Jump to content

Dark Talon

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Dark Talon last won the day on July 2 2011

Dark Talon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

66 Excellent

About Dark Talon

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 11/09/1985

Profile Information

  • School
  1. I think this is what he is talking about: http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/2012-2013+-+Hendrickson+%28TX%29+-+Andrew+Barron+%26+Pedro+Segura#Negative-Disadvantages-Signification DA [Note - This argument makes no sense -- we kind of just threw it together during cross-ex of the 1AC]
  2. Large enough impacts make probability drop out of consideration Nicholas Rescher (Department of Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh) 1983 Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the theory of risk evaluation, p. 68 With “ordinary†risk situations, one is in a position to use expected values as a basis for assessment. But there are various sorts of “incommensurable†risks for which this procedure is not reasonable. When the discrepancy of the negatives at issue in a risk situation is sufficiently large, some hazards are simply unacceptable relative to the others, and it makes perfectly good sense to ignore the “balance of probabilities†and proceed simply and solely with reference to this disparity. In such cases one will prefer—perfectly reasonably—the certainty of a small loss to the remote prospect of a large loss, even when the hazard associated with this choice has the lesser expected value. (The only qualification here is that the disasterous outcome in view must represent a real possibility and not one whise probability is effectively zero.)
  3. Just saw a post where you were giving someone a panetta and atchison card for framework. Could you possibly send it to me?

  4. Just do some research about what coolant you use.
  5. If anybody has the 4A one as well, it would be cool if you posted it.
  6. 6. No Arctic conflict- 3 reasons - diplomacy - international law - rationality Alpha Galileo, Independent Source of Research News citing the Fridtjof Nansen Institute , January 4th 2010, http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=64841&CultureCode=en,“Research report foresees no "armed mad dash for resources" in the Arcticâ€; hhs-ab With climate change making the Arctic gradually more accessible, some observers have suggested that interest in Arctic natural resources and disputed marine borders could take on a military aspect. A new study by researchers of the Fridtjof Nansens Institute (FNI) in Norway refutes this view, finding that dispassionate diplomacy is a more likely and rational way of dispute resolution than military confrontation. 'Contrary to the general picture drawn by the media and some commentators over the last couple of years, the Arctic region does not suffer under a state of virtual anarchy. The era when states could claim rights to territory and resources by simply planting their flag is long gone' law of the sea expert Øystein Jensen, one of researchers behind the study. He refers to the 2007 Arktika expedition that planted a Russian flag into the seabed below the North Pole point, an event which raised concerns in Arctic capitals, and sparked off a round of media reports on an "Arctic race for territory and resources". 'The basic fact here is that the Arctic Ocean is an ocean, and as such, regulated by the law of the sea. Previous tendencies to question the legal status of the Arctic Ocean as a sea area – due to it being predominantly ice-covered – stand no chance of being accepted today. At the outset, there is thus no support in international law to treat the waters of the frozen North differently from other maritime spaces,' Jensen stresses. 'Notably, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – the relevant legal framework for national legislation in most state-to-state relations today – contains a clause reserved especially to ice-covered waters. The Convention thus leaves little doubt that a broad consensus exists as to the question of the applicability of the law of the sea to all parts of the Arctic Ocean,' he explains. This was confirmed at the Ilulissat summit in Greenland in 2008 where all the Arctic coastal states – including the US, not yet a party to the Law of the Sea Convention – recognized the law of the sea as the starting point and a solid foundation for how regional and outside actors should act in the Arctic. 'Since the issues some call "security policy challenges" are, in fact, already largely regulated by international law that most states find it to their benefit to observe, the room for conflict is limited. Issues and disputes whose resolution procedures are not clearly lined out in international law, are relatively minor. Under a sober realpolitik analysis, trying or threatening to solve these disputes by military means would simply not be worth it, the negative political and legal ramifications would be too large,' says political scientist Svein Vigeland Rottem, co-author of the study. In their study, the researchers have focused on case studies involving Norwegian-Russian relations in the Barents Sea, including delimitation of unresolved maritime boundaries, the status of the waters and continental shelf around Svalbard and management of marine resources. The results of each of these case studies support the overall conclusion that there is little legal space and little rational role for military conflict resolution in the Arctic. Although the case studies were limited geographically as well as topically, Jensen and Rottem believe their results are generally applicable to the entire Arctic as it is the same legal framework that applies across the region. 'A description of the situation in the Arctic as an "armed mad dash for resources" seems not only overdrawn, it disregards the specific contexts of foreign policy and international law,' the two researchers conclude. Fourth, No risk of Arctic oil wars and Submarine fleet solves escalation Spencer Ackerman, National security journalist @ Wired June 8th 2011; http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/war-for-the-arctic-never-mind/, “War For the Arctic: Never Mindâ€; hhs-ab It wasn’t long ago that the press was running wild with hyperbolic claims of the U.S. losing out in an impending Arctic conflict. After all, global warming is freeing up access to large deposits of oil, gas and minerals right in the backyard of the Russians. But the press forgot to tell other polar nations to freak out. Indeed, at a forum convened on Wednesday by the Center for Strategic and International Security, ambassadors from four polar nations, including some traditionally menaced by Russia, were sanguine about the future of polar exploration. “We actually think we handled these areas for decades during the Cold War rather well,†said Wegger Strommen, Norway’s man in Washington. The U.S Geological Survey assesses that the North Pole holds about 13 percent of the world’s untapped oil supplies. Companies and nations are champing at the bit to expand exploration as the ice caps melt. The Russians have an advantage: a fleet of six nuclear powered icebreakers on its northern shore. By contrast, the U.S. Coast Guard has just one, the cutter Healy. But no one’s sweating it. Should there actually be an arctic sea conflict, the U.S. submarine fleet is second to none, as my colleague David Axe has pointed out. And a massive Arctic oil rush is “years off,†Strommen added, since the “climate is harsh, the conditions are difficult and it’s incredibly expensive.†Beyond that, the Russians are warm in the Arctic. Russia finalized a maritime border with Norway on Tuesday that took 30 years to negotiate. Strommen’s colleagues from Greenland, Canada and Sweden gave high marks to a meeting last month of the Arctic Council, the diplomatic contact group of arctic nations, in which Russia signed onto an accord for search and rescue missions in the cold waters. Think of it as a diplomatic thaw.
  7. I'm really just curious about what kind of coolant you use.
  8. http://www.bellona.o...iferation/28067 "Nuclear-powered lighthouses can lead to environmental contamination and represent a serious proliferation threat if diverted to terrorists."
  9. I don't think it will be strategic to read a space aff on this topic, but i'll just leave this here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2012/spring/garretson.pdf "It was in the context of conflict, hot and cold, that the United States began the Manhattan and Apollo projects. It was during the Great Depression when the United States launched such initiatives as the Tennessee Valley Authority rural electrification program. SBSP combines space, energy, infrastructure, innovation, and frontier spirit and plays to American strengths. Vision attracts talent and capital. It is when America is down that it reinvents itself with a still larger, frontier-expanding vision. If not now, when will we step out into the next great Manhattan-like project, and how will we continue to be the world leader in technology and innovation?"
  10. Dark Talon


    The timeframe is 3 years Foreign Policy Analysis 09’ By an Independent Working Group (Co Chairmen: Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies The Fletcher School, Tufts University President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis Dr. William R. Van Cleave Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University), 2009 Report, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWG2009.pdf, The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis Because space-based defenses offer the widest coverage and largest number of intercept opportunities, and little if anything has been done to take advantage of space defense technologies that were mature 15 years ago, a new initiative is required to bring that technology and its potential up to date. We recommend a streamlined technology-limited development program based on the Brilliant Pebbles program to demonstrate within three years the feasibility of a constellation of space-based interceptors to intercept ballistic missiles in all phases of flight – boost, midcourse, and terminal. To avoid conflicts with existing acquisition programs focused on ground- and sea-based defenses while moving forward as rapidly as possible, this effort should be undertaken by a special task force of competent technical personnel experienced in developing pioneering technology. Consequently, the United States should: • Fund DARPA, which specializes in the innovation of defense systems through advanced technology, to assemble a small team charged with rapidly reviving and deploying a modern space-based kinetic-energy interceptor system in the manner of past successful programs such as the development of the first ICBM and the Polaris missile. Of particular importance is a small, empowered, technically competent management and engineering team from government and industry, fully supported with needed funds. • Building on the Brilliant Pebbles technologies created in the late 1980s and early 1990s as well as advanced technologies produced since then in both the military and commercial sectors, the DARPA team should develop and rigorously test within three years a space-based system to perform boost, midcourse, and terminal interception tests against ballistic missiles of several ranges. The anticipated cost of this three-year effort, which could leave in place a space test bed with limited intercept capability, is $3 billion to $5 billion. • Direct the Air Force Space Command to work with DARPA to develop the operational concept for a constellation of space-based interceptors, with an anticipated handoff to the Air Force in three to five years of an evolving capability that can be integrated into U.S. Strategic Command’s global architecture. • Using an event-driven procurement strategy deploy a Brilliant Pebbles twenty-first century space-defense system with the goal of an initial capability in 2012. Because of the number that would be deployed, Brilliant Pebbles would have multiple opportunities for interception, increasing chances of a successful kill in either the boost or midcourse phase, or even in the early terminal phase. These characteristics stand in sharp contrast to the GMD ground-based interceptors which, in the limited numbers presently planned, may not provide more than one intercept opportunity. Moreover, Brilliant Pebbles interceptors are small (1.4-2.3 kilograms and approximately the size of a watermelon), making them difficult to detect and thus target; they also contain an inherent self-defense capability that further adds to their survivability. Brilliant Pebbles was approximately midway through engineering and manufacturing development before it was cancelled, suggesting that with the needed political will, an updated system could be developed and deployed in a timely fashion. For example, based on the fully approved Defense Acquisition Board plan from 1991, 1,000 Brilliant Pebbles interceptors could be developed, tested, deployed, and operated for 20 years in a low-to-moderate risk eventdriven acquisition program for $11 billion in 1989 dollars, or $19.1 billion in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars
  11. I have never heard of anybody getting rejected from DDI, there were even rising sophomores in my lab last year.
  • Create New...