Jump to content
dave1313

CG Icebreakers DA

Recommended Posts

Hey, what do ya'll think about this disad:

 

U-Icebreakers have funding now, but they are next in line to be cut

 

IL-New recruits makes the Coast Guard incur more costs - training is expensive

 

L-Internal Coast Guard funds will trade off

 

!-Coast Guard polar icebreaking is crtical to upholding the Antartic Treaty System - a withdrawal of American presence collapses the ATS and leads to a scramble for Antartic territorial claims

 

!-A collapse of the ATS would lead to warfare and nuclear arms races in Antarctica

 

It would work like a standard trade-off disad. Increasing the number of ppl. in the Coast Guard will kill the icebreaking program, if icebreaking program dies - nuclear war!. I am also looking into links for the border patrol. The Coast Guard and the border patrol are the only two real cases that this link to b/c the icebreakers budget is under the DHS. Questions:What other programs that might be aff cases are under the DHS?Is this a good DA?What would you say against it?Anything would help,

 

thanks

Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah post the DA please.

 

I posted the DA in the first post. As to the link, the money has to come from somewhere. The cards specifically say that the Icebreakers program is next in line to be cut. The link card says that the coast guard's budget is zero-sum, and any new funding would be reallocated within their budget. Both fall under the same budget, so the program dies. Unless they specify some specific fundind mechanism (i.e. taxes, baseline spending, etc), and they say normal means, the link debate will be slanted in the neg's favor. And no, it was not cut at camp, I cut this DA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when they say "polar icebreakers", they are refering to operations in arctic areas, not antarctic areas. you have no evidence that the coast guard operates in the southern hemisphere, let alone antarctica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Coast Guard is still in control, the difference is that they share responsibility. The DHS budget is the budget that the icebreakers fall under

 

Icebreaking was the one program in President Bush's $8.2 billion 2006 Coast Guard budget significantly changed, transferring $48 million for the icebreakers from the Coast Guard to the National Science Foundation, making that agency responsible for their maintenance and operation by then repaying the Coast Guard. The future beyond 2006 is murky, however.

"The administration's budget plan indicates that the Department of Homeland Security's priorities make it unlikely the Coast Guard could fund refurbishment or replacement of the icebreakers in future years, which in turn threatens the programs that depend on the ships' services," the National Science Foundation said recently on its Web site. "While the Coast Guard will initially continue to operate and maintain the ships, NSF will have flexibility to pursue alternatives to current operations," the science foundation said.

Currently "there is no plan for any agency to take the polar icebreaking mission from the Coast Guard," said Wojahn, the head of the Coast Guard's ice operations. "The commandant has said that the nation needs a polar icebreaking capability and the Coast Guard is the right agency to provide this service," Wojahn said, "but it needs to be properly funded."

 

Plus, no one will have that card when I read this DA. I debate on my local circuit and I am sure no has even heard of Coast Guard icebreakers, but even if they have, the link is still there. The NSF is involved, yes, but they are still Coast Guard ships, and the program would be cut by the DHS, not the NSF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when they say "polar icebreakers", they are refering to operations in arctic areas, not antarctic areas. you have no evidence that the coast guard operates in the southern hemisphere, let alone antarctica.

 

Actually, all the evidence deals with Antarctica.

 

CARD:

The icebreakers have been working as never before as Antarctic conditions in recent years grew so severe that sea ice normally extending 10 nautical miles from McMurdo Station, the hub of the U.S. Antarctic Program, grew to 80 nautical miles. Two icebreakers were needed instead of the usual approach of rotating one after the other, allowing each to recover from the punishing work that sends vibrations throughout the ship.

Since 2000, Polar Sea, was forced by some of the harshest Antarctic conditions ever to forgo its biennial repairs and hammer open sea lanes to important science missions on the bottom of the world.

"Without those breakers, you don't have a channel in and out of McMurdo Sound. If you don't have a channel, you don't have the (49-year-old) U.S. Antarctic Program" supplied from McMurdo Station, the Coast Guard commandant, Adm. Thomas Collins, flatly told the Navy League last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also,

 

I found a card that takes out the DHS oversight internal and non-uniques the disad

 

POLAR ICEBREAKER ROLES AND U.S. FUTURE NEEDS: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT provide USCG with a letter of intent documenting the amount of funding to be provided in the subsequent fiscal year. IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL INTERESTS The transfer of budget authority for the polar icebreaking program from the USCG to the NSF has several implications for national interests in the polar regions. The United States is an Arctic nation, with national interests that must be protected at all times. National security and defense interests in the Arctic include the enhancement of regional stability by protecting the U.S. citizens in Alaska, our Arctic maritime borders, and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Economic interests include maritime commerce and protection of our natural resources and environment as well as the protection of our Exclusive Economic Zone from illegal activity. Protection of these interests in the Arctic primarily falls to the U.S. Coast Guard Ice Operations, whose mission is to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests, through law enforcement, marine pollution response, search and rescue, providing a U.S. presence, defense operations, support for diplomatic treaty activities, support for the Department of Defense, and support for scientific research in the polar regions. Until recently, the U.S. Coast Guard had budget authority to oversee the polar icebreakers, which were used to fulfill these missions as needed. Although the majority of ship time for the U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers has been allocated to scientific research and logistics and funded by the scientific community, funding for crews and mission training were covered under the budget of the U.S. Coast Guard. In the current budget situation, funding for all U.S. Coast Guard personnel and activities involving the polar icebreakers is under the control of the National Science Foundation. The core mission of the National Science Foundation is "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense." While the mission of the National Science Foundation does involve national defense, this is accomplished through funding scientific research that can be used in the defense of our nation and does not include participating in law enforcement or combat situations. Under the current MOA between the NSF and the USCG regarding polar icebreaking, the USCG must develop a yearly plan that includes costs for personnel, ship maintenance, and mission training. While the MOA provides funding from the program base for the secondary missions, such as search and rescue and enforcement of laws and treaties, no specific funding is identified for mission training. Funds for all training activities including search and rescue as well as science operations, must be included in the plan that is subject to the NSF approval. The immediate problem involving the polar icebreakers is that given the current mode of operation, activity is underfunded. Moving budget authority for the icebreaking program to the NSF does not address the base funding problem and increases the difficulty of management because management decisions related to the polar icebreakers are now spread across two agencies. Currently, the polar icebreakers are dual purpose ships, meeting both the NSF and the USCG mission responsibilities. The U.S. Coast Guard reports that over 90 percent of the ship deployment time is in support of science primarily utilized by the NSF, although NOAA has recently used roughly 30 percent of available time on the HEALY. These ships, however, are necessary to support other U.S. Coast Guard traditional missions (e.g., national and homeland security, maritime safety, search and rescue), and these missions will increase in the future if human presence in the Arctic increases due to climate changes and emerging economic

 

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309100690/html/16.html

 

The Coast Guard budget is still involved, your own card says so. On the Non-U, my uniqueness evidence says that the program will get funding after a congressional report is finished, and the program is still alive with no plans to kill it, only to change it. So, the Uniqueness stands, they may need some more funding, but in the SQ, they have enough to still keep the program alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NSF tried to contract out icebreaking - the Russian boats broke down and the Coast Guard had to rescue them. Only American icebreakers guarantees an American presence

 

National Research Council, Committee on the Assessment of U.S. Coast Guard, 2005, "Polar Icebreaker Roles and U.S. Future Needs: A Preliminary Assessment," executive summary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correct me if i am wrong. thus far, most coast guard affs have simply boosted numbers. how does the aff not solve for the impacts of the disadvantage? won't there be more people to take part in these programs? doesn't the aff have to specifically say that the troops will be used for X for this to link? how does aff solvency not swallow the disadvantage impacts by increasing the numbers?

 

the difference between this and an RMA type scenario is that RMA deals with an actual technology. icebreaking is just a job of the coast guard-- how does this change post-plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N/U: Icebreakers already being decommissioned.

 

 

 

Patricia Kime(Staff writer), November 22, 2006, [icebreaker Polar Star heads back to Antarctica, http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2374574.php

 

 

The Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Sea is returning to the bottom of the world after a two-year hiatus.

The 399-foot icebreaker departed Nov. 18 to support Operation Deep Freeze, the mission to resupply the U.S.-managed research facility in the region.

The Polar Sea will clear a shipping lane to McMurdo Station to allow passage of a tanker and supply ship. The station depends on the provisions and fuel oil it receives during the Antarctic summer to sustain it through the winter months.

The icebreaker is expected to arrive in Antarctica in January and will remain there until March.

The roughly 20,000-mile round trip marks the first to the region for Polar Sea since the 2003-04 ice season — when Polar Sea broke two of three diesel-electric engine sets.

Following that deployment, the Coast Guard awarded a multiship, multioption contract to Todd Shipyards in Seattle worth up to $50 million for repairs to the Polar Star and Polar Sea. It exercised a $7.2 million modification in September 2005 to repair Polar Sea’s systems, engines and shipboard equipment.

Polar Sea completed sea trials this summer and is expected to be mission-capable for three to five years.

The service’s other 399-foot icebreaker, Polar Star, which has deployed to the region the past two years, is in caretaker status in Seattle as a cost-cutting measure. It is minimally manned by a crew of 34 and is not expected to deploy again in the near future.

The Coast Guard’s icebreaking mission has weathered heavy seas in the past five years, as the Polar Star and Polar Sea near the end of their service lives and as the Coast Guard struggles with funding for the mission.

Under congressional directive, the National Science Foundation has control over the finances for Operation Deep Freeze. In 2004, NSF contracted with a Russian vessel, Krasin, to serve as backup to Polar Star for the icebreaking mission.

NSF hired Krasin as the primary icebreaker for the 2005-06 season. The Polar Star deployed to the region as an emergency backup after Krasin’s propeller broke.

In September, the Polar Research Board at the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the U.S. replace the Polar Sea and Polar Star with two new icebreakers.

It cited enduring national and strategic interests in the region, as well as their growing economic, political and scientific importance as reasons for sustaining the U.S. icebreaking fleet.

 

 

Pre-empts:

1. The card does talk about the Russian outsourcing, but the card I posted earlier specifically talks about why the American icebreakers are better than the Russian one

2. The card does say that the two icebreakers MAY be replaced, but the Polar Sea WILL be used for at least 3-5 more years.

3. The card does say that the Coast Guard has struggled with funding, but they do currently have it, and the program is still up and running in the status quo.

4. The card does say that the Polar Star will probably not see action in the near future, but the Polar Sea will. Also, the Polar Star is getting repaired as well (look to the card)

5. The card does say that the Polar Sea got funding to be repaired, but that just helps my uniqueness, right now the program is alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
correct me if i am wrong. thus far, most coast guard affs have simply boosted numbers. how does the aff not solve for the impacts of the disadvantage? won't there be more people to take part in these programs? doesn't the aff have to specifically say that the troops will be used for X for this to link? how does aff solvency not swallow the disadvantage impacts by increasing the numbers?

 

the difference between this and an RMA type scenario is that RMA deals with an actual technology. icebreaking is just a job of the coast guard-- how does this change post-plan?

 

The Internal link and Link specifically talk about an increase in numbers in the coast guard. When the aff increases the number of ppl in the CG, they will need money, the money will be reallocated from the DHS budget, the icebreakers program is alive now but on the chopping block, when the aff money is needed they take from the icebreakers funding which kills the program. SO, it doesn't matter if there are more ppl in the CG, b/c there will be no icebreaker program post-plan. This is not an RMA disad, this is a standard trade-off disad. Post-plan there is no icebreaking and the US presence in Antarctica is severely hurt, the ATS is severely hurt, and the scenarios for nuke war are ready and waiting

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the program is good now. plan increases the number of people able to take part in this program. the program thrives post plan. as long as the plan does not specify that the troops will be doing some other job (homeland security or eco stuff), than normal means is that they do icebreaking work. that means, no matter how much money the plan takes away, the program thrives with more people.

 

i wasn't saying the plan was an rma disad. i was saying that the difference between rma and this is that rma is not a purpose of the people. this is. icebreaking is a job of the coast guard, a job that is on track now. boosting the number of people in the coast guard boosts that mandate. it can only get stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with that argument is that the ppl won't be used on the icebreakers. One icebreaker (the Polar Star) is in "caretaker status", which means it is not doing anything. And it won't for a while, it is getting ready to be repaired. So, there won't be any ppl going to this ship. The other (the Polar Sea) departed to go the Antarctic on Nov. 18. You can't get Coast Guard ppl. on a ship that is in Antarctica. And even when it comes back, the ships only take 134 ppl. (there is a card that actually breaks down the number of crew ppl, scientist, and misc ppl), and the Polar Sea already has a full crew, so there won't be any more ppl added (there is no need). Also, when the new ppl are brought into the CG, the cost to train them, equip them, etc will be taken from the icebreaker program. So, by the time they are properly trained and ready to join the CG, the icebreaker program will be dead and there would be no ships to go on, even if they could.

 

Hope this clears things up.

 

On a side note, thanks for all the args, this is really helping my A2 section. All the posts are greatly appreciated. Keep 'em coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should post your link card that 'Funding for troops trades off with the Ice Breaker program', because to be honest I don't think that exists. I've searched for a while now and have come up with nothing. If we can see that piece of evidence we can start to evaluate the disad, because depending on how good/bad that link is, it may answer some of the above criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
too bad that the plan's increase of ___K people isn't immediate -- ie it takes time to train and recruit and hire and equip, etc, the coast guard people -- that's not fiat abuse it's just normal means.

I agree. By the time the aff's ppl are ready, the program will already be dead. I also agree that it is not fiat abuse.

 

yeah except this disad is hella non-unique

I think that I have answered this well enough.

 

maybe you should post you "funding will be restored" card

Here it is:

Coast Guard Icebreakers are on the chopping block. They have funding now, but they are the next in line to be cut.

MIKE BARBER, Monday, February 21, 2005, "2 ships' future is on thin ice," SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/212945_icebreaker21.html

 

 

The costs to maintain them are rising, and nothing is on the drawing board to replace them… What's more, some inside the federal government wonder whether icebreaking will remain a mission of the Coast Guard Some speculate that the program could be cut or transferred to another agency…The bill for these immediate repairs could range from $1 million to $10 million…Icebreaking was the one program in President Bush's $8.2 billion 2006 Coast Guard budget significantly changed, transferring $48 million for the icebreakers from the Coast Guard to the National Science Foundation…Under the Coast Guard's new parent body, the Homeland Security Department, icebreaking could be the first "non-homeland security" mission to be cut…Congress last September directed Collins to contract with the National Academy of Sciences' Polar Research Board to study the U.S. polar icebreaking fleet's future and report back next September… "We're anticipating some major recapitalization for the Polar Star and Polar Sea" when the study is final.

 

You should post your link card that 'Funding for troops trades off with the Ice Breaker program', because to be honest I don't think that exists. I've searched for a while now and have come up with nothing. If we can see that piece of evidence we can start to evaluate the disad, because depending on how good/bad that link is, it may answer some of the above criticism.

Here it is: It doesn't specifically say that an increase in people will directly trade off with icebreakers, what it says is that any new funding is reallocated from within the budget.

 

Internal Coast Guard funds will trade off

MOAA 05. ("On Guard", Military Officers Association of America, March,

http://www.moaa.org/Magazine/March2005/f_guard.asp)

 

Although the Coast Guard overall is supported well in the FY 2005 budget, money earmarked for new acquisitions again will have to be used, in part, to keep older equipment running for a few more years. For example, money to upgrade sensors aboard Coast Guard aircraft now has to be used to reengineer HH-65 helicopters. "The old stuff is getting harder and harder to maintain, and the new stuff hasn’t come on line yet," Crea says. So the cost of sustained operations and more maintenance continues to force the Coast Guard to shift money betweenaccounts."It’s a zero-sum game," Crea says. "It either comes from somewhere else, or you have a decreased capability." (Vivian S. Crea is a career aviator and Vice Admiral)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
however I am interested in trading you for this disad; I have tons of homemade negs/DAs/ etc

 

I tried to PM you, but your inbox is full. PM me and we can work something out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the kid just took a bunch of cards in the icebreakers aff file and spun it into a DA

 

I think there are a few problems with it if you look at the icebreaker 1ac.

it has alot of warrented cards that talk about how increasing people in the coast guard would SOLVE the DA..I jsut dont understand how the DA would function. Unless you have a shit load of cards saying increase in coast guard means decrease in icebreakers, or you could kinda make a link that increase in army or other nat service programs takes ppl away from going into the CG. but I doubt that there is good, if any, lit out there like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the USCG is the actor there isn't a link to this position since otherwise we'd deficit spend to do the plan. There's the potential for a human capital link, but if the aff fiats that part of their investment is for operational costs this link no longer works.

 

Also the USCG isn't holding up the ATS in the squo. Sweden was helping out in that region with the ODEN, but they pulled that out about a year ago. More Icebreakers operated by the USCG are basically the only way to access McMurdo and maintain science operations in the Antarctic.

 

Finally, there's no way you can get an Antarctic warfare scenario. If you find a way to get to an ATS impact Science Diplomacy is a better bet.

 

Hope this helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the USCG is the actor there isn't a link to this position since otherwise we'd deficit spend to do the plan. There's the potential for a human capital link, but if the aff fiats that part of their investment is for operational costs this link no longer works.

 

Also the USCG isn't holding up the ATS in the squo. Sweden was helping out in that region with the ODEN, but they pulled that out about a year ago. More Icebreakers operated by the USCG are basically the only way to access McMurdo and maintain science operations in the Antarctic.

 

Finally, there's no way you can get an Antarctic warfare scenario. If you find a way to get to an ATS impact Science Diplomacy is a better bet.

 

Hope this helps!

Keenan,

 

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, high schoolers across the land debated something called the national service topic. I believe you were in middle school when this thread was started.

 

Necro <3

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually just hit this and lost against it.  We said it was nonunique, but their uniqueness was newer than ours.  Anyone got any evidence against it, or advice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually just hit this and lost against it.  We said it was nonunique, but their uniqueness was newer than ours.  Anyone got any evidence against it, or advice?

This isn't what you hit, you hit the inverse... That Icebreaker funding trades off with the Coast guard budget, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...