Ddi 2010 1 Topicality – Drones

Дата канвертавання26.04.2016
Памер121.65 Kb.
  1   2   3

DDI 2010


Topicality – Drones

  1. Interpretation

First, A substantial reduction is 25% - military regulations prove.

Major Steven N. Tomanelli et al, has served as a Judge Advocate in the United States Air Force, Chief of Acquisition and Fiscal Law for the Air Force s Air Mobility Command, and Senior DoD Counsel for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Army Lawyer, February 1994, Lexis Academic

  1. Regulatory Changes--Notification Requirements for Termination or Reduction of Defense Programs.--The DOD has issued an interim rule requiring military departments and defense agencies to notify contractors of a potential termination of, or substantial reduction in, a defense program. n581 Under the new rule, each military department and defense agency must establish procedures for determining which defense programs are likely to be terminated or substantially reduced as a result of the submission of the President's budget or enactment of an appropriations act. Within thirty days of such submission or enactment, agencies and military departments must notify affected contractors of the proposed termination or reduction. Affected contractors are those with a contract of $ 500,000 or more under a program identified as likely to be terminated or reduced by at least twenty-five percent. Within two weeks after receiving notice from the government, contractors must notify, among others, their affected employees and subcontractors of the proposed termination or reduction.

Reduce is a net decrease

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1982, 97th US Congress, Sept 8, 1982
E) Prior to approving any application for a refund, the Secretary shall require evidence that such reduction in marketings has taken place and that such reduction is a net decrease in marketings of milk and has not been offset by expansion of production in other production facilities in which the person has an interest or by transfer of partial interest in the production facility or by the taking of any other action. which is a scheme or device to qualify for payment.

There are 225 Helicopters in Afghanistan

Mark Thompson, Time, 10/27/2009, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1932386,00.html

The U.S. has over the past year doubled its number of helicopters based in Afghanistan to about 225, but troop numbers have risen even faster, making for a more acute chopper shortage. Helicopters are swift but delicate machines. The physics of flight make them inherently unstable, and therefore less reliable, than fixed-wing aircraft which generate their lift from stationary wings instead of egg-beater-like rotor blades. More critically, chopper pilots are commonly expected to fly in hot weather at high altitudes, where less-dense air offers them less control over their aircraft.

Over 94,000 Troops

Washington Post 10 [May 25, ln]

Using figures collected Saturday, the Pentagon says 94,000 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan and 92,000 in Iraq. The numbers are expected to rise in Afghanistan and fall in Iraq as the Obama administration shifts the focus to what it has called the more important conflict.

Second, Presence is all deployed troops.

MacMillan Dictionary 2010 [Macmillan Publishers Limited, "definition of presence," accessed June 2010 | VP]

a. a group of people, especially soldiers or the police, who are in a place for a particular purpose

We intend to maintain a presence in the country until there is peace.

military/police presence  

  1. The Plan Only Removes 20 Drones From Afghanistan – That’s Their New York Times Evidence, ANDThey Don’t Actually Require a Reduction Because the Court Rules it Illegal – They Don’t’ Fiat the President Enforces

Dean Alfange, Ph.D., Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, 1984. [Nuclear Weapons and Law, “Wisdom, Constitutionality, and Nuclear Weapons Policy,” eds. A. Miller and M. Feinrider, p. 311-2]

If Professor Miller's purpose is simply to reinforce the resolve and commitment of those who already agree with him on the policy ques- tion by telling them that their views are not only supported by good sense, ultimate morality, and perhaps the norms of international law, but also reflect authentic constitutional commands, he may well be successful. But if his purpose is to change public opinion through constitutional argument, he must be able to convince his audience of the au- thoritativeness of that argument, and the authoritativeness of a legal argument can be demonstrated in only two ways: consensual agreement among a substantial majority of those generally recognized as knowledgeable in the field or acceptance by a court-preferably an appellate court and most preferably the Supreme Court. Quite plainly, Professor Miller is in a position to make neither demonstration. Novel constitutional arguments designed to win the day for the adherents of one side of a controversial policy issue will, by their nature, be unable to command broad acceptance, and, as noted, Professor Miller concedes that his argument will be unlikely to find judicial favor. Even a favorable judicial ruling may, of course, be insufficient to resolve a disputed constitutional issue, as long ago demonstrated by the categorical rejection by the North of the Dred Scott decision of 1857,10 and as may clearly be seen today in the ongoing debates over such questions as abortion policy,11 the exclusionary rule,12 and school bussing for the achievement of racial desegregation.1s But the instances in which public opinion and public policy have been changed by constitutional reasoning14 have necessarily involved judicial pronouncements which have given moral force to debatable constitutional arguments by converting them into rules of law. Without such legitimation,15 mere argument, no matter how co- gent and thoughtful, lacks the authority necessary to lead persons of differing views to abandon their prior positions on policy questions.

  1. Limits

  1. They explode the Topic – The Aff isn’t even 10% of Our helicopter Forces in Afghanistan. And it is Less THAN ONE PERCENT of our Current Force Structure in Afghanistan. Even More, They Don’t EVEN FIAT That the United States Federal Government withdrawals the DRONES FROM AFGHANISAN. The President Could JUST IGNORE The Decision – Empiracly Proven by Cases Such as Dred Scott etc.

  1. We Set a Fair Limit – All the Aff Has to Do is FIAT A Withdrawal 25% of the Total US Military Presence in the Country – This allows A NUMBER of Affirmatives and Doesn’t Over Limit the Topic – We only prevent an absurd number of cases

1NC T Violation (Military)

The CIA does the drone operatives in Afghanistan

Jane Meyer 10/26/09 “ The Predator War” The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer

The Predators in the C.I.A. program are “flown” by civilians, both intelligence officers and private contractors. According to a former counterterrorism official, the contractors are “seasoned professionals—often retired military and intelligence officials.” (The intelligence agency outsources a significant portion of its work.) Within the C.I.A., control of the unmanned vehicles is split among several teams. One set of pilots and operators works abroad, near hidden airfields in Afghanistan and Pakistan, handling takeoffs and landings. Once the drones are aloft, the former counterterrorism official said, the controls are electronically “slewed over” to a set of “reachback operators,” in Langley. Using joysticks that resemble video-game controls, the reachback operators—who don’t need conventional flight training—sit next to intelligence officers and watch, on large flat-screen monitors, a live video feed from the drone’s camera. From their suburban redoubt, they can turn the plane, zoom in on the landscape below, and decide whether to lock onto a target. A stream of additional “signal” intelligence, sent to Langley by the National Security Agency,* provides electronic means of corroborating that a target has been correctly identified. The White House has delegated trigger authority to C.I.A. officials, including the head of the Counter-Terrorist Center, whose identity remains veiled from the public because the agency has placed him under cover.
The CIA is distinct from the military

New York Times, Christopher Drew 2/19/10 “ Drones Are Playing a Growing Role in Afghanistan” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/world/asia/20drones.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
They are mostly used for surveillance, but have also carried out more than 200 missile and bomb strikes over the last year, including 14 strikes near Marja in the last few days, newly released military records show. That is three times as many strikes in the past year as in Pakistan, where the drones have gotten far more attention and proved more controversial for their use in a country where the United States does not have combat forces. There, they are run by the C.I.A., as opposed to the military, and the civilian casualties that they have caused as they have struck at leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, amid Pakistani sensitivities over sovereignty, have stoked anger and anti-Americanism. But in Afghanistan, a country with nearly 70,000 American troops, the drones have stealthily settled into an everyday role, and military commanders say they are a growing part of a counterinsurgency strategy that seeks to reduce civilian casualties. They expect to field more of them as 30,000 more American troops enter Afghanistan this year.

1. This is different than other ground arguments- there is a CLEAR distinction between the military drone operations and the CIA ones that means they kill core neg counterplans like transfer CIA operations to the military or only eliminate CIA operations
2. Limits-By including intelligence agencies into the definition of ‘military’ they create dozens of new aff’s because the CIA’s rules of engagement are radically different they can get advantages like I-Law that don’t apply to military practices, also there are tons of covert missions the CIA engages in that the military doesn’t
Conflating intelligence and military operations snowballs and destroys education
Juan Cole 5/25/10 “ Petraeus Memo Widens scope of US Military Covert Operations in ME” http://www.juancole.com/2010/05/petraeus-memo-widens-scope-of-us-military-covert-operations-in-me.html

My own view is that the United States was founded as a government of laws, not men, and that the siren call of covert operations is steadily undermining the rule of law. Blurring the line between military action and spying makes it impossible to talk about the covert missions, since they are typically classified. The same is true for predator drone strikes. Military action such as launching drones should be carried out by the uniformed military, not by CIA operatives or, worse, contractors. The former action would allow us to discuss the campaigns as free citizens of a republic. As it is now, often civilian contractors are piloting drones long-distance and we cannot so much as get a straight answer out of the elected officials. Where the US is striking at friendly countries, there should be a Status of Forces agreement to provide a legal framework for the actions. And intelligence gathering should be carried out by the civilian such agencies. The more you make elements of the military actually intelligence assets, the more likely it is that the lines between them will get strained. That blurring could be bad

A. Funding For the Airborne Laser Has Been Cut – It Can Be Revived

Stephen Trimble, @ Flight International, 2/17/10 [Airborne Laser faces uncertain future despite historic intercept test, http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/17/338475/airborne-laser-faces-uncertain-future-despite-historic-intercept.html]

The Airborne Laser Testbed (ALTB) faces an uncertain future as both a research project and an operational system even after its 1MW-class chemical laser successfully - and historically - destroyed a ballistic missile off the California coast on 11 February. The long-awaited intercept test proved that the modified Boeing 747-400F's key technology - a chemical oxygen iodine laser (Coil) invented by US Air Force researchers in 1977 - is a lethal weapon against ballistic missiles. A week before the ballistic intercept, the ALTB shot down a Terrier Black Brant, a two-stage sounding rocket that presents faster and smaller target to the Lockheed Martin-supplied beam and fire control system. Moving the ALTB out of the research environment, however, remains an open question. Despite passing a historic milestone for a directed energy weapons syst/em, the intercept was completed in a sterile test environment. Moreover, the Missile Defense Agency classified the range of the test and obscured the length of time required to defeat the target, making it unclear how well the Coil technology really performed. Mike Rinn, Boeing vice-president and general manager for missile defence programmes, believes the lethal demonstration opens the door for high energy lasers to become operational weapons. "As we show things like we did last night, decisions can be made about whether this platform or some future platform or some incarnation of the current technology can be an operational system," Rinn says. But Rinn's top customer - Secretary of Defense Robert Gates - remains opposed to making the $6 billion programme operational. In 2009 Gates cancelled the second Airborne Laser aircraft and downgraded the programme from operational prototype to testbed status. The programme now remains in limbo, awaiting the results of future budget decisions. The Department of Defense has requested slightly less than $100 million for the ALTB in fiscal year 2011, which Rinn says is insufficient to preserve the industrial base for such high-energy lasers. But the programme's future will be decided in the next round of budget planning. The MDA is working on a study computing the lifecycle acquisition cost of an operational system, which requires buying up to seven aircraft. Meanwhile, the office of DoD's director for research and engineering is analysing options for missile defences in the boost and ascent phase, Rinn says. That ALTB is a candidate in the director's ongoing analysis, which will inform the Pentagon's FY2012 budget request, he says.

B. Withdrawal would shift budget toward future weapons, and industry lobbyist are compensated with contracts.

New York Times 9( Christopher Drew, Covers military contracting and Pentagon spending for The New York Times. He is also the co-author of “Blind Man’s Bluff,” a best-selling book about submarine spying during the Cold War. 2/27/09“Military Contractors Await Details of Obama’s Budget”. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/28defense.html)

The good news for big military contractors from President Obama’s budget this week was his proposal to increase the basic Pentagon budget by 4 percent, to $534 billion. But now the companies are contending with a new question: what will the priorities of the new administration — which has made clear it wants to shift spending from futuristic weapons systems to simpler arms that troops can use now — mean for the industry?The big contractors “are sitting on the edge of their seats,” said Gordon Adams, a professor at American University in Washington and an expert on the defense budget. The defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, said this week that he would probably not decide the fate of some marquee weapons systems — including the Air Force’s supersonic F-22 jet fighter and the Navy’s plans for a new high-tech destroyer — until April. In an effort to blunt some of the inevitable lobbying, he has taken the extraordinary step of requiring members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to sign documents promising not to leak any details of the deliberations. In addition to the basic budget, the Obama administration expects to spend at least $130 billion to cover the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the total defense budget to $664 billion in fiscal 2010, which begins Oct. 1. That is slightly higher than the $654 billion the government has set aside in the current fiscal year — the most it has spent, in inflation-adjusted terms, since World War II. Some military executives acknowledge that the spending proposal for next year remains generous given the government’s spiraling budget deficits. “It’s a good number in this economic climate,” said Kendell Pease, a spokesman for General Dynamics, the giant military contractor. But, he said, “There are so many contentious issues to decide, and nobody is going to do anything in Congress until they see the line-item decisions.” Investors also seem unnerved by the uncertainty; the stocks of the leading military companies fell even harder than the general market averages Friday. Investors were also concerned that with the plans to gradually withdraw forces from Iraq, the level of supplemental war funding will drop sharply in the future. Ronald Epstein, an analyst at Merrill Lynch, said in a research note that this could end up “marking the end of the defense spending boom.” But other analysts said some of the savings in Iraq could be offset by greater spending in Afghanistan. James McAleese, whose company, McAleese & Associates, advises military firms on legal and business issues, said Mr. Obama’s proposed budget could also increase next year’s spending on weapons acquisitions and research by $6 billion. But the military contracting industry is consumed now with the parlor game of guessing which prominent programs Mr. Gates will cut back or scrap as either “gold-plated” or troubled — and whether industry lobbyists will be able to persuade Congress to overturn some of those decisions.

C. Congress and Contractors Will Demand ABL

Riki Ellison, Chairman and Founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, 2/15/10 [http://www.defpro.com/news/details/13147/]

"President Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had cut the ABL program from the FY2010 Missile Defense Budget. The FY2011 budget request released on Monday, February 1st adds $99 million into an ABL legacy program called Directed Energy Research (DER). This program calls for continued development and testing of airborne laser technologies in experiments and test bed formats taking the system out of weapon development. The United States has invested around 5 billion tax dollars since the early 1990s on the ABL to make it a defensive weapon system. The ABL is similar in some ways to the development of the Joint Stars 707 aircraft that was thrust into the Iraq war with a test bed version and has become a tremendously useful military asset that is deployed in numbers today providing sophisticated surveillance and tracking on the ground from the air." "The ABL is initially proven and should continue to be developed, tested and even deployed if necessary. The successful test on February 12th gives weight to the release last week of the Ballistic Missile Defense Review endorsement of Missile Defense development by the President and the Secretary of Defense who have recognized the quantitative and qualitative threat to our nation, allies and deployed forces from ballistic missiles. Furthermore, in lieu of Iran's recent and continued nuclear developments, the ability of our Military to use the ABL with U.S. air superiority to engage and destroy multiple Iranian missiles in seconds over Iran could be a critical asset if in the future a situation arose between Iran and the United States. This capability would have similar relevancy for the United States in the Korean peninsula in regards to North Korean's ballistic missile threats and nuclear capability in the region." "The ABL should be given priority, further developed and be funded to be kept a fully viable defensive weapon system as a credible hedge against ballistic missile threats. The U.S. Congress will inevitably challenge the Department of Defense and the administration to fully fund and further develop this system to have an ability to deploy this system in crisis regions providing our armed forces and allies' necessary protection."

D. ABL Ensures a Directed Energy Weapon Arms Race

Paul Rogers, Professor of Government at Bradford University, ‘2 [Directed energy: a new kind of weapon, http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict/article_153.jsp]

The United States development of directed-energy weaponsdesigned to advance protection of its forces, control of space, and the capacity to strike foreign targets at will – appears to be a seductive and effective route to guaranteeing US security in the 21st century. But, in the absence of any arms-control regime, the result could instead be a higher level of threat. Some time in 2003, a unique new weapon will be tested by the United States air force in an attempt to destroy a Scud missile. It is a high-energy laser known as the airborne laser (ABL), the first element of an innovative system that could end up arming a series of powerful satellites able to target anywhere on the Earth’s surface with near impunity. The impact of directed energy weapons over the next quarter of a century could be huge, and some analysts argue that they are as potentially revolutionary as was the development of nuclear weapons sixty years ago. For now, directed energy weapons are being seen as an answer to ballistic missile defence but, in the longer term, military planners are already viewing them as serving many other functions. The United States has a pronounced lead over all other countries, but its potential success may encourage others to follow suit, setting up a new kind of arms race; it may also lead to opponents developing new ways of retaliating. In the light of the attacks of 11 September 2001, this is not to be discounted.
  1   2   3

База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка