===AFF===

1AC
Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase
competitive grants for primary and secondary afterschool science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education programs.
 Advantage 1Industry
Scenario 1Econ.
Afterschool strengthens STEMits the only way to ensure American
competitiveness.
AA 12. (Afterschool Alliance. The Afterschool Alliance is a policy organization working to ensure
that all children have access to affordable, quality afterschool programs. Know Your Funders: A
Guide to STEM Funding for Afterschool. 2012. http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/STEM-
Funding-Brief-10182012.pdf)

The need for competency in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) skills is not only
increasingly important for success in the workforce but also to navigate the modern world and
to make decisions that will inform public policy. In response to this need and to maintain the
United States global competitiveness, the federal government as well as private philanthropies
and corporations are increasingly investing in a variety of STEM education initiatives. Informal
learning settings, such as afterschool programs1 , provide excellent opportunities to get children
and youth engaged and interested in STEM activities. High quality afterschool programs provide
an environment for hands-on, inquiry-based learning where students can experiment with
science and technology under the guidance of a supportive adult. Afterschool program
evaluations have shown that participating in STEM-focused afterschool programs leads to
increased interest, knowledge and skill, and in some cases improved high school graduation
rates and pursuit of STEM careers among participants2 . Research has also shown that an early
interest in STEM careers is a strong predictor of who will go on to actually pursue STEM careers3
. Studies have also shown that increased access to STEM education opportunities results in a
higher likelihood of success in STEM fields4 . Afterschool programs are an ideal vehicle to realize
these outcomes. Even though the research is clear on the benefits of exposing students to STEM
activities, both within and out of school, funding can be challenging in the current fiscal
environment. There are a number of possible public and private funding streams available for
afterschool STEM activities, but these funding streams are often targeted to certain populations
or specific activities and can be highly competitive. This guide is a tool for afterschool program
leaders to navigate various funding streams and consider effective strategies to acquire funding
for afterschool STEM programs.

Competitiveness is key to global peace.

Cole 12. (August Cole is a writer and analyst specializing in national security issues. He is an
Adjunct Fellow at the American Security Project, a non-partisan think tank, where he focuses on
defense industry issues. August is also a member of the International Institute for Strategic
Studies. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Pennsylvania and a Master
in Public Administration degree from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University. American Competitiveness: A matter of national security. November 28, 2012.
https://americansecurityproject.org/ASP%20Reports/Ref%200100%20-
%20American%20Competitiveness-%20A%20matter%20of%20national%20security.pdf)

Americans are always looking for an edge. Whether at work, at school or even on the road, an
element of individual competition and achievement is woven throughout our society. Yet today
the countrys ability to compete in a global economy, attract the worlds brightest and
nurture a functional political system is slipping. This weakness is now at a point where it
threatens to erode the pillars upon which Americas national security rests. Evaluating
Americas strength is not a question of raw might. The U.S. military remains unmatched
even after more than a decade of conflict in Central Asia and the Middle East. That
cornerstone of American power is assured. Other crucial elements such as the national
debt, an efficient and responsive political process, productive education system and viable
defense industrial base are not. Worry about each of these elements is not new. That focus,
however, has not stopped decline. Yet a sense of alarm is already not enough to prompt action.
What is needed is to reconsider the interconnectedness of this deterioration in order
to determine a viable path to returning Americas competitive edge. This reveals a
true risk to the nation and leads to a reframing of how we evaluate Americas national
security. Doing so will help address what have been seen as disparate elements, that are, in
practice, closely linked in both problem and solution. To start, Americas political and business
leaders need a consensus that improving our nations competitiveness is an urgent priority with
much higher stakes than acknowledged today. This does not mean simply seeing every problem
as a security issue for easy attention. There is already enough of that. We need to
acknowledge that current policies and objectives in the public and private sector,
taken together, dangerously undercut Americas current and future global position
through instability, inefficiency and risk. Amid what can be seen as a period of troubling
decline is opportunity. In a simple sense, things are bad enough that there is a unique
opportunity to reframe one of the fundamental questions our country faces: What makes us
strong and safe? This usually falls back on military might. That provides an incomplete picture
and leads to poor policy decisions, such as raising defense spending at a time of historic deficits.
A more complete view of Americas strength starts with defining national competitiveness. A
countrys medium to long-term competitiveness is defined by a nations ability to lead
globally on the strength of its actions and ideas, to support a vibrant free-market
system, to nurture a responsive democratic political system and to uphold a social
contract that honors economic and social progress for its citizens. This is a subjective
assessment of factors, yet these elements can be reasonably agreed upon as being critical
indicators of national success. Importantly, they encompass some of the toughest challenges
faced by everyone from White House policymakers to households across America. Others may
have additional elements of national competitiveness; their analysis is welcome as it will only
improve the quality and depth of this needed debate. This paper will show how each of these
elements influences Americas national security, interacts with the other elements, and
identifies possible solutions that can improve Americas competitiveness.

STEM education is key to econ growthslacking now.

Swanson and Kelly 14 (William H. Swanson and Bill Kelly, writers @US News, NATIONAL
NEWS STEM Proficiency: A Key Driver of Innovation, Economic Growth and National Security,
https://www.usnews.com/news/stem-index/articles/2014/04/23/stem-proficiency-a-key-
driver-of-innovation-economic-growth-and-national-security)
STEM: what a terrible acronym. Its one of those awkward labels that become accepted
shorthand for a wonky policy topic because no one can figure out a better way to say it. But
dont let clunkiness obscure significance. STEM is also an under appreciated, and troubling,
component of the U.S. economy. The real meaning behind STEM is the mismatch between
supply and demand in a key part of the countrys labor pipeline. The demand for the many jobs
requiring STEM skillsscience, technology, engineering and mathis outstripping the supply,
and the problem will only get worse. Thats what we found when we crunched the numbers in
the first-ever STEM Index, a basket of data measuring the state of STEM jobs and education
since 2000. We wanted to impose some metrics on a much-discussed but ill-defined subject that
has become a concern for most major industries in the U.S. STEM proficiency is a key driver of
innovation, economic growth and ultimately national security. For instance, some of the most
coveted and scarce skills today are in the fields of cybersecurity. [SPECIAL REPORT: The U.S.
News/Raytheon STEM Index] But STEM is not just about tech companies. Its not just about
people who wear lab coats. STEM skills are needed in the many millions of jobs that will have to
be filled in sectors such as energy, manufacturing, food production and perhaps most
significantly, health care. What industry does not need more workers with science and math
know-how? And not just at the high end. Having STEM skills could mean making it into the
middle class, or not. Going back to studies like the seminal Rising Above the Gathering Storm
report of 2005, the problem has been a focus of much attention. But we wanted to add some
new rigor by creating a unique set of data that looked at how the U.S. has fared in tackling this
supply-demand challenge. We plotted dozens of statistics that measured student test
performance, aptitude, and interest against job demand (read the full methodology). The result
is a 14-year average that tells an important part of the STEM story, with limits. Our new
benchmark, the U.S. News/Raytheon STEM Index, is a starting point thats meant to lead to
deeper discussions, and ultimately solutions. And of course any broad-based graph can only tell
you so much; the analyses behind the component parts are ultimately the most revealing. What
the numbers tell us is that the country has made little progress on a problem weve seen coming
for a long time. Despite growing job demand, the pipeline of talent is weak and will remain
that way for at least a decade if nothing changes. There are some recent glimmers of hope,
reflected in an uptick over the past two years, but they are coming from a select part of the
population. Our top-line data, supported by other studies, shows that some portion of white
males, along with Americans of Asian descent, are increasingly drawn to STEM subjects, while
those who represent the bulk of the future labor poolwomen, Latinos and African-
Americansare showing disproportionately little interest.

Its the most robust internal link.

The Atlantic 13. (The Atlantic. Securing Economic Strength Through Education. October 24,
2013. www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/chevron-stem/securing-economic-strength-through-
education/34/)

In the study of American progress, you consistently find a trail of teamwork. The modern
approach to fulfilling the United States long-term economic needs is no exception, as a coalition
advancing knowledge in science, technology, engineering and math is proving. This network of
governmental, commercial, educational, and research organizations is vital to the acceleration
of scientific and technological innovations that will secure the health and longevity of the
economy -- and, consequently, the American economy, said Ross DeVol, Chief Research Officer
at the Milken Institute, an independent economic think tank. The United States must utilize
the knowledge assets in their possession such as universities, research centers, and most
importantly, the talent that they create or attract to fuel economic growth, DeVol said.
Companies like Chevron recognize the important role that a robust American STEM-skilled
workforce will play in the increasingly competitive global marketplace and theyre using
partnerships with schools and nonprofits to make it happen. Blair Blackwell, the Manager of Education and Corporate
Programs at Chevron, explained that building educational networks is an important part of the companys greater strategy. On a daily basis in our business, we have to
collaborate across a number of different functions to implement projects of great scale and complexity, said Blackwell. In many ways, we bring that same approach to our
social investments in education. We recognize that expertise and resources are needed from a variety of different partners to make STEM education reform a success.
Chevrons measured, long-term investment in American STEM education reflects that commitment. The company has devoted nearly $100 million to support education
initiatives over the past three years. But while massive financial investment is important to facilitate the process, it is the partnership these investments foster -- relationships
that enable hundreds of thousands of students, thousands of teachers, and dozens of nonprofit organizations and practitioners to connect with one another -- that Blackwell
believes is what really makes a positive impact. We engage in a number of ways and have moved far beyond just writing a check, explains Blackwell. We also bring to bear our
knowledge of workforce needs and our employees regularly act as mentors to students. The encouragement of partnerships between a wide variety of organizations will, over
the long term, help build large pools of indigenous engineering talent. Edie Fraser, the CEO of STEMConnector, is one of the people who make these types of connections
possible. Less than two years ago, Fraser took on the herculean task of finding a new way of connecting the thousands of people, organizations and companies that have a
vested interest in advancing STEM with each other -- and has largely succeeded, especially when it comes to the business world. The demand side is where weve got to build
the action, said Fraser. The jobs are in STEM whats so exciting now is to see the companies step up in their communities and collaborate. STEMConnector is an organization
headquartered in Washington, D.C. that supplies corporations and other organizations with the information they need to strategically invest in STEM initiatives. The organization
works with more than 6,500 business, research and education stakeholders to disseminate data through networking events, newsletters, research reports and several other
products. The key, Fraser says, is ensuring that the pipeline of STEM talent is moving it up and making sure it is geared to careers. At California State Polytechnic University,
Pomona, such focus on building bridges that connect education to careers is working. Cal Poly Pomona houses one of the largest colleges of engineering in the United States. Cal
Poly Pomona, which, according to U.S. News and World Report, graduates about 1 of every 14 engineers in the state of California, would not be quite as prominent if it was not
bolstered through partnerships on all sides. To achieve such success, Associate Dean of the College of Engineering Dr. Cordelia Ontiveros works with other schools and
organizations to secure a strong pipeline of STEM students, molding them into the STEM workers who will continue the American tradition of innovation. Dr. Ontiveros calls the
philosophy of her university and organizations that develop interest in science and math like Project Lead The Way perfectly aligned. We think its a great framework for

That need for progress has never been stronger, according to Blackwell,
making a lot of progress, Ontiveros said.

who has worked on social investment projects on multiple continents. As you go out and travel
the world, you find that other countries are innovating, she said. If we dont continue to
invest in education and invest in ensuring our students are ready to move from the education
system into employment, then were simply going to fall behind. "Everybody gets that
education leads to employment which leads to economic development, she said.

Growth solves peacerobust statistical research proves its the most important
factor.
Cortright 15, (Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies,
Linking Development and Peace: The Empirical Evidence,
https://peacepolicy.nd.edu/2016/05/18/linking-development-and-peace-the-empirical-
evidence/)

The connections between development and peace are firmly supported by social
science research. All the standard indicators of economic development, including per
capita income, economic growth rates, levels of trade and investment, and degree of market
openness, are significantly correlated with peace. Virtually every study on the causes of war
finds a strong connection between low income and the likelihood of armed conflict.
Economist Edward Miguel describes this link as one of the most robust empirical
relationships in the economic literature. Irrespective of all other variables and
indicators, poverty as measured by low income bears a strong and statistically significant
relationship to increased risk of civil conflict. No one has made this point more convincingly
over the years than Paul Collier. He and his colleagues have shown that civil conflict is heavily
concentrated in the poorest countries. The risk of civil war is strongly associated with
joblessness, poverty and a general lack of development. They famously conclude, The key root
cause of conflict is the failure of economic development . They also make the reverse
point. Raising economic growth rates and levels of per capita income may be the single
most important step that can be taken to reduce the likelihood of armed conflict.

Econonmic decline and even the Perception of such triggers lashout and global
wareconomic institutions wont check
Harold James 14, Professor of history at Princeton Universitys Woodrow Wilson School who
specializes in European economic history, 7/2/14, Debate: Is 2014, like 1914, a prelude to world
war?, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/read-and-vote-is-2014-like-1914-a-
prelude-to-world-war/article19325504/

As we get closer to the centenary of Gavrilo Princips act of terrorism in Sarajevo, there is an
ever more vivid fear: it could happen again. The approach of the hundredth anniversary of
1914 has put a spotlight on the fragility of the worlds political and economic security
systems. At the beginning of 2013, Luxembourgs Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker was
widely ridiculed for evoking the shades of 1913. By now he is looking like a prophet. By 2014, as
the security situation in the South China Sea deteriorated, Japanese Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe cast China as the equivalent to Kaiser Wilhelms Germany; and the fighting in
Ukraine and in Iraq is a sharp reminder of the dangers of escalation . Lessons of 1914 are
about more than simply the dangers of national and sectarian animosities. The main story of
today as then is the precariousness of financial globalization, and the consequences that
political leaders draw from it. In the influential view of Norman Angell in his 1910 book The
Great Illusion, the interdependency of the increasingly complex global economy made
war impossible. But a quite opposite conclusion was possible and equally plausible
and proved to be the case. Given the extent of fragility, a clever twist to the control
levers might make war easily winnable by the economic hegemon. In the wake of an
epochal financial crisis that almost brought a complete global collapse, in 1907,
several countries started to think of finance as primarily an instrument of raw power ,
one that could and should be turned to national advantage. The 1907 panic emanated from the
United States but affected the rest of the world and demonstrated the fragility of the whole
international financial order. The aftermath of the 1907 crash drove the then hegemonic power
Great Britain - to reflect on how it could use its financial power. Between 1905 and 1908, the
British Admiralty evolved the broad outlines of a plan for financial and economic warfare that
would wreck the financial system of its major European rival, Germany, and destroy its fighting
capacity. Britain used its extensive networks to gather information about opponents. London
banks financed most of the worlds trade. Lloyds provided insurance for the shipping not just of
Britain, but of the world. Financial networks provided the information that allowed the British
government to find the sensitive strategic vulnerabilities of the opposing alliance. What pre-
1914 Britain did anticipated the private-public partnership that today links technology giants
such as Google, Apple or Verizon to U.S. intelligence gathering. Since last year, the Edward
Snowden leaks about the NSA have shed a light on the way that global networks are used as a
source of intelligence and power. For Britains rivals, the financial panic of 1907 showed the
necessity of mobilizing financial powers themselves. The United States realized that it needed a
central bank analogous to the Bank of England. American financiers thought that New York
needed to develop its own commercial trading system that could handle bills of exchange in the
same way as the London market. Some of the dynamics of the pre-1914 financial world are
now re-emerging. Then an economically declining power, Britain, wanted to use
finance as a weapon against its larger and faster growing competitors, Germany and the
United States. Now America is in turn obsessed by being overtaken by China according
to some calculations, set to become the worlds largest economy in 2014. In the aftermath of
the 2008 financial crisis, financial institutions appear both as dangerous weapons of
mass destruction, but also as potential instruments for the application of national power. In
managing the 2008 crisis, the dependence of foreign banks on U.S. dollar funding constituted a
major weakness, and required the provision of large swap lines by the Federal Reserve. The
United States provided that support to some countries, but not others, on the basis of an
explicitly political logic, as Eswar Prasad demonstrates in his new book on the Dollar Trap.
Geo-politics is intruding into banking practice elsewhere. Before the Ukraine crisis, Russian
banks were trying to acquire assets in Central and Eastern Europe. European and U.S. banks are
playing a much reduced role in Asian trade finance. Chinese banks are being pushed to expand
their role in global commerce. After the financial crisis, China started to build up the renminbi as
a major international currency. Russia and China have just proposed to create a new credit
rating agency to avoid what they regard as the political bias of the existing (American-based)
agencies. The next stage in this logic is to think about how financial power can be directed to
national advantage in the case of a diplomatic tussle. Sanctions are a routine (and not terribly
successful) part of the pressure applied to rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. But
financial pressure can be much more powerfully applied to countries that are deeply embedded
in the world economy. The test is in the Western imposition of sanctions after the Russian
annexation of Crimea. President Vladimir Putins calculation in response is that the European
Union and the United States cannot possibly be serious about the financial war. It would turn
into a boomerang: Russia would be less affected than the more developed and complex financial
markets of Europe and America. The threat of systemic disruption generates a new sort of
uncertainty, one that mirrors the decisive feature of the crisis of the summer of 1914 .
At that time, no one could really know whether clashes would escalate or not . That
feature contrasts remarkably with almost the entirety of the Cold War, especially since the
1960s, when the strategic doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction left no doubt that
any superpower conflict would inevitably escalate. The idea of network disruption relies
on the ability to achieve advantage by surprise, and to win at no or low cost. But it is inevitably a
gamble, and raises prospect that others might, but also might not be able to, mount the same
sort of operation. Just as in 1914, there is an enhanced temptation to roll the dice, even
though the game may be fatal.
Scenario 2Deterrence.
Stem revitalizes American manufacturingis supercharges the broader
education system.
MATRIC 14. (Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research & Innovation Center. The Future of U.S.
Manufacturing and the Importance of STEM Education The Future of U.S. Manufacturing and
the Importance of STEM Education. April 28, 2014. www.matricinnovates.com/education/the-
future-of-u-s-manufacturing-and-the-importance-of-stem-education/)

STEM stands for science, technology, engineering and math, and the future of the U.S.
manufacturing industry is heavily dependent upon todays STEM education. But why should a
nation that has been so wonderfully successful and leading worldwide innovation based on
STEM skills be concerned? Part of the reason may be that the strategic importance that was
once placed on STEM education decades ago isnt recognized the same way today.
Additionally, the term strategic may not be viewed the same way, either. Too often, we think
about today, this week, or even five years from now. And in truth, this is only the tactical future.
Strategic discussions need to focus on what our great country, and our companies, will need
across the next 30 years, not the next five years. We must continue to make STEM education a
priority as it relates to our local and national education curricula. And STEM isnt just about
producing chemical or mechanical engineers. Were talking about a STEM-literate citizenry:
lawmakers who have a sound understanding of science; citizens who expect actions will be
taken by government and business based in sound science, not emotion; teachers who teach
science in a way that keeps young students interested; and journalists who understand STEM
and can accurately report on STEM-related issues. For example, according to a study done by
Georgetown University, America isnt producing enough students trained in the STEM fields to
fill jobs in the future. If the nation is to keep up with the growing number of STEM jobs in order
to keep pace with our global competitors. We need to invest in strengthening STEM education
programs and our STEM pipeline throughout the country. There is no time like right now for
STEM education to be the most important driver for our education system today.

Manufacturing key to deterrencerobust innovation key.

OHanlon 12 (Mackenzie Eaglen, American Enterprise Institute Rebecca Grant, IRIS Research
Robert P. Haffa, Haffa Defense Consulting Michael O'Hanlon, The Brookings Institution Peter W.
Singer, The Brookings Institution Martin Sullivan, Commonwealth Consulting Barry Watts,
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments The Arsenal of Democracy and How to
Preserve It: Key Issues in Defense Industrial Policy January 2012, pg online @
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/1/26%20defense%20industrial
%20base/0126_defense_industrial_base_ohanlon //um-ef)

The current wave of defense cuts is also different than past defense budget reductions in their
likely industrial impact, as the U.S. d efense i ndustrial b ase is in a much different place
than it was in the past. D efense industrial issues are too often viewed through the lens
of jobs and pet projects to protect in congressional districts. But the overall health of the
firms that supply the technologies our armed forces utilize does have national security
resonance. Qualitative superiority in weaponry and other key military technology has
become an essential element of American military power in the modern eranot only for
winning wars but for deterring them. That requires world-class scientific and manufacturing
capabilities which in turn can also generate civilian and military export opportunities
for the United States in a globalized marketplace.

That prevents all conflict.

Inboden 16. (William Charles Inboden, PhD, is Executive Director of the William P. Clements,
Jr. Center for History, Strategy, and Statecraft and Associate Professor of Public Affairs at the
University of Texas-Austin. The Role of a Strong National Defense. 2016.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ims-
2016/PDF/2016_Index_of_US_Military_Strength_ESSAYS_INBODEN.pdf)

One of the few core responsibilities of the federal government mandated by the Constitution of
the United States is to provide for the common defence.2 Upon commissioning, every
American military officer swears an oath to support and defend this Constitution.3
Accordingly, the core mission of the American military is to protect and defend our
nation. This means deterring potential aggressors and, if deterrence fails, fighting and
winning wars. Any consideration of the militarys role and American defense policy
must start with that foundational principle. Yet if the need for a strong military begins
with the mission to fight and win wars, it does not end there. As the quote from
Theodore Roosevelt at the beginning of this essay illustrates, American leaders have long
appreciated that a formidable military can produce abundant diplomatic and economic
dividends, evenespeciallywhen not wielded in wartime. The United States military
capability supported our nations rise to global greatness over the past century, but
this was often because of the increased influence and credibility produced by this
capability rather than the overt use of force. Along the way, there developed an American
strategic tradition that integrated military strength with diplomatic acumen, economic growth,
and international influence.4 It is an historic tradition with an impressive heritage and
continuing salience today. Drawing on the historical record, there are many ways beyond the
kinetic use of force that a strong national defense bolsters our national power and global
influence. A robust defense budget and defense policy also strengthens our nation in manifest
other ways. A well-equipped defense enhances our capabilities and influence across
virtually all other elements of national power: our economy, our diplomacy, our
alliances, and our credibility and influence in the world . Conversely, an underresourced
national defense threatens to diminish our national power across all of these other
dimensions. A strong national defense is thus indispensable for a peaceful, successful,
and free Americaeven if a shot is never fired. The diplomatic successes in building
and maintaining a stable and peaceful international order achieved by the United
States over the past century have been enabled by Americas military dominance.
Conversely, the calamitous defense budget cuts and corresponding rise of potential peer
competitors in the present day are already undermining Americas diplomatic and economic
influence. A well-appointed military improves diplomacy with adversaries, strengthens
our alliances, signals credibility and resolve, deters aggression, and enhances national
morale. Yet this is not to disregard the manifest other dividends that a strong military can pay.
There are multiple pathways by which investments in military hard power produce economic
benefits. For example, the militarys role in protecting a stable international
environment also creates predictable and secure conditions in which economic growth
can flourish. The American security umbrella facilitated Western Europes postwar
reconstruction and economic revival, and Asias half-century economic boom has been
partly a function of Americas treaty alliances in the region maintaining peace and
stability, exemplified by the United States Navys Seventh Fleet protecting an open
maritime order, freedom of navigation, and secure sea lanes.
 Advantage 2Cyber.
Effective STEM education key to cybersecurityits a massive threat.
Hayden 16. (Gen. Michael Hayden is a former director of the CIA and the National Security
Agency. Cyberspace is the new frontier, but where is our resolve for STEM education? August 4,
2016. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/4/cyberthreat-reaction-lacks-resolve-for-
stem-educat/)

With the theft and leaking of Democratic National Committee data, dramatic headlines are
filling the pages of our newspapers. Calls for action are heard daily. Whatever we might do in
direct response, though, the best reaction over the long term might simply be quiet and
sustained investment in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) education. Im
old enough to remember how, in October 1957, Americans awoke to a new symbol of
insecurity: the metronomic beeps from the Sputnik satellite launched by the Soviet Union. The
nation saw it as a threat to American security and a challenge to our sense of technological and
intellectual superiority and ultimately our economic well-being. Our reaction was swift and
decisive. Within a month, President Eisenhower was telling the American people: According to
my scientific friends, one of our greatest, and most glaring, deficiencies is the failure of us in this
country to give high enough priority to scientific education and to the place of science in our
national life. Eisenhower also recognized that education requires time, incentive and skilled
teachers. Just a few years later, President Kennedy challenged the nation to reach for the
moon and, in a famous speech at Rice University, said: We set sail on this new sea because
there is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won. He added that space science,
like all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill
depends on man. He then called on the United States to occupy a position of preeminence in
space to help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater
of war. Like Kennedy, we are in a new environment: the cyber domain. The same question
pertains: Will it be a zone of peace or a theater of war? Like Eisenhower, we face a significant
threat to national security from the increasing cyber vulnerability of our military forces and
our critical infrastructure. So far, though, we have not evidenced the determination and resolve
with which we faced the Sputnik challenge. Perhaps its because there has not been a real
triggering crisis, at least not yet. And, unlike the space race, the cyber conflict is characterized by
the diversity and distributed nature of our opponents. They range from other nations like China
and Russia to cybermilitias working for states like Syria, to powerful criminal enterprises, to
anonymous hacker groups with a variety of ideological agendas. Still, wholesale penetration of
U.S. military computers in 2008 (an operation dubbed Buckshot Yankee) should have served as a
wake-up call for American cyberdefenders. If that wasnt enough, we should have taken notice
seven years later with the massive breach of the Office of Personnel Management and the theft
of information on all of our employees who carry security clearances. These circumstances
should call for greater determination since we are increasingly dependent on technology to
operate and manage our critical infrastructure (i.e. finance, transportation, energy). We need
an educated and skilled workforce to protect these systems from criminals, renegade states
and other malicious actors. If our cyber enemies are numerous and more difficult to identify,
and their targets more diverse, then the potential threat to our well-being and safety is
higher, not lower. Faced with the Soviet expansion into space, America made significant
investments in science and technology. Kennedys 1963 budget provided training for 36,000
high school teachers, instituted similar efforts for college instructors and provided $61.5 million
in grants to our colleges and universities for basic research. During the 14 years of the Apollo
program, we spent in excess of $19 billion not all of it on science education, of course, but
much of it directly related to the development of American scientific and engineering expertise.
Today, by contrast, our reaction to the cyberthreat has been tepid. President Obama has
recognized the need for more training. As he said in announcing his computer science for all
initiative: Providing access to CS is a critical step for ensuring that our nation remains
competitive in the global economy and strengthens its cybersecurity. He then went on to
elaborate that there were over 600,000 tech jobs open across the United States and in a few
years more than half of them will be computer-related. So cyberdevelopment is about more
than just security. Its about economic development and, most important, its about human
opportunity. But we have yet to make the financial investment needed to improve our
computer science skills. Only one in four K-12 schools teach any computer science at all. Our
universities graduate only 40,000 computer science students annually plainly inadequate with
the roughly 600,000 jobs that go begging. Progress is within reach. One activist group, the
Computer Science Education Coalition, has called for the relatively modest investment of $250
million to support more than 50,000 classrooms and to reach more than 3.5 million students.
That we have yet to make such an investment suggests we do not take the threat or
opportunity as seriously as we should. Its time for that to change.

Primary and secondary STEM education is our only line of defense against
cyberattacks.
Francis 14. (David Francis for The Week. Why we need to prepare our kids for cyber-jobs
and cyber-warfare. September 5, 2014. theweek.com/articles/444328/why-need-prepare-kids-
cyberjobscyberwarfare)

These local efforts to improve cyber education at the high school level come at a time when the
United States is falling behind in STEM education. According to the World Economic Forum, the
United States is 52nd in the world in the quality of science and math education, and its overall
competitiveness with other countries in on the decline. Among developed nations, American
ranks 27th in the percentage of college students who get degrees in science or engineering.
Some two-thirds of students who receive PhDs in engineering at U.S universities are not from
the United States. It also comes as the United States continues to wage an unseen cyber-war
with China and other rivals, with the United States playing catch-up. American businesses are
also under assault from hackers who recently stole millions of credit card numbers from Target
and other business customers. Tamara Kenworthy, program director at HyperStream, said the
Olympics and other attempts to develop STEM skills at a young age are an attempt to close the
cyber gap. "About seven years ago, the number of students going into technology careers was
dropping," Kenworthy said. "The lack of opportunity for kids getting involved in this [STEM] was
very scary." Iowa's first IT Olympics were held in 2009. In the 2014 competition, students
competed in four disciplines cyber-defense, robotics, game design, and multimedia. Students
were split into teams of 10, and over a two-day period, competed in challenges designed to test
their skills in each discipline. Doug Jacobson, an Iowa State University professor and director of
the university's Information Assurance Center, says the competition tests basic defensive cyber-
skills needed to study STEM at the collegiate level. "We're more of an intramural sport,"
Jacobson said. "We follow an inquiry based learning model where our students set up their own
networks and have to defend them. They have to set up servers; they have to defend their
servers." Some 1,700 students at 110 clubs across Iowa participate in HyperStream. Of those,
about 700 competed in the Olympics. "We really expanded the student base and we are getting
a lot more students into the program because we need to get more kids excited about this.
Right now, we're about 75 percent boys, 25 percent girls. One of our goals is to get more girls
involved," Kenworthy said. Similar programs At the national level, students can compete in the
CyberPatriot competition, which brings together clubs from around the country. However, there
are a number of local programs that simply aim to introduce students to STEM. For instance,
Illinois State University sponsors the Central Illinois High School Cyber Defense Competition.
"The college level has been doing the collegiate cyber defense competition for about 10 years.
We had participated in the competition as a university for a couple of years," said Doug
Twitchell, assistant professor at Illinois State University who helped to organize the Illinois'
competition. We thought, 'Why couldn't we do something similar at the high school level?' High
schools within 100 miles can bring the students in and take part." Unlike Iowa, Illinois does not
have a formal high school infrastructure to prepare students for the competition. He said that
any student who is interested in STEM was welcome to attend, even if they hadn't been taught
coding before. "The biggest problem we found at the high school level is that students are
intimidated. There is so little curriculum in K through 12," he said. "They don't teach them
programming. If there is, it's usually once every couple of years." "We say that you don't have to
take a computer class before," Twitchell added. "We try to show them some stuff and teach
them some of the basics." At the very least, Twitchell said the goal of the competition is to
expose students to a possible line of work that they had not considered. "We want to get them
excited about this," he said. "Everyone is looking for the best and brightest students. This is one
of the ways to help those who have a talent for this to find this field and see it as something
they would want to do for a living."

Early STEM education is necessary to overcome a shortage of talent and push

people into cyber careers
Anid, 16 (Nada Marie Anid, Ph.D. is dean of the school of engineering and computing sciences
at New York Institute of Technology, How to fix America's failing cybersecurity capabilities,
3/22/16, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/03/22/how-to-fix-americas-failing-
cybersecurity-capabilities.html )

Barack Obama just became the first U.S. president to write a line of computer code. The gesture
is part of a national push for computer science education. In fact, the White House recently
announced a $4 billion "Computer Science for All" initiative that will help educate the next
generation of coders. It couldn't have come soon enough. In addition to playing an increasingly
central role in business, computer science know-how is vital to America's economic and
national security. 2015 was the worst year ever for cybercrime, with nearly 1,000 major data
breaches. These attacks included the theft of 21.5 million records from the federal
government's Office of Personnel Management and a T-Mobile breach that exposed
the names, addresses, and Social Security numbers of 15 million customers.
Meanwhile, major global enemies, including the Islamic State and North Korea, have
developed sophisticated hacking operations to disrupt both commerce and
governance. Efforts to bolster cybersecurity all face the same obstacle: a shortage of
talent. Protecting our citizens requires a large-scale effort to attract talented people to
the cyber workforce and then train them to meet and thwart modern, unexpected
threats. There are currently 209,000 unfilled positions for cybersecurity workers in the United
States, according to a Stanford University report. Worldwide, the figure totals roughly 1 million.
That shortfall is expected to get worse. Global demand for cybersecurity expertise is on track to
reach 6 million positions by 2019. With cybercriminals growing more sophisticated each
day, we need a long-term strategy to close the cybersecurity talent gap. To start,
computer science must become a central component of our education system. According
to a recent Gallup survey commissioned by Google, less than one third of K-12 teachers and
administrators say that computer science is a top priority for their school . In a survey
commissioned by defense contractor Raytheon, 82 percent of millennials reported that no
teacher or guidance counselor had ever mentioned the possibility of a job in cybersecurity.
Thankfully, some policymakers are attempting to change the status quo. On top of President
Obama's national initiative, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has committed his city's school
system to offering computer science classes to all students within 10 years. Efforts to ignite a
passion for cybersecurity careers should give special attention to young women. According to
that same Raytheon survey, men are five times more likely to consider a career in cybersecurity
than women. Research from a study I'm conducting with colleagues from Cisco and the wider
tech community for an upcoming book called The Internet of Women supports Raytheon's
findings. Another valuable step would be the creation of a cybersecurity scholarship program.
The National Science Foundation already offers funding for degrees related to cybersecurity,
provided recipients work for the government upon graduation. What's needed is a more
ambitious scholarship program, similar in scope to the GI Bill. All American students should
know that if they become qualified cybersecurity professionals, the government will help pay for
their education. Private-sector businesses such as technology firms and military contractors
should establish related initiatives, offering to pay off education loans for students who accept
in-house cybersecurity positions. But it won't be enough to simply encourage more Americans
to earn degrees in computer science. Students also need access to tech immersion
programs to see the practical implications of their studies. My own university, New York
Institute of Technology, has worked with industry leaders to create internships and other real-
world experiences and opportunities. And we've dramatically increased our cybersecurity
course offerings, hiring expert faculty in biometrics, swarm intelligence, cryptography, data
mining and forensics, and network security. We've even added a cybersecurity concentration for
undergraduates and a master's program. America faces mounting cyber threats. And the
shortage of professionals who can fend off the hackers is growing. Only through better
funding incentives and hands-on immersive training can we hope to attract more
young people to the cybersecurity field.
Cyberattacks causes grid collapse and nuclear war.
Robert Tilford 12, Graduate US Army Airborne School, Ft. Benning, Georgia, Cyber attackers
could shut down the electric grid for the entire east coast 2012,
http://www.examiner.com/article/cyber-attackers-could-easily-shut-down-the-electric-grid-for-
the-entire-east-coa *

To make matters worse a cyber attack that can take out a civilian power grid, for example could
also cripple the U.S. military. The senator notes that is that the same power grids that supply
cities and towns, stores and gas stations, cell towers and heart monitors also power every
military base in our country. Although bases would be prepared to weather a short power
outage with backup diesel generators, within hours, not days, fuel supplies would run out, he
said. Which means military command and control centers could go dark. Radar systems that
detect air threats to our country would shut Down completely. Communication between
commanders and their troops would also go silent. And many weapons systems would be left
without either fuel or electric power, said Senator Grassley. So in a few short hours or days,
the mightiest military in the world would be left scrambling to maintain base functions, he
said. We contacted the Pentagon and officials confirmed the threat of a cyber attack is
something very real. Top national security officialsincluding the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
the Director of the National Security Agency, the Secretary of Defense, and the CIA Director
have said, preventing a cyber attack and improving the nations electric grids is among the
most urgent priorities of our country (source: Congressional Record). So how serious is the
Pentagon taking all this? Enough to start, or end a war over it, for sure. A cyber attack today
against the US could very well be seen as an Act of War and could be met with a full scale US
military response. That could include the use of nuclear weapons, if authorized by the
President.

Ensures escalatory nuclear war from miscalculation.

Fritz 9 (A study commissioned by the International Commission on Nuclear Non-
proliferation and Disarmament Hacking Nuclear Command and Control Jason Fritz BS (St.
Cloud), July 2009)

Four main pathways exist for cyber terrorist to detonate a nuclear weapon: 16
direct control of a launch, provoking a nuclear state to launch a nuclear strike on
its own, obtaining a nuclear weapon from a nuclear state, or acquiring the means
to build a nuclear or dirty bomb themselves. Direct control of launch The US uses the
two-man rule to achieve a higher level of security in nuclear affairs. Under this rule two
authorized personnel must be present and in agreement during critical stages of nuclear
command and control. The President must jointly issue a launch order with the Secretary of
Defense; Minuteman missile operators must agree that the launch order is valid; and on a
submarine, both the commanding officer and executive officer must agree that the order to
launch is valid. In the US, in order to execute a nuclear launch, an Emergency Action
Message (EAM) is needed. This is a preformatted message that directs nuclear forces to
execute a specific attack. The contents of an EAM change daily and consist of a complex
code read by a human voice. Regular monitoring by shortwave listeners and videos posted
to YouTube provide insight into how these work. These are issued from the NMCC, or in the
event of destruction, from the designated hierarchy of command and control centres. Once
a command centre has confirmed the EAM, using the two-man rule, the Permissive Action
Link (PAL) codes are entered to arm the weapons and the message is sent out. These
messages are sent in digital format via the secure Automatic Digital Network and then
relayed to aircraft via single-sideband radio transmitters of the High Frequency Global
Communications System, and, at least in the past, sent to nuclear capable submarines via
Very Low Frequency (Greenemeier 2008, Hardisty 1985). The technical details of VLF
submarine communication methods can be found online, including PC-based VLF reception.
Some reports have noted a Pentagon review, which showed a potential electronic
back door into the US Navys system for broadcasting nuclear launch orders to
Trident submarines (Peterson 2004). The investigation showed that cyber terrorists
could potentially infiltrate this network and insert false orders for launch. The
investigation led to elaborate new instructions for validating launch orders (Blair 2003).
Adding further to the concern of cyber terrorists seizing control over submarine launched
nuclear missiles; The Royal Navy announced in 2008 that it would be installing a Microsoft
Windows operating system on its nuclear submarines (Page 2008). The choice of operating
system, apparently based on Windows XP, is not as alarming as the advertising of such a
system is. This may attract hackers and narrow the necessary reconnaissance to learning its
details and potential exploits. It is unlikely that the operating system would play a direct
role in the signal to launch, although this is far from certain. Knowledge of the operating
system may lead to the insertion of malicious code, which could be used to gain
accelerating privileges, tracking, valuable information, and deception that could
subsequently be used to initiate a launch. Remember from Chapter 2 that the UKs nuclear
submarines have the authority to launch if they believe the central command has been
destroyed. Attempts by cyber terrorists to create the illusion of a decapitating
strike could also be used to engage fail-deadly systems. Open source knowledge is
scarce as to whether Russia continues to operate such a system. However evidence
suggests that they have in the past. Perimetr, also known as Dead Hand, was an automated
system set to 17 launch a mass scale nuclear attack in the event of a decapitation strike
against Soviet leadership and military. In a crisis, military officials would send a coded
message to the bunkers, switching on the dead hand. If nearby ground-level sensors
detected a nuclear attack on Moscow, and if a break was detected in communications links
with top military commanders, the system would send low-frequency signals over
underground antennas to special rockets. Flying high over missile fields and other military
sites, these rockets in turn would broadcast attack orders to missiles, bombers and, via
radio relays, submarines at sea. Contrary to some Western beliefs, Dr. Blair says, many of
Russia's nuclear-armed missiles in underground silos and on mobile launchers can
be fired automatically. (Broad 1993) Assuming such a system is still active, cyber
terrorists would need to create a crisis situation in order to activate Perimetr, and then
fool it into believing a decapitating strike had taken place. While this is not an easy task,
the information age makes it easier. Cyber reconnaissance could help locate the machine
and learn its inner workings. This could be done by targeting the computers high of level
officialsanyone who has reportedly worked on such a project, or individuals involved in
military operations at underground facilities, such as those reported to be located at
Yamantau and Kosvinksy mountains in the central southern Urals (Rosenbaum 2007, Blair
2008) Indirect Control of Launch Cyber terrorists could cause incorrect information to be
transmitted, received, or displayed at nuclear command and control centres, or shut down
these centres computer networks completely. In 1995, a Norwegian scientific sounding
rocket was mistaken by Russian early warning systems as a nuclear missile launched from a
US submarine. A radar operator used Krokus to notify a general on duty who decided to
alert the highest levels. Kavkaz was implemented, all three chegets activated, and the
countdown for a nuclear decision began. It took eight minutes before the missile was
properly identifieda considerable amount of time considering the speed with which a
nuclear response must be decided upon (Aftergood 2000). Creating a false signal in
these early warning systems would be relatively easy using computer network
operations. The real difficulty would be gaining access to these systems as they are most
likely on a closed network. However, if they are transmitting wirelessly, that may provide
an entry point, and information gained through the internet may reveal the details, such as
passwords and software, for gaining entrance to the closed network. If access was
obtained, a false alarm could be followed by something like a DDoS attack, so the operators
believe an attack may be imminent, yet they can no longer verify it. This could add pressure
to the decision making process, and if coordinated precisely, could appear as a first round
EMP burst. Terrorist groups could also attempt to launch a non-nuclear missile,
such as the one used by Norway, in an attempt to fool the system. The number of
states who possess such technology is far greater than the number of states who possess
nuclear weapons. Obtaining them would be considerably easier, especially when enhancing
operations through computer network operations. Combining traditional terrorist methods
with cyber techniques opens opportunities neither could accomplish on their own. For 18
example, radar stations might be more vulnerable to a computer attack, while satellites are
more vulnerable to jamming from a laser beam, thus together they deny dual
phenomenology. Mapping communications networks through cyber reconnaissance may
expose weaknesses, and automated scanning devices created by more experienced hackers
can be readily found on the internet. Intercepting or spoofing communications is a highly
complex science. These systems are designed to protect against the worlds most powerful
and well funded militaries. Yet, there are recurring gaffes, and the very nature of
asymmetric warfare is to bypass complexities by finding simple loopholes. For example,
commercially available software for voice-morphing could be used to capture voice
commands within the command and control structure, cut these sound bytes into
phonemes, and splice it back together in order to issue false voice commands (Andersen
2001, Chapter 16). Spoofing could also be used to escalate a volatile situation in the
hopes of starting a nuclear war.

Blackouts cause meltdownsextinction.

Hodges 14 (Dave, award-winning psychology, statistics and research professor as he teaches
college and university classes at both the undergraduate and graduate level, an established
author as his articles are published on many major websites, citing Judy Haar, a recognized
expert in nuclear plant failure analyses, "Nuclear Power Plants Will Become America's Extinction
Level Event", April 18, 2014, www.thelibertybeacon.com/2014/04/18/nuclear-power-plants-
will-become-americas-extinction-level-event/)

Fukushima is often spoken of by many, as a possible extinction level event because of

the radiation threat. Fukushima continues to wreak havoc upon the world and in the United
States as we are being bathed in deadly radiation from this event. Because of Fukushima, fish
are becoming inedible and the ocean currents as well as the prevailing ocean winds
are carrying deadly radiation. Undoubtedly, by this time, the radioactivity has made its
way into the transpiration cycle which means that crops are being dowsed with deadly
radiation. The radiation has undoubtedly made its way into the water table in many
areas and impacts every aspect of the food supply. The health costs to human beings
is incalculable. However, this article is not about the devastation at Fukushima, instead, this
article focuses on the fact that North America could have a total of 124 Fukushima events
if the necessary conditions were present. A Festering Problem Long before Fukushima,
American regulators knew that a power failure lasting for days involving the power
grid connected to a nuclear plant, regardless of the cause, would most likely lead to a
dangerous radioactive leak in at least several nuclear power plants. A complete loss of
electrical power poses a major problem for nuclear power plants the because reactor core
must be kept cool as well as the back-up cooling systems, all of which require massive
amounts of power to work. Heretofore, all the NERC drills which test the readiness of a
nuclear power plant are predicated on the notion that a blackout will only last 24
hours or less. Amazingly, this is the sum total of a NERC litmus test. Although we have the
technology needed to harden and protect our grid from an EMP event, whether natural or man-
made, we have failed to do so. The cost for protecting the entire grid is placed at about the cost
for one B-1 Stealth Bomber. Yet, as a nation, we have done nothing. This is inexplicable and
inexcusable. Our collective inaction against protecting the grid prompted Congressman Franks
to write a scathing letter to the top officials of NERC. However, the good Congressman failed to
mention the most important aspect of this problem. The problem is entirely fixable and
NERC and the US government are leaving the American people and its infrastructure
totally unprotected from a total meltdown of nuclear power plants as a result of a
prolonged power failure. Critical Analyses According to Judy Haar, a recognized expert
in nuclear plant failure analyses, when a nuclear power plant loses access to off-grid
electricity, the event is referred to as a station blackout. Haar states that all 104 US
nuclear power plants are built to withstand electrical outages without experiencing any core
damage, through the activation of an automatic start up of emergency generators powered by
diesel. Further, when emergency power kicks in, an automatic shutdown of the nuclear
power plant commences. The dangerous control rods are dropped into the core, while
water is pumped by the diesel power generators into the reactor to reduce the heat
and thus, prevent a meltdown. Here is the catch in this process, the spent fuel rods are
encased in both a primary and secondary containment structure which is designed to
withstand a core meltdown. However, should the pumps stop because either the
generators fail or diesel fuel is not available, the fuel rods are subsequently uncovered
and a Fukushima type of core meltdown commences immediately. At this point, I took
Judy Haars comments to a source of mine at the Palo Verde Nuclear power plant. My source
informed me that as per NERC policy, nuclear power plants are required to have enough diesel
fuel to run for a period of seven days. Some plants have thirty days of diesel. This is the good
news, but it is all downhill from here. The Unresolved Power Blackout Problem A long-term loss
of outside electrical power will most certainly interrupt the circulation of cooling water to the
pools. Another one of my Palo Verde nuclear power plant sources informed me that there is no
long term solution to a power blackout and that all bets are off if the blackout is due to an EMP
attack. A more detailed analysis reveals that the spent fuel pools carry depleted fuel for
the reactor. Normally, this spent fuel has had time to considerably decay and
therefore, reducing radioactivity and heat. However, the newer discharged fuel still
produces heat and needs cooling. Housed in high density storage racks, contained in
buildings that vent directly into the atmosphere, radiation containment is not
accounted for with regard to the spent fuel racks. In other words, there is no capture
mechanism. In this scenario, accompanied by a lengthy electrical outage, and with the
emergency power waning due to either generator failure or a lack of diesel needed to
power the generators, the plant could lose the ability to provide cooling. The water
will subsequently heat up, boil away and uncover the spent fuel rods which required
being covered in at least 25 feet of water to remain benign from any deleterious
effects. Ultimately, this would lead to fires as well and the release of radioactivity into
the atmosphere. This would be the beginning of another Fukushima event right here
on American soil. Both my source and Haar shared exactly the same scenario about
how a meltdown would occur. Subsequently, I spoke with Roger Landry who worked for
Raytheon in various Department of Defense projects for 28 years, many of them in this arena
and Roger also confirmed this information and that the above information is well known in the
industry. When I examine Congressman Franks letter to NERC and I read between the lines, it is
clear that Franks knows of this risk as well, he just stops short of specifically mentioning it in his
letter. Placing Odds On a Failure Is a Fools Errand An analysis of individual plant risks released in
2003 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shows that for 39 of the 104 nuclear reactors,
the risk of core damage from a blackout was greater than 1 in 100,000 . At 45 other
plants the risk is greater than 1 in 1 million, the threshold NRC is using to determine which
severe accidents should be evaluated in its latest analysis. According to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1, in Pennsylvania has the greatest risk of
experiencing a core meltdown, 6.5 in 100,000, according to the analysis. These odds dont
sound like much until you consider that we have 124 nuclear power generating plants
in the US and Canada and when we consider each individual facility, the odds of
failure climb. How many meltdowns would it take in this country before our citizens
would be condemned to the hellish nightmare, or worse, being experienced by the
Japanese? The Question Thats Not Being Asked None of the NERC, or the Nuclear
Regulatory tests of handling a prolonged blackout at a nuclear power plant has
answered two critical questions, What happens when these nuclear power plants run
out of diesel fuel needed to run the generators, and What happens when some of
these generators fail? In the event of an EMP attack, can tanker trucks with diesel fuel get to
all of the nuclear power plants in the US in time to re-fuel them before they stop running? Will
tanker trucks even be running themselves in the aftermath of an EMP attack? And in the event
of an EMP attack, it is not likely that any plant which runs low on fuel, or has a generator
malfunctions, will ever get any help to mitigate the crisis prior to a plethora of meltdowns
occurring. Thus, every nuclear power plant in the country has the potential to cause a Chernobyl
or Fukushima type accident if our country is hit by an EMP attack. CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE
124 FUKUSHIMA EVENTS IN NORTH AMERICA HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME? THIS
WOULD CONSTITUTE THE ULTIMATE DEPOPULATION EVENT . And There Is More The
ramifications raised in the previous paragraphs are significant. What if the blackout
lasts longer than 24 hours? What if the reason for the blackout is an EMP burst caused by a
high altitude nuclear blast and transportation comes to a standstill? In this instance, the
cavalry is not coming . Adding fuel to the fire lies in the fact that the power transformers
presently take at least one year to replace. Today, there is a three year backlog on
ordering because so many have been ordered by China. This makes one wonder what the
Chinese are preparing for with these multiple orders for both transformers and generators. In
short, our unpreparedness is a prescription for disaster . As a byproduct of my
investigation, I have discovered that most, if not all, of the nuclear power plants are on known
earthquake fault lines. All of Californias nuclear power plants are located on an earthquake
fault line. Can anyone tell me why would anyone in their right mind build a nuclear power plant
on a fault line? To see the depth of this threat you can visit an interactive, overlay map at this
site. Conclusion I have studied this issue for almost nine months and this is the most
elusive topic that I have ever investigated. The more facts I gather about the threat of a
mass nuclear meltdown in this country, the more questions I realize that are going
unanswered. With regard to the nuclear power industry we have the proverbial tiger by the
tail. Last August, Big Sis stated that it is not matter of if we have a mass power grid take down,
but it is a matter of when . I would echo her concerns and apply the not if, but when
admonition to the possibility of a mass meltdown in this country. It is only a matter of
time until this scenario for disaster comes to fruition . Our collective negligence and high
level of extreme depraved indifference on the part of NERC is criminal because this is
indeed an Extinction Level Event. At the end of the day, can anyone tell me why would any
country be so negligent as to not provide its nuclear plants a fool proof method to cool the
secondary processes of its nuclear materials at all of its plants? Why would ANY nuclear power
plant be built on an earthquake fault line? Why are we even using nuclear energy under these
circumstances? And why are we allowing the Chinese to park right next door to so many nuclear
power plants?
 Solvency
The plan is key to effective STEM educationcompetitive grants ensure
innovation but they must explicitly prioritize afterschool programs.
AA 12. (Afterschool Alliance. The Afterschool Alliance is a policy organization working to ensure
that all children have access to affordable, quality afterschool programs. Afterschool Programs
as Partners in STEM Education: Policy Recommendations. June 2012.
http://afterschoolalliance.org/Alliance_STEM_Policyasks_FINAL.pdf)

Afterschool programs can and should play a key role in supporting the future of the countrys
STEM workforce. Education policies should support that role. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, by the year 2020 there will be 9.2 million jobs in the STEM (science, technology,
engineering and mathematics) fieldsthats up from 7.9 million in 2010. These fields provide
tremendous opportunities for those who pursue them, and they are essential for the economic
well-being of the United States. Not only will there be more openings in the STEM fields, but
many other jobs will require STEM-related skills. To meet the needs of industry and ensure a
scientifically literate public, the countrys education system must foster equitable access to
and success in these fields. This means engaging young people male and femaleof every
economic status and ethnicity in multiple and varied learning environments. The before-school,
afterschool and summer settings (known collectively as afterschool) play a valuable role in
closing the opportunity gap facing many children and youth from underserved and
underrepresented communities. Of the 8.4 million children currently in afterschool programs,
ethnic minority children are more likely than others to participate.i Twenty-five percent of
Asian, 24 percent of African-American, 21 percent of Hispanic and 16 percent of Native
American children attend afterschool programs, compared to the national average of 15
percent. Girls attend afterschool programs in equal numbers to boys. Afterschool is the ideal
setting to reach the populations the country needs to widen the STEM-pipeline through
experiences that supplement and complement the school day. Afterschool programs are
engaging children and youth in STEM learning, including children and youth who may not
otherwise be selected to, or choose to, participate in STEM programs. They provide a different
mode of interventionone that allows matching learning experiences to students interests and
facilitates project-based learning that drives home the relevance and importance of STEM in our
daily lives. They give young people the opportunity to learn through solving problems and
through failing an element crucial to research, experimentation and innovation; science and
engineering fields require persistence in the face of failure to solve the worlds problems.
Additionally, mentoring and exposure to role modelskey components of afterschoolare
particularly effective in engaging youth of color. High-quality afterschool STEM learning
programs are having significant impact on the young people who participate. A recent study
showed participants had improved attitudes toward STEM fields and careers, increased STEM
knowledge and skills, and a higher likelihood of graduating school and pursuing a STEM major in
college. ii Policies that seize on the attributes of afterschool and its ability to cultivate effective
STEM education will allow afterschool programs to become even more effective and integral
partners in improving the quality of STEM education. 1. Establish a pilot program during the
hours after school that brings STEM education to populations who are currently
underrepresented in the STEM fields. A recent PCAST report iii recommended developing an
initiative for a wide range of high-quality STEM-based afterschool programs spanning several
agencies and focused on creating opportunities for inspiration through experiences outside the
classroom. Congress should authorize a competitive grant program, based on best practices,
that supports afterschool STEM programs and utilizes appropriate outcome and quality
indicators. This program should reflect efforts to maximize federal investments in STEM
education across federal agenciesan undertaking that Capitol Hill, the White House, and the
STEM and afterschool communities support. Student populations that need the most help
should be served by the initiative, and it should build on the successes of other federal
afterschool investments, such as the 21st Century Community Learning Center initiative. The
effort should also support professional development for providers, and be subject to evaluation
and research to inform strategies for encouraging more traditionally underrepresented
populations to pursue study and careers in the STEM fields. 2. Policy makers should recognize
the role afterschool programs play in STEM education and explicitly support them in K-12 STEM
education initiatives and legislation. Likewise, federal and state funding streams for afterschool
programs should support STEM education programs. Many public STEM education initiatives,
funding streams and legislative initiatives target only the formal K- 12 school setting and
classroom teachers. While these settings and programs play a central role in effective STEM
education, afterschool and summer learning programs can foster increased interest and success
in STEM disciplines and build STEM literacy. School and classroom resources that support STEM
education should be also accessible to afterschool program providers and staff, and federal and
state STEM education initiatives should explicitly cite afterschool as a strategy to improve the
teaching and learning of STEM disciplines in legislative and regulatory guidance. These public
funds should be invested in promoting stronger partnerships between classroom teachers and
afterschool providers; joint professional development with afterschool educators; and teacher
training programs that recognize the value of the afterschool setting by allowing practicum,
placements, etc. in afterschool/summer programs. A number of existing federally-funded
afterschool programs could provide some level of support for STEM education. While the 21st
Century Community Learning Centers program is the only exclusive and substantial federal
funding source for afterschool, before-school and summer learning programs, other agencies
such as the Department of Justice, the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the
Department of Housing and Urban Developmentinvest in afterschool programs that could
help support STEM learning. Given the call to grow and sustain a STEM workforce, these
agencies should consider how their investments in afterschool can also support better STEM
education, and their guidance to employees and the field should embrace afterschool as a
setting to teach and learn these disciplines.

Federal competitive grants are keysquo policies like RTT fail because of their
broad applicationtargeting specific areas for improvement and rewarding
precious successes ensures reform.
West 15. (Martin R. West Former Nonresident Senior Fellow - Economic Studies, Center on
Children and Families, Brookings Institute. Preserving the federal role in encouraging and
evaluating education innovation. February 19, 2015.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/preserving-the-federal-role-in-encouraging-and-
evaluating-education-innovation/)

With both houses of Congress moving apace to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), the question is not whether the new legislation will reduce the federal
governments footprint in K-12 education; it assuredly will. The question is whether, in their
understandable efforts to rein in Washingtons influence, legislators can preserve those
elements of federal policy that stand to benefit students and taxpayersparticularly those that
fulfill functions that would otherwise go unaddressed within our multi-layered system of
education governance. One key unresolved issue involves the status of competitive grant
programs, through which the Department of Education invites states and school districts to
apply for funds to support programs that address federally identified priorities. In the current
environment, Congress may be tempted to eschew all programs structured in this way,
preferring to rely on formulas to ensure that schools receive their fair share of federal funds.
That would be a mistake. Flexible competitive grant programs that encourage innovations in
policy and practice and ensure that they are subjected to rigorous evaluation should remain a
part of ESEA going forward. In particular, the Investing in Innovation (i3) fund, a program
created through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act that is not a part of the
reauthorization bills now moving through Congress, deserves a second look. Increased reliance
on competitive grants has been arguably the defining feature of the Obama administrations K-
12 education policy. Its signature Race to the Top program (RTT) asked states to compete for
$4.35 billion in federal grants based on their commitment to implement a 19-item reform
agenda. Expansive in its scope, RTT quickly became a symbol of what Senate Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee chairman Lamar Alexander has characterized as the
Departments efforts to dictate to states and school districts the details of how best to improve
local schools. Congressional discontent with RTT-style policies is not limited to Republicans,
however. Most legislators prefer to claim credit for funds allocated by formula rather than risk
the ire of constituents whose applications are rejected, and rural members in particular often
feel as if their districts are at a disadvantage when funding is competitive. Perhaps because of
this discontent, President Obamas 2016 budget proposal did not include funds for a new RTT
competition. But rather than paint all competitive grants with a broad brush, it is useful to
consider differences in their structure. The table below shows that competitive grant programs
can vary on at least two dimensions. First, the programs can be broad, aiming to incentivize
policy changes in multiple areas in one fell swoop, or narrowly focused on a specific challenge
facing most school systems. Second, grants can be awarded based on applicants willingness to
commit to a detailed set of policy changes and program requirements prescribed by
Washington, or they can be awarded based on past success, with funding levels tied to the
strength of the evidence the applicant is able to present of their programs effectiveness. RTT
epitomized the broad, prescriptive approach to competitive grants. Although presented by
supporters as an opportunity for states to put forward their best and most innovative ideas, in
fact the selection criteria amounted to a detailed list of commitments in areas ranging from
state standards and data systems to teacher evaluation systems and strategies to turn around
low-performing schools. Because funding was based primarily on future commitments, the
program did little to alter the compliance-oriented relationship between federal officials and
state and local educators once grants were awarded. As Rick Hess of the American Enterprise
Institute has written, the aftermath entailed years of invasive federal monitoringduring
which junior staff at the U.S. Department of Education exerted remarkable influence over the
states that received RTT funds. While it is too soon to know whether states awarded RTT
grants will see improvements in student outcomes, there is little hope that their efforts will be
a source of rigorous evidence on the merits of specific policies they pursued . The sheer
number of policies states were required to implement simultaneously makes it all but
impossible to isolate the impact of any one. Yet RTT was the exception, not the rule. Its scale
reflected the unique circumstances of the post-financial crisis stimulus package, and maintaining
a single competitive grant program at this scale has already proven to be politically infeasible.
Other competitive grant programs are structured quite differently, with a narrow focus tied to
a distinct federal purpose. For example, the Teacher Incentive Fund created by the second Bush
administration asks school districts and charter schools to commit to implementing
performance-based teacher compensation systems. The rationale is that local officials will be
more likely to adopt politically controversial changes to how teachers are compensated when
outside resources are available to support their efforts. For the past few years, the Department
of Education has also offered grants directly to Charter Management Organizations seeking to
expand or replicate high-quality schools. Those schools need not adhere to a particular
pedagogical model but must instead document a track record of improving student outcomes.
The Teacher Incentive Fund and grants to expand and replicate high-quality charter schools have
been included in both the House committees bill and in Senator Alexanders initial discussion
draft. Those bills do not, however, include the Investing in Innovation fund (i3), the second
major competitive grant program created through the stimulus package. Initially funded at $650
million, i3 allowed school districts, charter schools, and non-profit organizations working in
partnership with one of those entities to apply for grants to support innovative programs
aligned with one of four broadly defined federal priorities (e.g., supporting effective teachers
and principals or improving the use of data). In other words, i3 was broad in its focus but
avoided prescription with respect to the design of the programs eligible for federal support. The
origins and implementation of i3 have been ably chronicled by Ron Haskins and Greg Margolis,
who present the program as a cornerstone of the Obama administrations broader efforts to
base spending on social programs on rigorous evidence. Two specific aspects of the design of i3
are especially noteworthy. First, the competition used a tiered evidence model to align the
amount of funding a program could receive to the strength of the evidence to support its
effectiveness. Second, grant winners were required to conduct rigorous evaluations and were
selected in part based on the quality of their proposed evaluation design. Across the first four
funding cohorts, i3 supported 53 randomized-control trialsthe gold-standard design for
evaluations of program effectiveness and one that until recently was virtually unknown in the
education sector. (Full disclosure: my primary employer, the Harvard Graduate School of
Education, has benefited from i3 as a direct grantee and through evaluation contracts; I am the
principal investigator on two of those contracts.) A competitive grant program that includes
these design elements need not be called i3. Indeed, it need not be drafted as a standalone
program at all. The Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy has proposed language that would
simply allow the Department of Education to reserve up to one percent of funding of all ESEA
programs (except Title I) to award grants for innovation and research, with grant amounts
based on the tiered evidence model used in i3. The proposal is modeled on the Small Business
Innovation Research program under which 11 federal agencies since 1982 have set aside a small
percentage of their budgets to award grants to small companies engaged in the development
and evaluation of new technologies. As the Coalition notes, both the Government Accountability
office and the National Academy of Sciences have offered consistently positive assessments of
the programs success. Importantly, the proposal like SBIR would include small businesses as
eligible grantees, addressing a shortcoming of the original i3 program that arguably limited the
types of innovations proposed. The Coalitions proposal could be strengthened by giving the
Institute of Education Sciences the lead role in assessing the strength of applicants evidence of
effectiveness and in supporting required evaluation activities. The risk with these competitions
when carried out by the Office of the Secretary is that they become politicized, that they are
judged by review panels without methodological competence, and that they are overseen, once
awarded, by career staff in program offices that do not have the background to monitor what is,
at root, a program evaluation grant. These risks could be substantially reduced if the
competition were funded as a line item in the IES budget, with statutory language requiring that
review panels include both practitioners and researchers. Properly designed competitive grant
programs provide an opportunity for Congress to target resources at federal priorities and
encourage innovative problem-solving while avoiding federal mandates. They should avoid
prescription and both reward and produce rigorous evidence, thus increasing the share of
education dollars spent on evidence-based programs while at the same time fulfilling the federal
governments unique responsibility for producing and disseminating high-quality evidence on
the best ways to improve American schools. The i3 program was a promising step in this
direction. It would be unfortunate if Congress were to miss the opportunity to make something
similar a permanent feature of ESEA.

Federal passage is key to measuring student performance local competition

results in false data preventing objective competition.
Whitehurst 12 (Grover, member of the Koret Task Force on K-12 Education and director of the
Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, Let the Dollars Follow the
Child, Education Next, 12(2), http://educationnext.org/let-the-dollars-follow-the-child/)

The federal government currently funds a wide range of K12 education initiatives (see
Table 1). The task force has identified just four functions that are essential to its role in
education: creating and disseminating information on school performance in each classroom and program
effectiveness, including information on individual student performance ; enforcing civil rights

laws; providing financial support to high-need students; and enhancing competition

among providers. Information : The provision of information on the condition of education
and on the results of education research is primarily a public service. In such
situations, a serious free-rider problem exists: because it is impossible to prevent a
class of consumers who have not paid for the information from consuming it, far too
little evidence will be produced if it is not supported by an organization with the
entire nations interests at heart. T he free-rider problem is one reason that state and local
authorities cannot be entrusted with the task of knowledge production . Furthermore, evidence
does not merely need to be produced; it needs to be based on high-quality data.
Gathering and auditing data are almost pure public services. Thus, it is easy to justify
federal support for research, data gathering, and dissemination of information . Without
valid information on the performance of students at each school relative to that of
their peers across the country, the entire education enterprise flies blind, leaving
parents, teachers, school managers, and policymakers with nothing more than
intuition and consensus as the basis for making decisions.