Warrant: COVID has decreased military readiness

Mark Cancian, 3-11-2020, "How Coronavirus Could Hurt U.S. Military Readiness,"
Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/markcancian/2020/03/11/will-covid-19-
devastate-military-readiness/?sh=35ec2fad1e10

Exercises around the world will likely be scaled back, often a euphemism for canceled.
Few countries want a large number of potentially infected foreigners dropped on their
doorstep. The lack of exercises will not just dull the skills of military personnel and
units but will sacrifice the engagement with allies and partners that makes the
network of U.S. global partnerships so effective. But the effects will go beyond that.
How will the military services conduct basic training (a.k.a. “boot camp”)? Recruits are
crammed together, exercised, put under stress, and told to stop whining. It’s another
perfect incubator for disease. Military schools that teach primarily in classrooms, like
the war colleges, can operate remotely. But the military services can’t do that for
basic training nor can they teach military skills remotely. Flight school trainee pilots

Champion Briefs 262

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

need to get into the cockpit. Artillery school students need to shoot on the ranges.
Paratroopers need to jump out of airplanes. If that kind of training stops, units will
quickly lose their edge. Military turnover is about 25% a year as servicemembers on
four-year contracts leave, and raw recruits take their place. It doesn’t take long before
skills thin out. The military services will likely try to continue training until some trainee
dies of COVID-19, and angry parents demand changes to the system to protect their
offspring. Then the military services will face a crisis.

Warrant: Only the army has seen an increase in readiness

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., 11-20-2020, "Aircraft Readiness Is Bad & Getting Worse:
GAO," Breaking Defense, https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/aircraft-
readiness-is-bad-getting-worse-gao/

What were those goals? In most cases, we don’t know, because specific readiness
numbers were redacted from the unclassified version of the report released to the
public Thursday. We do know that in September 2018, then-Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis set a target of 80 percent “mission capable” rates for fighter aircraft, a goal he
wanted met by the end of 2019. That has not been met. “We found that none of these
aircraft had achieved the 80 percent mission capable goal,” GAO said – not the
fighters, not anything else. What’s worse, the report continues, “Average mission
capable rates for the selected Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aircraft have fallen
since fiscal year 2011, while average mission capable rates for the selected Army aircraft
have slightly risen.” (Emphasis ours).

Analysis: If the pro goes for a whole readiness argument it is easy for the con to say there are
specific areas that still have readiness gaps. Furthermore, the COVID crisis has uniquely
impacted the military making this a topical argument. This is another area to flush out in cross.

Champion Briefs 263

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Creation of the Space Force improves other branches of the

military

Answer: Space is indivisible from air in terms of operations, making the space force
unnecessary.

Sandra Erwin, 9-18-2018, "Air Force Association opposes establishment of a Space

Force, says air and space are ‘indivisible’," SpaceNews,
https://spacenews.com/air-force-association-opposes-establishment-of-a-space-
force-says-air-and-space-are-indivisible/

The association supports some elements of the Trump administration’s and the Defense
Department’s proposed actions such as the standup of a combatant command, U.S.
Space Command. “Rapidly reducing U.S. space capability gaps, while re-establishing U.S.
Space Command, is the best way to address advancing threats to space.” But creating a
separate service would be damaging, the association contends. “From an employment
perspective, effects from air and space have been integrated and are indivisible. The
U.S. Air Force may want to reflect this reality so it is better understood by Americans by
considering renaming the U.S. Air Force to the U.S. Aerospace Force.” AFA agrees with
other Space Force critics that the cost of a separate service is an unnecessary burden at
a time when military budgets are strained. “The Space Force proposal is a resource
question writ large,” the position paper says. “Too much mission, too few dollars.
Standing up a separate space bureaucracy amplifies the problem by driving more
money to a headquarters function, not space operations. Congress has constrained
space capabilities, not the Air Force, by underfunding the service.” Before Congress
debates this issue, more questions need to be answered about U.S. military space policy
and posture, AFA says. “Currently there are no space arms which are fundamental to
setting up an armed service. Constraints to fully-weaponized space capability must be
debated and changed by Congress to allow the Air Force to mature space warfare

Champion Briefs 264

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

theory and concepts of operation for war in, from, and through space.” Before
establishing a new armed service, “realistic concepts of operation to hold an enemy at
risk from space must be considered and debated before establishing a separate space
armed force.” AFA points out that the U.S. Air Force is the “steward” of key space
capabilities that support the U.S. military, its allies and the nation’s economy. “As Air
Force Chief of Staff Thomas D. White said in 1958, ‘Air and space are not two separate
media to be divided by a line and to be readily separated into two distinct categories;
they are in truth a single indivisible field of operations.’”

Warrant: Space Force does not serve an offensive role

Fred Kaplan, 6-21-2018, "Trump’s “Space Force” Idea Is a Terrible Solution to a Real
Problem," Slate Magazine, https://slate.com/news-and-
politics/2018/06/trumps-space-force-idea-is-a-terrible-solution-to-a-real-
problem.html

One might think that the directors of these organizations would have an interest in
defending their extremely expensive satellites, but they appear not to. This neglect is
what has led some, well before Trump, to propose an autonomous Space Force. The
idea is that, rather than being stacked with—and reporting to—traditional Air Force
officers, most of them fighter pilots with a drive for offensive combat operations, the
specialists of the Space Force would be attuned to the needs, properties, and
vulnerabilities of satellites and the systems connected to them. If Trump thinks that
U.S.–South Korean military exercises are too expensive, those costs are trivial compared
to the infrastructure of a sixth service. But in fact, this is not likely what would happen—
and it’s certainly not what should happen. The special thing about satellites and the
organizations that control or operate them (Air Force Space Command, the NRO, and
other smaller outfits) is that they are, by nature, subordinate to other branches of the
armed forces—to wars that are fought not in outer space but on Earth or in the

Champion Briefs 265

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

atmosphere. Space assets service air, naval, and ground forces by providing them with
intelligence, communications, and guidance for missiles and smart bombs. Placing
these vital assets under the command of a four-star general in a separate service—and
imbuing its officers and enlisted personnel with the élan of an elite force that doesn’t
answer to the other services of the armed forces and that, in fact, competes with them
for resources—would run counter to the nation’s needs.

Answer: Space Force takes funds and people from Air Force

Col. Keith Zuegel (Ret.), 8-3-2020, "Washington isn’t listening to the Air Force and Space
Force," Defense News,
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/08/03/washington-
isnt-listening-to-the-air-force-and-space-force/

The nascent Space Force needs investment to increase capability and the authorities
to organize for efficacy to meet the capabilities that were promised when it was
founded in December 2019. It needs to become joint — not just have personnel change
name tags from U.S. Air Force to U.S. Space Force. And the National Reconnaissance
Office should be part of the Space Force. The Department of the Air Force needs stable
and predictable funding — at adequate funding levels. Continuing resolutions degrade
readiness. Currently, two services — both the Air Force and the Space Force — must
train and equip their forces within the Air Force’s original budget level. What is a
continuing resolution? What is a continuing resolution? A CR usually means the regular
process of passing 12 appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year has failed. By: Joe
Gould To ensure our military is ready, it must take care of its people — active, Guard,
reserve and civilians. That means commensurate pay, preserving medical billets,
maintaining access to medical services and facilities, eliminating restrictive licensure
requirements that limit the ability of military spouses to transition to new
professional jobs after moving, sufficient child care centers, and adequate military

Champion Briefs 266

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

housing. Planned reforms of the DoD’s Military Health System would eliminate up to
18,000 military medical personnel — 4,000 from the Air Force, 7,000 from the Army
and 5,000 from the Navy. Dozens of military treatment facilities would be downsized,
with access limited to active-duty personnel. The services need legislative relief to
overcome a six-month restriction before hiring military retirees possessing a security
clearance. The U.S. Air Force remains the world’s predominant air force; however, its
dominance is endangered. Air superiority is not a birthright. The fledgling U.S. Space
Force remains the world’s leader in military space; however, without resources and
congressional focus, it will be challenged by other world powers. This is the fourth
quarter of the budget season, so Congress should recognize and support both services
now — before it’s too late.

Warrant: There are too few officers and personal in STEM for both

Spirtas, Michael, Yool Kim, Frank Camm, Shirley M. Ross, Debra Knopman, Forrest E.
Morgan, Sebastian Joon Bae, M. Scott Bond, John S. Crown, and Elaine Simmons,
2020 “Creating a Separate Space Force: Challenges and Opportunities for an
Effective, Efficient, Independent Space Service.” Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10103.html.

The Space Force will need people skilled in space operations, space intelligence, space
acquisition, and other STEM disciplines. The new service will face two challenges to
building and maintaining such a workforce: Difficulty sustaining small career fields:
Given the relatively small numbers in the Space Force, it will be challenging to have
uniformed personnel spend their full careers there. Analysis suggests that, although
some career fields will be organic to the Space Force, many will be manned by Air Force
officers on assignment. For the subset of Air Force career fields that requires
substantive space knowledge to serve effectively in the Space Force, the Air Force will
need to develop a "space track" to ensure the additional training and development

Champion Briefs 267

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

necessary for officers who will serve in the Space Force. This will require close
coordination between the two services to ensure that there are healthy career fields
that support the needs of both. Shortfalls in general officer throughput: For the same
reasons as above, the Space Force will likely need to draw about one-half of its
general officers from the Air Force or other services for the foreseeable future.

Analysis: the idea that the Space Force harms the Air Force is easily graspable to a lay audience.
Good teams will focus on the limited personal and that satellite do not alone serve an offensive
purpose, making the Space Force redundant at best and aggressive at worse. This also serves as
a way to short circuit pro offense about an increase in force as the evidence suggests it is more
of a reorganization than a new branch.

Champion Briefs 268

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force decrease potential conflict

Answer: Space Force makes conflict more likely

Laura Grego, 8-22-2020, "The New U.S. Space Force Will Make Space More Dangerous,
Not Less," World Politics Review
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/28452/why-the-trump-space-
force-will-make-space-more-dangerous

But keeping space secure also requires reducing the threats to satellites. On this score, the
Space Force is likely to make space a more contentious and dangerous environment, not less.
It’s not just Trump’s rhetoric about dominance in space that is harmful; resources for the new
military service will be provided to “deter aggression in, from, and to space.” This will create
incentives within the national security bureaucracy to hype the threat of space weapons, and to
then build new weapons to counter them. In a speech last spring outlining his priorities for
space, Gen. David L. Goldfein, the chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, stated that, “It’s not
enough to step into the ring and just bob and weave… At some point, we’ve got to hit back.”
What Goldfein failed to mention is that the U.S. already has more sophisticated anti-satellite
technology than potential adversaries like Russia and China. In fact, having anti-satellite
weapons actually does very little to keep one’s own satellites safe from attack. Yet military
leaders appear to believe that reserving the option to deny the use of space to potential
adversaries is more important than the benefits that come with a less weaponized space.

Warrant: Creation of a space force is provocative

Kelsey D. Atherton, 1-20-2021, "What Biden Should Do With the Space Force," Slate
Magazine, https://slate.com/technology/2021/01/biden-administration-space-
force-plans.html

Champion Briefs 269

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

The Space Force is unique among military branches in that it has just one (publicly
acknowledged) weapon, and that weapon, a reversible jammer, can disrupt a satellite’s
communications but does not cause any permanent harm. Nevertheless, creating a new branch
of the military for the explicit purpose of war in space suggests to other countries that the
United States is planning for more in orbit than it is disclosing. Treating satellites like forts
and orbits like territory risks war and, ultimately, the destruction of orbit as a useful space.
While the Pentagon has not adopted Trump’s exact language on the Space Force, in May 2020
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said Space Force was necessary because “our adversaries in
the last several years have weaponized space. They’ve made it a warfighting domain.” But
space is primarily a place of business, science, and communication. The global space economy
is worth more than $400 billion, and that is growing, especially with the emergence of
constellations of smaller satellites. Satellites do everything from provide internet connections
to take pictures of Earth that help with agricultural land management

Warrant: Space Force creation encourages exaggeration of threats

Sam Knight, 5-15-2020, "With Biden’s Backing, Space Force Threatens to Accelerate the
Arms Race," Truthout, https://truthout.org/articles/with-bidens-backing-space-
force-threatens-to-accelerate-the-arms-race/

But with Democrats and Republicans now both firmly behind Space Force, it seems there is no
going back. In December 2019, days before Congress first advanced legislation to create the
branch, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the U.S. military’s new focus on outer space
would force the Russian government “to pay increased attention to strengthening the orbital
group, as well as the rocket and space industry as a whole.” The call from Putin reinforced
warnings from critics of the Space Force worried about the proliferation of weapons in the
thermosphere and beyond. Laura Grego, a physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists,
said the establishment of the U.S. military branch “would prompt a space arms race that
would threaten U.S. military and civilian satellites, not protect them.” “Creating a new

Champion Briefs 270

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

military service focused on space will create bureaucratic incentives to hype the space
weapons threat and build new weapons,” Grego added.

Analysis: this argument is effective at reversing the direction of the link. This will likely be part
of most con teams’ cases and should be cross applied to the deterrence flow. Stay away from
getting into an evidence battle of arms races when it comes to vague statistics.

Answer: Airforce solves and provides for deterrence

Charlie Dunlap, J.D., 5-3-2018, "A separate “Space Force” is a bad idea…for now
anyway," Lawfire, https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2018/05/03/a-separate-space-
force-is-a-bad-idea-for-now-anyway/

The Air Force is keenly aware of the importance of space. Just recently Air Force
Secretary Heather Wilson pointed out that the service is “responsible for 90 percent of
America’s military space assets” and explained that the Air Force is “dramatically
increasing [its] space budget this year and [it is] developing concepts and capabilities
to deter and defeat any adversary who threatens our ability to freely operate in
space.” Does Wilson fully recognize the threat? She insists that ensuring “space
continues to be open and accessible to the world and that our systems are secure from
attack…is an urgent national priority.” The Air Force budget request reflects what
Wilson says. Space News reported in February that: The 2019 request is 7.1 percent
more than the Air Force sought in last year’s budget [for space]. Over the next five
years, the Air Force projects to invest $44.3 billion in space systems — $31.5 billion in
research and development, and $12.8 billion in procurement. That would mark an 18
percent increase over the $37.5 billion five-year plan submitted last year.

Impact: Space Force takes resources away from air force

Champion Briefs 271

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Loren Thompson, 8-27-2018, "Ten Ways A Space Force Will Make America Weaker,"
Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/08/27/ten-ways-a-
space-force-will-make-america-weaker/?sh=5ef0613f34b0

It will make the world's best air force less effective. The U.S. Air Force has pioneered
the integration of air power and space capabilities with great success. In fact, other
countries are combining their military air and space organizations in imitation of the
US. model. If the U.S. proceeds to dis-integrate its military aerospace community, it will
likely undermine its current dominance both in the air and in orbit. Its air force will be
diminished by the loss of skills and capabilities directly related to winning wars. You
might say that the U.S. Air Force has helped bring on this danger by exaggerating the
notion that space is becoming a warfighting domain. All that has really happened is that
Russia and China have figured out how vital orbital assets are to our terrestrial
warfighting capabilities. But that's an argument for keeping space expertise spread
across the joint force, not creating a new federal bureaucracy that drains missions and
money away from other military services. Creating a Space Force today is premature at
best, and will likely make America weaker.

Analysis: This argument may also play on narratives most teams read in case and boost their
ability to do cross applications. Furthermore, it provides an alternative way to achieve offense
without getting into an arms race debate which most teams will have prepared for.

Champion Briefs 272

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force protects military logistics

Answer: The space force will hinder our Military’s ability to respond

Warrant: Space Force hinders joint operations

Loren Thompson. “Ten Ways A Space Force Will Make America Weaker” October 2020.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/08/27/ten-ways-a-
space-force-will-make-america-weaker/?sh=4377431a34b0

“It will create new barriers to joint force integration. Organizations have boundaries
that get in the way of cooperating with other organizations -- particularly when they
are competing for missions and resources. One reason the 9-11 attacks succeeded was
that intelligence and law enforcement agencies did not share information because
they were protecting their bureaucratic turf. A great deal of effort has been invested in
tearing down those walls. But standing up a Space Force would create new barriers to
cooperation.”

Warrant: Space Force will be hampered by a small budget

Loren Thompson. “Ten Ways A Space Force Will Make America Weaker” October 2020.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/08/27/ten-ways-a-
space-force-will-make-america-weaker/?sh=4377431a34b0

“It will lack the resources to be a co-equal service. President Trump says he wants the
Space Force to be "separate but equal" with the Air Force. But the entire space
workforce in the defense department and intelligence community -- 27,500 people
according to Sandra Erwin of Space News -- represents less than 1% of the personnel
employed by the Pentagon. The budget for all national security space activities totals

Champion Briefs 273

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

less than two days’ worth of federal spending per year. So a Space Force will not be
"separate but equal" with other services.”

Analysis: This block is a disadvantage. Sure, space is important. But the space force is ill
equipped to handle the defense of it and will trade off with other important resources.

Answer: The Space Force will not be effective at protecting logistics

Warrant: Historical attempts at space command have failed

Bryan Nakayama. “3 Reasons Trump’s New Space Force Would Be a Disaster” Fortune
Magazine. November 2017. https://fortune.com/2018/06/21/trump-space-
force-bad-idea/

“The United States Space Command, which existed from 1985 to 2002, only
consolidated its control over military space programs in the mid-1990s due to
bureaucratic infighting. This meant, for example, that the Command was unable to
quickly update its doctrine or operational plans until the late 1990s. The creation of a
Space Force would reproduce the same tensions and more because of the scale of
organizational change. It would undermine the effectiveness of military space
operations and lead to a loss of the flexibility necessary for a rapidly changing world.”

Warrant: The US should spend money on other things

Bryan Nakayama. “3 Reasons Trump’s New Space Force Would Be a Disaster” Fortune
Magazine. November 2017. https://fortune.com/2018/06/21/trump-space-
force-bad-idea/

Champion Briefs 274

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

“What’s more, President Trump’s proposed Space Force could undermine the status of
space as a place of exploration and cooperation. Powerful states develop military
systems in a tit-for-tat fashion, and a Space Force would trigger a response from other
space-faring nations, potentially leading to the weaponization of space. Space
cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War
served as a crucial pressure release valve in times of high tensions.”

Analysis: This block clearly shows that there are significant disadvantages to creating a space
force. There is no reason to do it if it will not achieve its objectives and has negative spillovers.

Champion Briefs 275

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force defends against ASATs

Answer: China, one country with a major ASAT reserve, will not attack the United States

Warrant: China is not equipped to fight

David Goldman. “Why there won’t be a US-China war” October 2020. Asia Times.
https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/why-there-wont-be-a-us-china-war/

“The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is the worst-trained and worst-equipped land
army fielded by a major power today, and perhaps ever. The PLA spends just $1,500 to
equip an infantryman – not much more than the price of a rifle and a uniform –
compared with $18,000 for an American soldier. Chinese tanks are mediocre and
unlikely to stand up to newer American and Russian vehicles. The PLA’s air force has no
dedicated ground-attack aircraft comparable to the American A-10 Warthog or the
Russian SU-25. At least 30,000 Chinese marines and 60,000 seaborne mechanized
infantry stand ready to invade Taiwan, or what would be left of Taiwan after an initial
bombardment in the event of war.”

Warrant: China’s weapons are essentially defensive

David Goldman. “Why there won’t be a US-China war” October 2020. Asia Times.
https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/why-there-wont-be-a-us-china-war/

“That’s why there won’t be a shooting war between the US and China. China has spent
massively on anti-access/area denial weapons – A2/AD for short – that make war
impractical. As I explain in my book You Will Be Assimilated: China’s Plan to Sino-Form
the World, China’s defense posture is founded on the same idea as Inoki’s defense
against Ali: Beijing wants to make it impossible for the US to get close enough to use its

Champion Briefs 276

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

superior forces. The popular “Thucydides Trap” argument that the US will go to war to
stop the rise of China is, on close inspection, Thucydides claptrap.”

Analysis: This block is a delink. It does not matter if other countries have ASATs if no one uses
them against the US.

Answer: ASAT defense is a bad use of money

Warrant: The US spends tons on its military

Elliott Negin. “It’s Time to Rein in Inflated Military Budgets” Scientific American. No-
vember 2017. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-rein-in-
inflated-military-budgets/

“Such a reassessment is long overdue. Despite the trillions of dollars Congress and
successive administrations have lavished on the Pentagon since the turn of the
century, the massive U.S. arsenal and fighting force deployed worldwide are
powerless against grave, nonmilitary threats to national security—from a raging
pandemic to the fact that tens of millions of Americans breathe foul air, drink tainted
water, and struggle to pay for food, housing and health care. When it comes to U.S.
spending priorities, the numbers seem especially misguided in an era of tight budgets to
come. By the Department of Defense’s own accounting, taxpayers spent $13.34 trillion
on the U.S. military from 2000 through fiscal year 2019 in inflation-adjusted 2020
dollars. Add to that another $3.18 trillion for the Veterans Administration, and the
yearly average comes to a whopping $826 billion.”

Warrant: The US should spend money on other things

Champion Briefs 277

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Elliott Negin. “It’s Time to Rein in Inflated Military Budgets” Scientific American.
November 2017. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-rein-in-
inflated-military-budgets/

“Somehow, the U.S. manages to spend more on its military than the next 10 countries
combined, but it is the only member of the 36-nation Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) that does not provide universal health care
coverage. The result represents an undeniable threat to public health. In the United
States, more than 27 million people lacked health insurance before the pandemic, and
nearly the same number lost their job-based health insurance between February and
mid-May because of layoffs. Prepandemic U.S. health care statistics are sobering
enough. The United States has been spending an estimated $3.6 trillion annually on
health care—nearly twice as much as the average OECD country as a share of its
economy—but less than 3 percent of that spending goes to public health and
prevention..”

Analysis: Use this block to show the judge that nothing in life is free. The space force comes
with a cost and that probably means trading off with expenditures like public health.

Champion Briefs 278

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force balances against Russia

Answer: Russia is not a military threat

Warrant: Russia’s threat is less than China’s

James Dobbins. “Russia Is a Rogue, Not a Peer; China Is a Peer, Not a Rogue” October
2020. RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE310.html

“Russia and China represent distinct challenges to U.S. national security. Russia is not
a peer or near-peer competitor but rather a well-armed rogue state that seeks to
subvert an international order it can never hope to dominate. In contrast, China is a
peer competitor that wants to shape an international order that it can aspire to
dominate. Both countries seek to alter the status quo, but only Russia has attacked
neighboring states, annexed conquered territory, and supported insurgent forces
seeking to detach yet more territory. Russia assassinates its opponents at home and
abroad, interferes in foreign elections, subverts foreign democracies, and works to
undermine European and Atlantic institutions. In contrast, China's growing influence is
based largely on more-positive measures: trade, investment, and development
assistance. These attributes make China a less immediate threat but a much greater
long-term challenge. In the military realm, Russia can be contained, but China cannot.”

Warrant: Russia is structurally poorly positioned for competition

James Dobbins. “Russia Is a Rogue, Not a Peer; China Is a Peer, Not a Rogue” October
2020. RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE310.html

“China presents a greater geoeconomic challenge to the United States than Russia
does. China's per capita GDP approaches Russia's; its population is eight times Russia's,

Champion Briefs 279

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

and its growth rate three times. As of 2017, China's economy was the second largest in
the world, behind only that of the United States. Russia's was 11th. Russia's military
expenditure is lower than China's, and that gap is likely to grow. Russia is far smaller,
has poorer economic prospects, and is less likely to dramatically increase its military
power in the long term.”

Analysis: This block shows that the threat of the Russian military is overblown and that they are
unlikely to pose a serious threat in the future

Answer: Russia does not want war

Warrant: Russia is scaling down its military

Ronald Suny. “Is Putin’s Russia the critical threat Americans believe it to be?” The Con-
versation. November 2017. https://theconversation.com/is-putins-russia-the-
critical-threat-americans-believe-it-to-be-77531

“Putin slashed military spending a few months ago by 25.5 percent, just as Trump
plans to increase American defense spending by more than $54 billion. Russia’s
economy pales in comparison to America, Europe, Japan and China. It has an economy
roughly the size of Italy’s, but must provide for a larger population, territory and
defense budget. It’s true that a somewhat weaker power can annoy, pressure or even
harm a stronger power. And while Russia has a huge nuclear arsenal and impressive
cyber capabilities, it is seriously outmatched by the United States in terms of influence
and power.”

Warrant: US and Russia have common ground for cooperation

Champion Briefs 280

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Ronald Suny. “Is Putin’s Russia the critical threat Americans believe it to be?” The
Conversation. November 2017. https://theconversation.com/is-putins-russia-
the-critical-threat-americans-believe-it-to-be-77531

“And while the United States and Russia might disagree about the Syrian regime, they
do have some common ground. Both powers have decided that the first priority is to
combat the Islamic State. Both countries have found reliable allies against IS in the
Syrian Kurds, which my research suggests is a distinct nation prepared to fight for their
autonomy or independence. Despite Russia’s first priority to defend Assad’s
government, both the United States and Russia appear at the moment to be working
together with the Syrian Kurds to contain IS, the most immediate danger to the Middle
East and by extension much of the world.”

Analysis: This block is a de-link it makes the point that the pro falsely assumes that Russia
wants to go to war. In reality, Russia wants peace. Therefore, there is no need for a space force.

Champion Briefs 281

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force balances against China

Answer: China is not a military threat

Warrant: China’s threat is overblown

Michael Klare. “We Must Resist the ‘China Threat’ Syndrome” The Nation. October
2020. BBC News. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/we-must-resist-the-
china-threat-syndrome/

“The main point, however, is that China’s armed forces are far inferior to those of the
United States and its allies, and we should not be hesitant in proclaiming this reality.
Just to provide a few critical examples: According to the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute (SIPRI), a leading authority on the subject, China is believed to
possess approximately 290 nuclear warheads, as compared to 6,185 for the United
States. Similarly, China is thought to deploy approximately 130 ICBMs and 48
submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) for a total of about 180 nuclear launch
vehicles, whereas, in accordance with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New
START), the United States now deploys 400 ICBMs and slightly over 200 SLBMs, for a
total exceeding 600.”

Warrant: The US is closing capability gaps

Michael Klare. “We Must Resist the ‘China Threat’ Syndrome” The Nation. October
2020. BBC News. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/we-must-resist-the-
china-threat-syndrome/

Those who seek to magnify the China Threat are likely to pick out a few areas where
China appears, on paper, to hold an advantage of some sorts. This is true, for example,

Champion Briefs 282

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

of medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) and intermediate-range ballistic missiles

(IRBMs)—types with a range of between 1,000 and 3,000, and 3,000 and 5,500
kilometers, respectively—of which China owns an estimated 200 or so, some said to be
equipped with hypersonic warheads. Under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
(INF) Treaty of 1987, the United States agreed not to deploy any land-based missiles
with these ranges; however, since Trump abandoned the INF treaty last year, the
Defense Department has begun development of several missiles of this type, most
designed to carry hypersonic warheads.

Analysis: This block shows that the threat of the Chinese military is overblown and that even in
areas where China is ahead we are quickly closing capability gaps.

Answer: China does not want war with the US

Warrant: China has stated it wants to avoid conflict

Charlotte Gao. “U Again, China Doesn’t Want War With the US.” SagePub Journals.
November 2017. https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/again-china-doesnt-want-
war-with-the-us/

“Despite the small sample, the stunning result still hinted at a disturbing reality: a group
of Americans, including some policy pundits, firmly believe that China and the United
States are going to go to war, because of the so-called “Thucydides’s Trap” — a theory,
created and popularized by Allison, that claims war is the most likely result when a rising
power confronts an established power. However, China has made it clear numerous
times that it really doesn’t want to go to war or have any serious friction with the
United States. Beijing’s recent behavior during Trump’s trip in Beijing as well as during
the APEC and the ASEAN summits once again demonstrated China’s strong intention
to avoid conflict with the sole superpower in today’s world..”

Champion Briefs 283

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Warrant: China has incentives against war

Charlotte Gao. “U Again, China Doesn’t Want War With the US.” SagePub Journals.
November 2017. https://thediplomat.com/2017/11/again-china-doesnt-want-
war-with-the-us/

“Economically, China also signed record-breaking multi-billion-dollar deals with the

United States. Even if some analysts doubt the future actual delivery of these signed
contracts, China’s intention to please Trump and fulfill his political agenda was
unquestionable. By exhausting the whole city’s resources to charm Trump and his wife,
Xi has sent a clear message to the United States: China doesn’t want to have a trade war
or any other war with America. As Xi said during Trump’s latest visit, as well as on
many other occasions, “cooperation is the only correct choice” between the two
nations.”

Analysis: This block is a de-link it makes the point that the pro falsely assumes that China wants
to go to war. In reality, China wants peace. Therefore there is no need for a space force.

Champion Briefs 284

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space Force allows US to enforce the OST

Answer: Creating a space force will lead to violations of the OST, eventual arms race.

Warrant: Space weapons will make space into a war-fighting domain

Hennigan, JW. “America Really Does Have a Space Force. We Went Inside to See What It
Does.” Time, 23 July 2020, https://time.com/5869987/spaceforce/.

Regardless of the seemingly contradictory Russian positions, some U.S. critics and
arms–control analysts say the creation of Space Force makes conflict more likely. A
new orbital arms race has turned space into a “war-fighting domain,” like air, land and
sea, and will funnel billions of dollars to newfangled technology that increases the
possibility of war, both up there and down here. A separate branch of the armed forces
for space, these critics fear, risks militarizing U.S. space policy and promoting weapons
in space. On June 17, the Pentagon unveiled a Defense Space Strategy that made clear
the U.S. will counter Russian and Chinese space weapons, coordinate with allies and
prepare for war in space. Those looking for a less martial alternative point to Cold War
treaties that reduced the chances of conflict with the USSR. Despite the advancements
of space weapons, there are no enforceable rules for military action in space. The 1967
Outer Space Treaty forbids countries from deploying “nuclear weapons or any other
kinds of weapons of mass destruction” in space. But that language is broad, arms–
control analysts say, and could not foresee the rapid pace of technology now in
development. “In the absence of any international agreements about protecting
satellites and the outer-space environment, more countries are developing weapons
that can destroy satellites in orbit,” says Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned
Scientists.

Warrant: Tensions are rising over space weapons

Champion Briefs 285

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Billings, Lee. “War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever.” Scientific American, 10 Aug. 2015,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-in-space-may-be-closer-than-
ever/.

The long-simmering tensions are now approaching a boiling point due to several
events, including recent and ongoing tests of possible anti-satellite weapons by China
and Russia, as well as last month’s failure of tension-easing talks at the United
Nations. Testifying before Congress earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper echoed the concerns held by many senior government officials about the
growing threat to U.S. satellites, saying that China and Russia are both “developing
capabilities to deny access in a conflict,” such as those that might erupt over China’s
military activities in the South China Sea or Russia’s in Ukraine. China in particular,
Clapper said, has demonstrated “the need to interfere with, damage and destroy” U.S.
satellites, referring to a series of Chinese anti-satellite missile tests that began in 2007.

Warrant: Russia could encourage the US to join an arms race

Bateman, Aaron. “As Russia Stalks US Satellites, a Space Arms Race May Be Heating Up.”
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 22 May 2020,
https://thebulletin.org/2020/05/as-russian-satellites-stalk-us-ones-is-a-space-
arms-race-heating-up/.

Moscow’s aggressive behavior in space could prompt the United States to pursue
more assertive policies, like the reinvigoration of Cold War-era anti-satellite weapons
programs. In 2019, former Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson said that at some
point, the United States needs the ability to “hit back.” Russia’s destabilizing actions in
space could, therefore, fuel a dangerous arms race in space. The coronavirus pandemic
is further eroding the strength of international institutions like the World Health
Organization and countries seem to be retreating into nationalist positions. At this

Champion Briefs 286

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

critical moment, security challenges that have important implications for the future of
humanity must not be dismissed. The post-Cold War-era treaty New START has
provisions that protect national security satellites from interference. The treaty is set
to expire in 2021, and it is not clear if the United States and Russia will successfully
negotiate an extension. Even though countries of the world are facing an
unprecedented crisis, now is the time to bolster international cooperation beyond
Earth’s atmosphere.

Impact: Arms races increase the risk of conflict

Gangopadhyay, Partha. “Is an Arms Race Just a Race to the Bottom? | SIPRI.”
STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 26 Sept. 2013,
https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2013/arms-race-just-race-bottom.

This action–reaction framework is consistent with several prominent international

relations models such as the security dilemma, the spiral model, and structural neo-
realist theory. It is well-documented in the existing literature that military spending
can pose a security dilemma, when a state chooses to retaliate to the military build-up
of another state because it is unaware of the rival’s true intentions. The reciprocated
increases in arming potentially engender a spiral of hostilities, increasing the chances
for the outbreak of armed conflict. In the latest works on arms races it is usually
assumed that a sequence of states, or leaders of these states, each chooses in turn one
of two options, A (to arm) or B (not to arm), with each state observing all of its
predecessors’ choices. They have common preferences among the two choices but do
not know which is better. Each state knows the costs and benefits of its own military
build-up, but it is unsure of the costs and benefits of its rivals in the arms race.

Champion Briefs 287

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Analysis: The United States can justify its decision to create a space force by claiming that it
intends to enforce regulations designed to stop weapons proliferation, but ultimately the U.S.
has proven that it prefers to resort to military adventurism and escalation.

Champion Briefs 288

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

A/2: Space weapon development can help solve space debris

Answer: Increased tensions due to militarization of space will only create conflict and therefore
more space debris.

Warrant: Tensions are rising over space weapons

Billings, Lee. “War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever.” Scientific American, 10 Aug. 2015,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-in-space-may-be-closer-than-
ever/.

The long-simmering tensions are now approaching a boiling point due to several
events, including recent and ongoing tests of possible anti-satellite weapons by China
and Russia, as well as last month’s failure of tension-easing talks at the United
Nations. Testifying before Congress earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper echoed the concerns held by many senior government officials about the
growing threat to U.S. satellites, saying that China and Russia are both “developing
capabilities to deny access in a conflict,” such as those that might erupt over China’s
military activities in the South China Sea or Russia’s in Ukraine. China in particular,
Clapper said, has demonstrated “the need to interfere with, damage and destroy” U.S.
satellites, referring to a series of Chinese anti-satellite missile tests that began in 2007.

Warrant: There are many satellites that could be hit by a space weapon

Billings, Lee. “War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever.” Scientific American, 10 Aug. 2015,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-in-space-may-be-closer-than-
ever/.

Champion Briefs 289

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

The emptiness of outer space might be the last place you’d expect militaries to vie
over contested territory, except that outer space isn’t so empty anymore. About 1,300
active satellites wreathe the globe in a crowded nest of orbits, providing worldwide
communications, GPS navigation, weather forecasting and planetary surveillance. For
militaries that rely on some of those satellites for modern warfare, space has become
the ultimate high ground, with the U.S. as the undisputed king of the hill. Now, as China
and Russia aggressively seek to challenge U.S. superiority in space with ambitious
military space programs of their own, the power struggle risks sparking a conflict that
could cripple the entire planet’s space-based infrastructure. And though it might begin
in space, such a conflict could easily ignite full-blown war on Earth.

Warrant: Satellites could be hurt in a space strike

Undark, Ramin Skibba. “The Ripple Effects of a Space Skirmish.” The Atlantic, 12 July
2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/07/space-warfare-
unregulated/614059/.

For example, the thousands of everyday satellites that already circle low-Earth orbit,
below an altitude of 1,200 miles, could potentially suffer collateral damage. More
than half of those satellites are from
the U.S.; many of the rest are from China and Russia. They provide key services like
internet access, GPS signals, long-distance communications, and weather information.
Any missile that smashes into a satellite—either as an attack or during a test—would
disperse thousands of bits of debris. Any one of those pieces, still hurtling at orbital
speeds, could take out another spacecraft and create yet more debris. “It’s very easy to
pollute space,” Burbach said. “The debris doesn’t discriminate. If you create debris, it
might just as well come back and hit one of your own satellites. So I think we’re pretty
unlikely to see countries actually use those capabilities.” Still, he said, “it would be
worrying to see countries showing off that [they] can do it and start testing.”

Champion Briefs 290

Con Responses to Pro Arguments March 2021

Impact: Destroying satellites could be devastating for the world since we depend on them
Blatt, Talia. “Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Emerging Space Arms Race.” Harvard
International Review, 26 May 2020, https://hir.harvard.edu/anti-satellite-
weapons-and-the-emerging-space-arms-race/.

If debris knocks out a satellite, an increasingly likely possibility in a world with ASAT
tests, then the aforementioned conflict scenarios become more likely. Conflict aside,
ASAT-based debris clouds are terrifying in their own right. Public health, transportation,
climate science, and a litany of other crucial infrastructures are dependent on
satellites that are now at risk. Satellite GPS is a cornerstone of the modern economy;
some pundits believe that the slightest glitch in GPS satellites could shock the stock
market and further destabilize an unstable global economy. During the pandemic,
satellites are playing a crucial role in geospatial data collection for infectious disease
modeling. Essentially, it is hard to imagine a world without satellites, but that is a
possible outcome given that there are no reliable methods of withdrawing debris from
space.

Analysis: The United States would be bound to address space debris by the Outer Space Treaty,
but the question one must ask is: are they more likely to focus on clearing space debris, or
escalation. The Space Force would likely only increase tensions, and therefore increase the
likelihood of a conflict that exponentially worsens the space debris issue.

Champion Briefs 291