Liberty Library, Specialized in armed forces, 2011

http://www.libertyreferences.com/air-power-the-future-of-conflict.shtml Air Power The Future of Conflict:

The United States entered the 21st Century as the lone world superpower, having won the 45 year long Cold War with the USSR that marked the latter half of the previous century. Our nations military was the largest and most powerful it had been in the history of the United States prior to the defeat of Soviet Union. With the fall of such a powerful enemy, it was inevitable that all branches of our military would undergo restructuring. Our nations military and political leaders will be faced with unique challenges in the future when deploying forces to protect and sustain US interests. They will need to closely examine several questions regarding warfare in the future to determine how best to fight it. Introduction What is the nature of future military engagements? Our future enemies will indeed be different. We are no longer preparing for an unlimited engagement that would have undoubtedly brought about immense casualties on both sides. The enemies of the future will be many and unpredictable. Our armed forces will be required to prepare for numerous conflicts of a smaller nature. The attacking force that can respond quickly and powerfully will prevail in the future. The commitment of our troops has and will continue to change. Our nation fears another Vietnam-style commitment of ground forces; therefore a new emphasis will be placed upon airpower because it seems safer to the American public. The nature of future combat will be such that ground forces will never again be committed without extensive aerial bombardment preceding troop insertion. In certain combat situations, airpower can and will serve as the only offensive force. What are the capabilities of our nations air forces? The basis of United States airpower lies within powerful land based forces of the United States Air Force. The strength of the USAF is such that its use prior to ground troop insertion will result in annihilation of enemy defenses and incredibly low US ground casualties. Furthermore, defined US objectives can be attained through the use of airpower alone. This is made possible because of forward operating locations positioned throughout the globe where USAF forces are stationed permanently, or continuously deployed to from continental bases. Also, the USAF has the capability to deploy to a combat theatre rapidly on short notice because of unprecedented tanker and airlift capabilities. Air Force technology now dictates that the battle can be fought from home shores as a result of an unparalleled global reach capability found in US strategic bombers. Can the strength of our nations airpower serve as a deterrent factor to known and unknown enemies? The present fighting capabilities of US airpower are such that just as the Air Force slogan says, No One Comes Close. Potential enemies will think twice before contesting the power of such an Air Force. Past engagements such as Operation Dessert Storm in Iraq and Operation Allied Force in Kosovo as well as Operation Northern Watch in Iraq serve as prime examples to our enemies what could become of them if they choose to engage US airpower. Furthermore, weapon systems currently slated for future service are designed specifically with the intention of deterring conflict from ever occurring. Literature In Risky Business for the President William Shneider plainly states the foreign policy the United States has held for the past ten years, When it comes to U.S. military intervention abroad, the rule is: Drop bombs, dont send troops. The reason isnt military, its political. He contends that the American public is entirely skeptical of committing ground troops, but is fairly comfortable with air strikes. The notions put forth by Schneider that Presidents of the future will take the safe route when it comes to the use of force, means that the commitment of ground troops are not likely because deploying ground troops not only increases the risk of U.S. casualties, it also increases the risk that the United States will get involved in another countrys politics. Therefore, airpower will be the weapon of choice because bombing seems safer, at least for Americans. Especially smart bombs that can blow up carefully selected military targets while minimizing civilian casualties. In a detailed report for the USAF, the authors of The New Calculus diagram the importance of airpower in future conflicts. In posturing its forces to deal with short notice theater conflicts, the United States must rely heavily upon airpower in the crucial initial stages of combat. They further support the notion that airpower is the primary offensive force in future combat by asserting that rapidly deployable land-based airpower emerges as the dominant element in the crucial stages of conflict. They recognize that the nation is not inclined to support ground operations and point out that air operations place at risk a much smaller number of U.S. personnel than large-scale ground operations. The report concludes, the results of our analysis do indicate that the calculus has changed and airpowers ability to contribute to the joint battle has increased. Not only can modern airpower arrive quickly where needed, it has become far more lethal in conventional operations.

Lawrence Freedman begins his article International Security: Changing Targets by diagramming the type of conflict the U.S. will be involved with in the future: the impact of information technology on military affairs points to the growing potential for the West to use force discriminatingly, an awareness of the strategies that weak nations use to counter the offensive maneuvers of their stronger adversaries points to the emergence of unconventional threats such as nuclear terrorism. The United States will be fighting a different kind of war in the future, against a different kind of enemy. The challenge for the United States, and its closest allies, is to find a level of engagement in international affairs that prevents small problems from becoming large ones without imposing unacceptable burdens at home. In Relearning Intervention Charles Maynes discusses the use of military force in the future, one of the most difficult questions in American foreign policy is the use of forceits legitimacy, its utility, its desirability. A run for the White House requires that a candidate address it, and a successful candidate is often not considered a successful President until he actually employs it. Maynes focuses on when force is to be used, and leaves for further articles how it should be applied. He establishes a set of criteria for the use of force: Seven Categories of Force Today, there appear to be seven distinct categories for the possible use of force by the United States: Meeting alliance obligations Promoting counterproliferation Protecting key allies threatened with internal disorder Protecting individual Americans Supporting democracies abroad Interdicting drugs and countering terrorism Assisting peacekeeping and peace enforcement Andrew Krepinivich claims in Keeping Pace with Military-Technological Revolution that the US should be prepared to exploit and deal with an emerging military-technological revolution, which promises to radically change methods of warfare. He contends that the way battle will be waged in the future requires the implementation of a new doctrine to fully utilize all of our military resources; pentagon planners must reexamine all their systems, structures, and strategies to be ready for the battles of the future. Krepinivich claims that a smaller military force in the future will be able to accomplish the same missions of the larger forces of the past. The US Air Force will inevitably play a vital role in future military engagements as longrange precision strikes will be a dominant military operation in future conflicts. General Colin Powell writes in US forces: Challenges Ahead that with the end of the cold war, the US military faces a new set of challenges, that will require new capabilities and goals. General Powell contends that the US now stands as the lone military power, and the central idea behind the new national military strategy is the change from a focus on global war-fighting to a focus on regional contingencies. The US faces enemies riddled by dispute in the former Soviet block, a still volatile enemy in the Middle East, rouge nations in Asia, as well as instability in Africa. The US can envision peacekeeping and humanitarian missions; likewise our forward presence is a givento signal our commitment to our allies and to give second thoughts to any disturber of peace. Furthermore, the US will undoubtedly be involved in conflicts where the use of violent force is needed; however, they will likely be limited objective wars. Wars are limited by three means: by the territory on which they are fought (as in Korea or Vietnam); by the means used to fight them (no nuclear weapons in Korea; no massive mobilization for Vietnam); or by the objectives for which they are foughtthe most significant limitation in political terms and therefore the limitation that is most often discussed and debated. General Powell indicates throughout his article that the US military will indeed continue to be involved in the future. While we will be waging a different kind of warfare, it remains imperative that US forces are prepared to fight. In an effort to plan for future military force structure a panel was put together and composed a background paper for Congress Office of Technology Assessment entitled American Military Power: Future needs, Future Choices. The paper begins by claiming that while the US no longer has one large enemy to contend with, it can still concentrate its military efforts on the few countries of the world that have significant military resources and directly threaten some US interest or ally. While the US faces few threats to its home soil, protecting our interests and the interests of democracy are vital, particularly in Europe. According to the paper, the United States has four basic national security objectives: Ensuring the survival of the Nation as a politically independent entity Promoting economic prosperity for Americans and the world Maintaining a stable world order conducive to liberty Forging strong ties to allies and like-minded nations throughout the world Securing these objectives will require military forces to supplement economic and diplomatic tools.

In Changes Ahead: Future Directions for the U.S. Overseas Military Presence Richard Kugler recognizes that US military forces stationed and deployed abroad perform unique and important functions in support of US national interests. However, it is evident that because of the changing nature of conflict, the need for a strong US overseas presence does not mean that tomorrows posture should be identical to todays or even closely resemble it. The US military will in the future have new enemies, and therefore new objectives and missions. While re-establishing overseas military doctrine applies to all branches of the military, the new scope of conflict could see a larger emphasis placed upon airpower. In the future, emphasis of overseas presence is to be quick power projection, USAF (Unites States Air Force) forces are clearly well-suited to play a major role. Thus, the future agenda for the US overseas presence offers the Air Force important opportunities if it is willing to rise to the challenge. Overseas presence, particularly that of the Air Force, offer quick strike capability that not only allows the US to subdue conflict before it escalates, it also offers a deterrent factor to our regional enemies. US Regional Deterrence Strategies by Kenneth Watman and Dean Wilkening was prepared for the US Army and Air Force to determine whether the United States should base its regional strategy on deterrence. They begin by pointing out that with the Cold War now over, deterrence is no longer a necessity; it is an option to be evaluated just like any other policy option. It is noted that because regional adversaries seek short wars it is the forces that can deploy to the region on short notice that will have the greatest deterrent effect. It is reported that the threat of conventional attack alone may not be enough to deter a regional enemy, therefore it is important for the United States not to permit an adversary to be absolutely sure the United States would never use nuclear weapons in a regional conflict under any circumstance. In Robert Levines report Flexible Flight: The Air Force role in a Changing Europe, the capabilities of our nations land based Air Force and the possible need for them in the future is outlined. Levine claims that the future US threat will be uncertain and always changing, and US military presence will be crucial despite the end of the Cold War. Furthermore, the future will be directed by politics, and military planning must depend on political determinations. Because of changing potential combat and political determinants, the rapid response capability and the mobility of air forces as we enter an era in which the only firm expectation is further change make air power the centerpiece of American military capabilities. The US Air Force in particular has the means to carry out and support a short term or sustained conflict because of the diversity and flexibility of its airpower. Policy Options Currently, as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces the President has three options when engaging in conflict. He can deploy US forces on a large scale, entailing a joint effort on part of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. He can choose to use ground forces of the Army and Marines as the primary attacking force, which would be supplemented by the Navy and Air Force. Or he can choose to use airpower as the primary weapon for future conflict. Conflicts the United States will be involved with have changed, and the American public is increasingly unaccepting of US casualties. Therefore, I propose that the Commander-in-Chiefs most viable policy option for the future regarding US military intervention is that of rapidly deployable land based airpower, that will supported by the American public by ensuring limited casualties while still accomplishing the objective. Policy Support Throughout history the military has been required to adapt to the changing style of conflict. New technology, new leadership, new enemies, and domestic determinants dictate this change. In the past 10 years the nature of conflict has moved to an emphasis on airpower. The reasons for this are many. First and foremost, the world is no longer threatened by a cold war. The United States prevailed and the prospect of nuclear war has as a result decreased. However, with such a threat no longer a prime concern, conventional warfare has heated up. Spanning from the late 80s into the 21st century American troops have acted in the Philippines, Panama, El Salvador, Liberia, Iraq, Somalia, Bangladesh, Zaire, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union. Compared to past conflicts the US has been involved with such as Vietnam, Korea and both World Wars, all of these engagements have seen limited US presence and casualties. It is highly likely that these minor crisis interventions will become more numerous in the future than they are now. Most observers expect these missions to continue or even increase in response to increasing economic and ethnic tensions in many areas. Furthermore, there are other Saddam Husseins in this world, the original is as unpredictable as ever and still in power, and there is another in Korea. In order to keep up with the pace of these increasing operations, it will be the force that can respond quickly to these crises and show American military power through presence or force. This of course lies within rapid mobility of our nations Air Force. Significant conflicts or operations the US has been involved with in the past 10 years support the claim that the nature of battle is changing. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, our nations armed forces rapidly mobilized. Within 24 hours American military presence could be felt in the Middle East, mainly through the

establishment of Air Wings in Saudi Arabia. In the months preceding the ensuing conflict, USAF and Navy sorties were being flown around the clock. When the battle finally took place, it was a month long air campaign that annihilated Iraqi defenses and weakened their attack forces. While military leaders originally projected upwards of 10,000 casualties following a bloody ground battle, airpower had weakened the enemy to such an extent that Iraq surrendered following a 100-hour ground campaign. All told less than 500 American lives were lost. More recently, during Operation Allied Force in the war torn former Yugoslavia, American military forces spearheaded a campaign that sought to end the atrocities brought upon Kosovar-Albanians by Slobadon Milosevics repressive regime. American foreign policy requires a stable Eastern Europe. This stability was returned to the region for the first time ever by American airpower alone. The brunt of the force was supplied by land based USAF aircraft part of the 31st Air Expeditionary Wing located out of Aviano AB (Air Base), Italy. This conflict, albeit comparatively minor, exemplifies the shift to airpower as the primary attacking force of future conflict, and not one American life was lost. Furthermore, US airpower proves it has the power and ability to play an influential role in peacekeeping operations that the US is sure to involve itself with more frequently in the future. Operation Northern Watch in Iraq is carried out almost solely by the USAF. Sorties are flown around the clock from Incirlik AB, Turkey. These missions provide Combat Air Support to enforce a no fly zone in Northern Iraq designed to ensure the safety of Iraqi Kurds. These past operations show that the US is making a shift to airpower as its primary weapon system. The reason for this is not only because the mission calls for it, but also because the nation does as well. The public has not forgotten Vietnam, where 52,000 Americans gave their lives. More recently, images of a deceased American soldier being dragged through the streets by a Somali rebel have emphasized the publics aversion to our soldiers being killed. Air strikes seem the safer alternative, and allow for a more rapid departure should the need arise. The public opinion seems to be win and go home, but winning at all costs is no longer an option. In a Gallup Poll taken in 1999, respondents were asked: Suppose the air strikes fail to stop Serbian aggression in Kosovo. Should the United States send in ground troops? The public said no, 2-to-1. As a politician, the Commander-in-Chief cannot ignore those numbers. Americas foreign policy is profoundly affected by domestic determinants, and as of late, the majority of the public is against the use of ground troops, which is seemingly shaping the scope of future conflict as well. It appears as though future conflict will call upon the increased use of our nations land based Air Force. Fortunately, the USAF is up to the challenge, as it stands as the worlds premier supplier of airpower. The majority of the Air Force is located at bases found on the continental United States, but is supplemented with forward operating locations throughout the globe and also Reserve and National Guard units in the US which take the strain of active duty forces. The diversity of the USAF can be found within its ability to provide for such a wide array of mission capabilities. The most notable and glamorous of which is that of Air Superiority. Air Superiority, simply put, is guaranteeing that all US aircraft and ground troops in the vicinity are free from enemy air attack. This mission calls primarily upon the F-15C. This aircraft is the premiere air-to-air fighter in the world and dominates its CAP or combat air patrol mission. The F-15C is supplemented in its air-to-air role by the F-16 and F-15E multi-purpose fighters. The F-16 and F-15E are both air-to-air fighters and air-to-ground fighters. They combine the ability to engage targets in the air, as well as bomb ground targets with incredible precision. Furthermore, the F-16 flies SEADs or Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses missions. The Wild Weasel mission takes out enemy anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) and surface to air missile (SAM) sites to allow for safe insurgence of bomber or attack aircraft. The A-10 provides close air support to ensure the destruction of any threat found on the ground to American aircraft or ground troops. Along with the F-16 and F-15E, flying attack or fighterbomber missions is the notorious F-117, also known as the stealth fighter. The US is the only country in the world to fly an aircraft with stealth technology and it gives our Air Force the unprecedented advantage of being able to fly unseen to a target. The bombing mission takes on a strategic role with the USAF heavy bomber fleet. The B-52, B-1, and B-2 all have conventional as well as nuclear capabilities. These aircraft are capable not only of flying missions from a forward operating location, but also from the continental US. Global Power missions as they are known utilize aerial refueling to allow American bombers to take off from a USAF base, fly to any overseas target, drop the ordinance, then return home. During operation Allied Force B-2s stationed at Whiteman, AFB in Missouri flew 34-hour round trip missions to engage targets in the former Yugoslavia. The stealth capability of the B-2 ensures that our enemies will be unaware of its presence until the bomb impacts. Supporting the pointed end of the spear is an airlift force made up of C-5s, C-17s, C-141s, and C-130s. The C-5 is the largest aircraft in the US inventory and is called upon to transport the heaviest and largest loads. The C-

17 and C-141 can carry mid-sized loads anywhere in the world and have airdrop capabilities. The C-130 is a smaller cargo aircraft with airdrop and short field landing capabilities. This cargo fleet can transport any piece of Air Force equipment anywhere in the world within 24 hours. They are responsible for moving personnel and support equipment to the combat zone when the need should arise. None of the previous missions listed would be possible if it werent for the in-flight refueling capabilities of the USAF. The KC-135 and KC-10 provide this service to all Air Force aircraft. This function enables fighter aircraft to linger in the combat zone for extended periods of time. It also increases the range in which bomber and attack aircraft can fly, allowing them to attack targets from a safer distance away from the front lines. Aerial Refueling also allows for the sense of urgency that USAF transport aircraft can deliver cargo. As previously mentioned, the majority of USAF bases are found within the United States. However the capabilities of air refueling allow fighter and bomber aircraft to get to the fight fast. Combined with the ability of transport aircraft to support and sustain the fight, our nations Air Force has rapid global mobility. While the Air Force does have the ability to deploy to a combat zone rapidly, it is still necessary to maintain an overseas presence. The Air Force has forward operating locations in each of the three theatres of potential combat. In the European Theatre, USAF F-15s and KC-135s can be found in England. F-16s and A-10s are stationed at American Air Bases in Germany, and F-16s are permanently located in Italy. In the Pacific Theatre, F-15s and KC-135s are located in Okinawa, and F-16s are stationed in Japan and Korea. In the Middle Eastern Theatre, Incirlik AB in Turkey and Rhiad AB in Saudi Arabia supports tenant units that rotate with units located within the United States. Furthermore, units stationed stateside spend at least 90 days a year deployed to one or more of the forward operating locations the Air Force maintains. These bases ensure that the Air Force is the best equipped to rapidly respond to any crisis the United States may become involved in. The land-based power of the USAF appears to be well equipped to handle the conflicts of the future. However, it is also equipped to deter them from ever beginning. As suggested in the literature, the force that will have the greatest deterrent effect in the future are the forces that are in the region or can deploy to the region on short notice. Combined with the numerous forward locations operated by the USAF, the continental based forces can be mobilized and deployed within a matter of days. Furthermore, the Air Force capability of attacking from home shores in a global power mission gives the US the option of putting bombs on target in less than 24 hours. While some adversaries may not feel threatened by a conventional only force, the Air Force maintains the ability to be nuclear capable. The B-52, B-1, B-2, and F-117 are all nuclear capable aircraft that contribute to the risk our enemies would be taking should they decide to test the United State. These factors assure that a powerful blow can be delivered to our adversaries quickly. Past conflicts that US has been involved with, particularly operations Desert Storm and Allied Force serve as a wake-up call to our potential enemies to what might become of them if they attempt to disrupt peace. The USAF is committed to continuing the capabilities of its airpower, and hopes that because no enemy can match our power in the air, it will maintain peace. New weapons currently in development such as the F-22 will provide the Air Force with a weapon system that will further provide for unmatched air superiority. The F-22 guarantees the ability to win on our terms. First-look, first-shot, first-kill, the F-22 has the ability to find, identify and destroy targets without being detected, and exemplifies the countries commitment to maintaining air superiority. Furthermore, currently in initial test phases is the joint strike fighter (JSF) that will serve as a replacement to the F-16 and utilize the same capabilities of the F-22 in both fighter and attack roles. More important than acquiring new weapon systems is the commitment of the Air Force to maintain its people, the driving force behind any military organization. Recent pay raises will be combined with more in the near future, along with increased benefits in order to assure that people behind the force are the best in the military. The Air Force is looking towards the future in order to be prepared for the future conflicts we are sure to be involved in, a preparation hopefully so intense it will deter conflict from ever beginning. Conclusion The nature of conflict has yet again changed. Smaller regional conflicts will dominate the future and it is the force that can respond quickly and powerfully that will be called upon. Our armed forces commitment in those conflicts has also changed. The American public is wary of sending in ground forces, and looks to an emphasis on air strikes. However, the current capabilities of our nations Air Force are such that forces stationed in the US can rapidly deploy to a combat zone, and are supplemented by those units at forward operation locations that ensure that the Air Force can be the first there and ready to strike. Furthermore, the Air Force is capable of providing unmatched air superiority, global attack, rapid global mobility, and suppression of enemy defenses, and is committed to continuing that style of excellence. These factors combine to ensure that the Presidents best policy option for the future in regards to deploying our armed forces is indeed to send in land based airpower first. The attacking force of the future will come from the skies.

Presence in Afghanistan key to prevent Chinese monopoly on rare earth metals Chang 10Forbes Columnist (Gordon, The Taliban: World's Next Minerals Superpower, 16 July 2010,http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/16/taliban-minerals-afghanistan-asia-opinions-columnists-gordon-gchang.html, AMiles) Most significantly, Afghanistan has substantial deposits of rare earth minerals, estimated to be worth $7.4 billion. And why is this so important? At present, China has a near monopoly over them. It possesses about 36% of world reserves, by far the biggest share for any nation, and accounts for around 97% of global production. Five years ago Beijing substantially tightened export controls on these minerals. At this moment, officials are building a strategic reserve of them. Last August China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announced it would prohibit exports of some heavy rare earth minerals and restrict exports of other rare earths to levels far below current global needs. The complete prohibition may go into effect by 2015. Beijing, unfortunately, is not content to control just its own rare earth resources. The Chinese are buying deposits around the world, including those in the U.S. and Canada. And that brings us back to Afghanistan. Beijing, not surprisingly, has already shown great interest in the resources of its troubled neighbor to the west. In 2007 a Chinese company won the concession to the Aynak copper mine in Afghanistan's Logar province-after paying, according to American officials, a bribe of $30 million to the now-former minister of mines. As the New York Times reports, the Chinese want to buy up even more of Afghanistan's resources. They will surely succeed in exploiting most of the trillion dollars of minerals if the Taliban fighters take back control of the country, as they will if President Obama adheres to his plan to begin withdrawing troops next July. The Taliban, in short, could become a minerals superpower in a few years time. That will surely mean an even larger portion of the world's rare earth deposits will be under Chinese control. Beijing has traditionally maintained strong ties to the Taliban, continuing relations even after Sept. 11. Since that horrible event, for instance, China went through with the sale of a telephone system for Kabul and, after the group's ouster, has supplied it with weapons used against NATO forces. The Pentagon, in September, is scheduled to complete its report identifying national security risks due to rare earth material dependencies. Yet we don't have to wait until then to know what it will say. The U.S. is not mining any rare earth minerals at the moment, and there is only one American company with commercially significant deposits of heavy rare earths. It is not entirely clear what defense planners will do when China's export ban on these minerals goes into effect. Rare earth minerals are used in every major weapons system the U.S. fields today, from M1A2 Abrams tanks to Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. There is not a plane in the American inventory that will fly tomorrow without some mineral that is now mined in China. Lasers, radar and missile-guidance systems? Yes, they all require rare earth minerals, as do the military's hard drives. So the stakes just went up in Afghanistan with the release of the information this week. The U.S. has a critical reliance on what is in the ground in that war-torn land. Kabul can undercut Beijing's virtual monopoly on rare earths--or it can help the Chinese tighten their grip over global markets. Key to tech innovation, nano and hegemony Hurst 10Lieutenant Commander, USNR. Research Analyst in the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. (Cindy, Chinas Ace in the Hole: Rare Earth Elements, 27 Oct. 2010, http://mandobob.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/chinas-ace-in-the-hole-rare-earth-elements-by-cindy-ahurst/, AMiles) In Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Alexander Portnov, a professor specializing in geological and mineral sciences, wrote, There can be no talk of developing nanotechnology if the country does not produce and use rare elements. Portnov argues that a countrys extraction, production, and use of rare metals needed for technological innovation are a precise indicator of its scientific and technical development.32 It is possible that suitable alternatives to REEs could one day be discovered. In the meantime, however, REEs are critical to many modern technologies. China has recognized the value of REEs for over five decades. While the United States today leads in technological innovation, Chinas position in the rare earth industry and its vast reserves and ability to mine and produce them, coupled with its intense research and development efforts, could one day give it a decisive advantage in military-based technologies. The U.S. military must plan for this eventuality and take appropriate actions today if it expects to maintain its lead in military technology. JFQ Innovation key to solve extinction Kurzweil 8BS in Computer Science and Literature in 1970 from MIT, header of tons of entrepreneurial projects (Ray, 13 April 2008, Making the World A Billion Times Better, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103326.html, RBatra) ellipses in original This exponential progress in the power of information technology goes back more than a century to the dataprocessing equipment used in the 1890 census, the first U.S. census to be automated. It has been a smooth -and highly predictable -- phenomenon despite all the vagaries of history through that period, including two world wars, the Cold War and the Great Depression. I say highly predictable because, thanks to its exponential power, only technology possesses the scale to address the major challenges -- such as energy and the environment, disease and poverty -- confronting society. That, at least, is the major conclusion of a panel, organized by the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Engineering, on which I recently participated. Take energy. Today, 70 percent of it comes from fossil fuels, a 19th-century technology. But if we could capture just one tenthousandth of the sunlight that falls on Earth, we could meet 100 percent of the world's energy needs using this renewable and environmentally friendly source. We can't do that now because solar panels rely on old technology, making them expensive, inefficient, heavy and hard to install. But a new generation of panels based on nanotechnology (which manipulates matter at the level of molecules) is starting to overcome these obstacles. The tipping point at which energy from solar panels will actually be less expensive than fossil fuels is only a few years away. The power we are generating from solar is doubling every two years; at that rate, it will be able to meet all our energy needs within 20 years. Nanotechnology itself is an information technology and therefore subject to what I call the "law of accelerating returns," a continual doubling of capability about every year. Venture capital groups and high-tech companies are investing billions of dollars in these new renewable energy technologies. I'm confident that the day is close at hand when we will be able to obtain energy from sunlight using nano-engineered solar panels and store it for use on cloudy days in nano-engineered fuel cells for less than it costs to use environmentally damaging fossil fuels. It's important to understand that exponentials seem slow at first. In the mid-1990s, halfway through the Human Genome Project to identify all the genes in human DNA, researchers had succeeded in collecting only 1 percent of the human genome. But the amount of genetic data was doubling every year, and that is actually right on schedule for an exponential progression. The project was slated to take 15 years, and if you double 1 percent seven more times you surpass 100 percent. In fact, the project was finished two years early. This helps explain why people underestimate what is technologically feasible over long periods of time -- they think linearly while the actual course of progress is exponential. We see the same progression with other biological technologies as well. Until just recently, medicine -- like energy -- was not an information technology. This is now changing as scientists begin to understand how biology works as a set of information processes. The approximately 23,000 genes in our cells are basically software programs, and we are making exponential gains in modeling and simulating the information processes that cracking the genome code has unlocked. We also have new tools, likewise just a few years old, that allow us to actually reprogram our biology in the same way that we reprogram our computers. For example, when the fat insulin receptor gene was turned off in mice, they were able to eat ravenously yet remain slim and obtain the health benefits of being slim. They didn't get heart disease or diabetes and lived 20 percent longer. There are now more than a thousand drugs in the pipeline to turn off the genes that promote obesity, heart disease, cancer and other diseases. We can also turn enzymes off and on, and add genes to the body. I'm an adviser to a company that removes lung cells, adds a new gene, reproduces the gene-enhanced cell a million-fold and then injects it back into the body where it returns to the lungs. This has cured a fatal disease, pulmonary hypertension, in animals and is now undergoing human trials. The important point is this: Now that we can model, simulate and reprogram biology just like we can a computer, it will be subject to the law of accelerating returns, a doubling of capability in less than a year. These technologies will be more than a thousand times more capable in a decade, more than a million times more capable in two decades. We are now adding three months every year to human life expectancy, but given the exponential growth of our ability to reprogram biology, this will soon go into high gear. According to my models, 15 years from now we'll be adding more than a year each year to our remaining life expectancy. This is not a guarantee of living forever, but it does mean that the sands of time will start pouring in rather than only pouring out. What's more, this exponential progression of information technology will affect our prosperity as well. The World Bank has reported, for example, that poverty in Asia has been cut in half over the past decade due to information technologies and that at current rates it will be cut by another 90 percent over the next decade. That phenomenon will spread around the globe. Rare earth elements are key to all missile guidance systems for first-strike capabilities and nuclear primacy Kennedy 10 (J. Kennedy, March, President of Wings Enterprises, Critical and Strategic Failure of Rare Earth Resources,http://www.smenet.org/rareEarthsProject/TMS-NMAB-paperV-3.pdf, da 11/16, mat)

The national defense issues are equally important. Rare earths are critical components for military jet engines, guided missiles and bombs, electrical countermeasures, anti-missile systems, satellite communication systems and armor, yet the U.S. has no domestic sources. Innovation Drives Industry Industry Carries the Economy Advances in Materials Science are a result of tireless innovation; innovation seeking improvements in the performance and characteristics of material properties or a change in their form or function. Much of this work must eventually translate into commercial and military applications. Today many advances in material science are achieved through the application of rare earth oxides, elements and alloys. This group of elements, also known as the lanthanide series, represents the only known bridge to the next level of improved performance in the material properties for many metallurgical alloys, electrical conductivity, and instrument sensitivity and in some cases a mechanical or physical change in function. These lanthanides hold unique chemical, magnetic, electrical, lumenescence and radioactive shielding characteristics. Combined with other elements they can help maintain or alter physical and structural characteristics under changing conditions. Today, these rare earth elements are essential to every computer hard drive, cell phone, energy efficient light bulb, many automotive pollution control devices and catalysts, hybrid automobiles and most, if not all, military guidance systems and advanced armor. Tomorrow, they will be used in ultra capacity wind turbines, magnetic refrigeration, zero emission automobiles, superconductors, sub-light-speed computer processors, nano-particle technologies for material and metallurgical applications, structurally amorphous metals, next generation military armor and TERFENOL-D Radar. America must lead in these developments. The entire U.S. defense system is completely interdependent upon REO enhanced technologies for our most advanced weapons guidance systems, advanced armor, secure communications, radar, advanced radar systems, weapons triggering systems and un-manned Drones. REO dependent weapons technologies are predominantly represented in our first strike and unmanned capabilities. This national defense issue is not a case of limited exposure for first-strike capabilities. This first-strike vulnerability translates into risk exposure in every level of our national defense system, as the system is built around our presumptive technological and first-strike superiority. Yet the DoD has abandon its traditional procurement protocols for strategic and critical materials and components for weapons systems in favor of the principles of free trade. Accuracy upgrades are key to ensure counterforce capabilities as the arsenal is inevitably reduced McDonough 9 (David S, Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University, March, Tailored Deterrence: The New Triad and the Tailoring of Nuclear Superiority,http://www.canadianinternationalcouncil.org/download/resourcece/archives/strategicd~2/sd_n o8_200, da 11/16, mat) Less noticed is the continuing modernization of the existing arsenal. The remaining low-yield Minuteman III ICBM warheads will be replaced by the high-yield MX warhead and further augmented by the inclusion of GPS guidance systems. The SLBM force of highly accurate and high-yield D-5 warheads will also benefit from the addition of GPS accuracy and ground-burst capability. Even the bomber force will become armed with stealthy and low-flying cruise missiles ideal to avoid an adversarys early warning radar. The nuclear force may indeed be smaller, but it is also becoming more accurate and more lethal, and ideal for disarming counterforce strikes. Loss of U.S. nuclear primacy causes global nuclear war Caves 10 (John P, Senior Research Fellow in the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction at the National Defense University, January, Strategic Forum, No. 252, Avoiding a Crisis of Confidence in the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent, da 11/16, mat) Perceptions of a compromised U.S. nuclear deterrent as described above would have profound policy implications, particularly if they emerge at a time when a nuclear-armed great power is pursuing a more aggressive strategy toward U.S. allies and partners in its region in a bid to enhance its regional and global clout. A dangerous period of vulnerability would open for the United States and those nations that depend on U.S. protection while the United States attempted to rectify the problems with its nuclear forces. As it would take more than a decade for the United States to produce new nuclear weapons, ensuing events could preclude a return to anything like the status quo ante. The assertive, nuclear-armed great power, and other major adversaries, could be willing to challenge U.S. interests more directly in the expectation that the United States would be less prepared to threaten or deliver a military response that could lead to direct conflict. They will want to keep the United States from reclaiming its earlier power position. Allies and partners who have relied upon explicit or implicit assurances of U.S. nuclear protection as a foundation of their security could lose faith

in those assurances. They could compensate by accommodating U.S. rivals, especially in the short term, or acquiring their own nuclear deterrents, which in most cases could be accomplished only over the mid- to long term. A more nuclear world would likely ensue over a period of years. Important U.S. interests could be compromised or abandoned, or a major war could occur as adversaries and/or the United States miscalculate new boundaries of deterrence and provocation. At worst, war could lead to state-on-state employment of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) on a scale far more catastrophic than what nuclear-armed terrorists alone could inflict. 2NC Overview make nuke war impossible Lieber & Press 9 (Keir A. Lieber, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, Daryl G. Press, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, November-December, Foreign Affairs, The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent, p. 50-51, da 11/16, mat) This second criticism has merit. Nevertheless, the benefits of maintaining effective counterforce capabilities trump the costs. Strong counterforce capabilities should make adversaries expect that escalating a conventional war will lead to a disarming attack, not a cease-fire. Beyond deterrence, these capabilities will provide a more humane means of protecting allies who are threatened by nuclear attack and give U.S. leaders the ability to pursue regime change if an adversary acts in a truly egregious fashion. Moreover, some danger of escalation is unavoidable because the style of U.S. conventional operations will inevitably blind, rattle, and confuse U.S. adversaries. If the United States has powerful counterforce tools, these may dissuade its enemies from escalating in desperate times, and U.S. leaders would have a much more acceptable option if deterrence fails. The nuclear forces the United States builds today must be able to act as a reliable deterrent, even in much darker times. Many of those who recommend a much smaller U.S. nuclear arsenaland assign little importance to a nuclear counterforce optionfail to consider the great difficulties of maintaining deterrence during conventional wars. The U.S. nuclear arsenal should retain sufficient counterforce capabilities to make adversaries think very carefully before threatening to use, putting on alert, or actually using a nuclear weapon. Any nuclear arsenal should also give U.S. leaders options they can stomach employing in these high-risk crises. Without credible and effective options for responding to attacks on allies or U.S. forces, the United States will have difficulty deterring such attacks. Unless the United States maintains potent counterforce capabilities, U.S. adversaries may concludeperhaps correctlythat the United States strategic position abroad rests largely on a bluff. Solves inevitable nuke war Lieber and Press 9 - Keir assist. prof of pol sci, Notre Dame AND Daryl assoc. prof of pol sci, UPenn. The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent, Foreign Affairs, Nov-Dec 09 Unfortunately, deterrence in the twenty-first century may be far more difficult for the United States than it was in the past, and having the right mix of nuclear capabilities to deal with the new challenges will be crucial. The United States leads a global network of alliances, a position that commits Washington to protecting countries all over the world. Many of its potential adversaries have acquired, or appear to be seeking, nuclear weapons. Unless the worlds major disputes are resolvedfor example, on the Korean Peninsula, across the Taiwan Strait, and around the Persian Gulfor the U.S. military pulls back from these regions, the United States will sooner or later find itself embroiled in conventional wars with nuclear-armed adversaries. Preventing escalation in those circumstances will be far more difficult than peacetime deterrence during the Cold War. In a conventional war, U.S. adversaries would have powerful incentives to brandish or use nuclear weapons because their lives, their families, and the survival of their regimes would be at stake. Therefore, as the United States considers the future of its nuclear arsenal, it should judge its force not against the relatively easy mission of peacetime deterrence but against the demanding mission of deterring escalation during a conventional conflict, when U.S. enemies are fighting for their lives. Debating the future of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is critical now because the Obama administration has pledged to pursue steep cuts in the force and has launched a major review of U.S. nuclear policy. (The results will be reported to Congress in February 2010.) The administrations desire to shrink the U.S. arsenal is understandable. Although the force is only one-fourth the size it was when the Cold War ended, it still includes roughly 2,200 operational strategic warheadsmore than enough to retaliate against any conceivable nuclear attack. Furthermore, as we previously argued in these pages (The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy, March/April 2006), the current U.S. arsenal is vastly more capable than its Cold

War predecessor, particularly in the area of counterforcethe ability to destroy an adversarys nuclear weapons before they can be used. Simply counting U.S. warheads or measuring Washingtons counterforce capabilities will not, however, reveal what type of arsenal is needed for deterrence in the twenty-first century. The only way to determine that is to work through the grim logic of deterrence: to consider what actions will need to be deterred, what threats will need to be issued, and what capabilities will be needed to back up those threats. The Obama administration is right that the United States can safely cut its nuclear arsenal, but it must pay careful attention to the capabilities it retains. During a war, if a desperate adversary were to use its nuclear force to try to coerce the United Statesfor example, by threatening a U.S. ally or even by launching nuclear strikes against U.S. overseas basesan arsenal comprised solely of high-yield weapons would leave U.S. leaders with terrible retaliatory options. Destroying Pyongyang or Tehran in response to a limited strike would be vastly disproportionate, and doing so might trigger further nuclear attacks in return. A deterrent posture based on such a dubious threat would lack credibility. Instead, a credible deterrent should give U.S. leaders a range of retaliatory options, including the ability to respond to nuclear attacks with either conventional or nuclear strikes, to retaliate with strikes against an enemys nuclear forces rather than its cities, and to minimize casualties. The foundation for this flexible deterrent exists. The current U.S. arsenal includes a mix of accurate high- and low-yield warheads, offering a wide range of retaliatory optionsincluding the ability to launch precise, very low-casualty nuclear counterforce strikes. The United States must preserve that mix of capabilities especially the low-yield weaponsas it cuts the size of its nuclear force. 2NC Turns CaseHeg Turns hegemony Rare earths are critical to all military systemsthats Hurst and Changthe aff collapses the armed forces Richardson 10 (Michael, 10/18, visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South East Asian Studies in Singapore, Yale Global Online, Chinas Chokehold On Rare-Earth Minerals Raises Concerns , http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/chinas-rare-earth-minerals, da 11/16, mat) Yet China could keep its dominant grip on the rare-earths industry for some years. It holds 35 percent of global reserves, but supplies over 95 percent of demand for rare-earth oxides, of which 60 percent is domestic, according to Industrial Minerals Company of Australia, a consultancy. Just as important, Chinese companies, many of them state-controlled, have advanced in their quest to make China the world leader in processing rareearth metals into finished materials. Success in this quest could give China a decisive advantage not just in civilian industry, including clean energy, but also in military production if Chinese manufacturers were given preferential treatment over foreign competitors. Cerium is the most abundant of the 17 rare earths, all of which have similar chemical properties. A cerium-based coating is non-corrosive and has significant military applications. The Pentagon is due to finish a report soon on the risks of US military dependence on rare earths from China. Their use is widespread in the defense systems of the US, its allies, and other countries that buy its weapons and equipment. In a report to the US Congress in April, the Government Accountability Office said that it had been told by officials and defense industry executives that where rare-earth alloys and other materials were used in military systems, they were responsible for the functionality of the component and would be difficult to replace without losing performance. For example, fin actuators in precision-guided bombs are specifically designed around the capabilities of neodymium iron boron rare-earth magnets. The main US battle tank, the M1A2 Abrams, has a reference and navigation system that relies on samarium cobalt magnets from China. An official report last year on the US national defense stockpile said that shortages of four rare earths lanthanum, cerium, europium and gadolinium had already caused delays in producing some weapons. It recommended further study to determine the severity of the delays. Our internal links outweigh a) Nano Marlow 4 (John Robert, Interview on the Superswarm Option Nanotechnology Now, February, John is a novelist, freelance journalist, and screenwriter with a strong interest in advanced/disruptive technologies. Nano is his first novel, http://www.nanotech-now.com/John-Marlow-Superswarm-interview-Feb04.htm) As stated in the Nano novel, Marlow's Second Paradox is this: "Nanotechnology must never be developed, because it is too dangerous a thing to exist; nanotechnology must be developed-because it is too a dangerous a thing to exist in the hands of others." The first rationale-Bill Joy's relinquishment option-will be ignored. The second will drive the race for nanosuperiority. The first nanopower will, if it plays its cards right, remain

unchallenged for the foreseeable future-assuming there remains a future to foresee. This is so because it will be possible to use the technology itself to prevent all others from deploying it, or to simply annihilate all others. In the entire history of the human race, there has never been such a prize for the taking, and there likely never will be again. We are embarked upon what is quite possibly Mankind's final arms race. Caution may not be a factor, because the losers in the nanorace will exist only at the whim of the winner, and many will see themselves as having nothing to lose, and the world to gain. Consider: China holds third place among nations for nanotech patents. Consider also, from Gannett News Service (February 20, 2000): "Chinese military specialists urge the development of 'magic weapons' that Would allow an 'inferior to defeat a superior enemy.' The report quotes General Pan Jungfeng as calling the United States 'the enemy.' " Draw your own conclusions. Given this situation, these facts, the occasional incompetence of governments and of militaries in particular, and human nature itself-the earth may well be doomed. This is the way the world ends. b) Nuclear primacy Craig 9 Professor of International Relations at the University of Southampton (Campbell, Review of International Studies, American power preponderance and the nuclear revolution, 35, 2744, Cambridge Database) As Keir Lieber and Daryl Press have suggested, the US may be on the verge of acquiring a first-strike nuclear capability, which, combined with an effective system of anti-ballistic missile defence, could allow the US to destroy a rivals nuclear capabilities and intercept any remaining retaliatory missiles before they hit American cities. While this possibility clearly reduces the likelihood of other states seeking to match American power with the aim of fighting and winning a nuclear war, and, if their argument becomes widely accepted, could lead American policy-makers to reject the logic of the nuclear revolution and consider pre-emptive nuclear strikes against large nuclear rivals, it clearly is less germane to the question of small-state deterrence.33 Lieber and Press contend that the US may have the capability to destroy the entire nuclear arsenal of another large nuclear state lest that state use it on America first for the purposes of winning a great war. That, as they say, would mean the end of Mutual Assured Destruction as it existed during the Cold War. However, Washington would have much less reason to use its new first-strike capability against a nation that cannot threaten to destroy the US, and has no ambition to defeat America in a war, but only possesses a second-strike minimum deterrent. Such an attack would turn much of the world against a US willing to use nuclear weapons and kill hundreds of thousands or millions in order to defeat a nation that did not threaten its survival. Perhaps more to the point, an attack like this would be tremendously risky. Even after a perfect first strike some retaliation might get through, which could mean the nuclear destruction of an American city or perhaps the city of an American ally. At the very least, survivors of the attacked state and their allies would seek to unleash destruction upon the US in other ways, including an unconventional delivery of a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. An imperfect first strike, or, even worse, a failure of the US anti-missile system, would constitute a total disaster for the US: not only would it incur the worlds wrath and suffer the destruction of one or more of its cities, but such a failure would also expose America as both a brutal and vulnerable state, surely encouraging other states to acquire nuclear weapons or otherwise defy it. The US might have reason to launch a first strike against a large rival that deployed a major arsenal and appeared ready to attack America, as implausible as this scenario is. It would have little reason to do so against a small nation with a second-strike minimum deterrent arsenal. The nuclear revolution delivers a clear message to any large state considering major war with a powerful nuclear rival. The message is that such a war is likely to escalate to total nuclear exchange, and that in this event a large percentage of its citizenry will be killed or injured, its ability to govern what remains of the nation will be weakened or destroyed, and its power relative to other states that stayed out of the war will be radically diminished. It also delivers a message to any advanced small state eager to obtain security from the possible predation of large ones. The message is that if the small state possesses, or can quickly get its hands on, a few invulnerable and deliverable nuclear weapons, any large state contemplating invading it will have to weigh the benefits of invasion against a new kind of cost not just a difficult or stalemated conventional war, such as the US faced in Vietnam and faces in Iraq, but the destruction of perhaps one, three, or five of its cities, and the death and injury of millions of its citizens. Unless it is able to obtain an absolutely fool-proof defence against any kind of nuclear retaliation, the choice that any large state is going to make when faced with this new circumstance is so likely to be peace that the small nuclear state can feel confident that it will be safe from conquest.34 The general relevance of these messages to American unipolar preponderance is clear. At the great power level, rising states are unlikely to regard major war as a suitable means for overturning the international system and overthrowing American preponderance. The classic means of systemic change hegemonic war will not be an attractive option to any state hoping to survive, and the very existence of

nuclear arsenals will make all states cautious about provoking conflict with nuclear rivals, especially the heavily armed US.35 Moreover, advanced smaller states know that they can provide for their own security, if they come to believe that it is endangered, not by embarking on large military build-ups or forming alliances with larger states, but by developing a small and invulnerable nuclear arsenal, or at least preparing the way to obtain such an arsenal quickly. This means that small states have a far greater ability to defend themselves from, and therefore be less afraid of, American predation today than comparable states facing dominant powers in previous eras.36 The main effects of the nuclear revolution, then, bolster the general claim of Power Preponderance that unipolarity is enduring. To support their claim, Brooks and Wohlforth specify three factors that dissuade would-be rivals to the US from balancing against it in traditional military terms: the effect of Americas relative geographical isolation from these potential rivals; the fact that American preponderance happened as a fait accompli about which no other nation could do anything; and the vast and growing power gap between the US and all other rivals. The next section will describe each factor, and show how the nuclear revolution specifically reinforces each of them. c) Innovation Martino 7 founder and chairman of the board of Cyber Technology Group, author of numerous books on finance (Rocco, A Strategy for Success: Innovation Will Renew American Leadership, http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5102/martino.innovationamericanleadership.pdf, AG) The United States of course faced great challenges to its security and economy in the past, most obviously from Germany and Japan in the first half of the twentieth century and from the Soviet Union in the second half. Crucial to Americas ability to prevail over these past challenges was our technological and industrial leadership, and especially our ability to continuously recreate it. Indeed, the United States has been unique among great powers in its ability to keep on creating and recreating new technologies and new industries, generation after generation. Perpetual innovation and technological leadership might even be said to be the American way of maintaining primacy in world affairs. They are almost certainly what America will have to pursue in order to prevail over the contemporary challenges involving economic competitiveness and energy dependence. Bigger internal link Seaman 10 John Seaman, Fellow in the Center for Asian Studies at the French Institute of International Relations, September 2010, Rare Earths and Clean Energy: Analyzing China's Upper Hand, online: http://www.ifri.org/?page=contributiondetail&id=6204&id_provenance=103&provenance_context_id=4 The world is in the midst of a blossoming "clean energy" transformation. Since 2005, global investments in clean energy have grown by more than 230%, with worldwide investment in 2009 totaling more than $162 billion. Projections for 2010 show that these investments could increase by 25%, reaching roughly $200 billion by the year's end.1 The recent craze for "green growth" among many of the world's most advanced economies is not only meant to respond to the threat of global climate change and reduce dependence on fossil fuels, but to revitalize local and national economies by creating new opportunities for growth and "green jobs". But international competition over who will reap the benefits of this new growth is mounting. For many, the homegrown development of the host of technologies necessary for the clean energy transformation is already challenging enough. High costs, public apathy and misguided political interference are complicating what is already an unprecedented technical challenge. But beyond the public eye there is the potential for another challenge to low carbon technologies in the form of an ominous resource crunch in the so-called "rare earth elements". There are many commercial, strategic and geopolitical dimensions to this issue that need a higher quality public debate to ensure they are adequately reflected in our strategies for a sustainable energy future. As explained further in the first part of this paper, rare earths are an increasingly strategic grouping of raw metals that are included in a broad range of cutting edge technologies including but not limited to energyrelated technologies such as for windmills, hybrid or electric vehicles, and energy-saving light bulbs. Demand for these technologies, and therefore the essential rare earth elements, has and will likely continue to increase dramatically. But ensuring economically attractive access to supplies of these elements is no simple task, and many experts agree that the world is rapidly heading for an acute shortage of processed rare earths largely because of underinvestment, but geopolitics may also come into play. Since the mid-1980s China, which holds 37% of the world's current proven, accessible rare earth reserves, has progressively gained a near monopoly on the mining and separation of these elements down to their oxide form. China now controls 97% of the global

market for rare earth oxides (REO) largely because other resource holders have scaled down their activities or failed to make the investments necessary. As analyzed in the second part of this paper, China has recently initiated a series of reform measures that will have consequences for the global supply of REO. Of chief concern to the rest of the world is China's policy on limiting exports of these oxides. In early July 2010. China's Ministry of Commerce announced that REO export quotas in the second half of the year would be slashed by 72% in relation to the second half of 2009. This dramatic reductio n came as a shock to many of the industry's top experts, who had expected at most only a quarter of the announced reduction. This action raises the question of global shortages for these key elements in the much more immediate future. 2NC Link Wall Number of boots on the ground is criticalaff doesnt solveeven if we lose in the long run, access now solve Chinese access post plan Lantier 10frequent contributor to global research (Alex, Washington discovers Afghanistans mineral wealth, 15 June 2010,http://www.republicreport.com/washington-alleged-imperialism-global-resourcecontrol-afghan-war%E2%80%94lies-secrecy-a-critical-observation/, AMiles) Nonetheless, it concluded that Afghanistan might be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world. This bonanza is safely in the hands of the US military and major transnational corporations, the Times explained. International accounting firms are consulting with the Afghan Ministry of Mines to prepare technical data to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said. Under-Secretary of Defense Paul Brinkley told the Times: The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this. We are trying to help them to get ready. The claim that the Pentagon is helping the Ministry of Mines is a lie. In fact, the Ministry of Mines is apparently being kept in the dark about the contents of the survey. Contacted yesterday by Bloomberg News to obtain a statement on the Times report, Deputy Mines Minister Abdul Qudus Hamidi said the Ministry of Mines could not comment until it receives a copy of the survey. More broadly, the Pentagon is mainly interested in helping the Ministry of Mines decide who will get Afghanistans riches. US officials and the Times both made clear that Chinese mining firms are not acceptable buyers. The Times wrote: Just last year, Afghanistans minister of mines [Muhammad Ibrahim Adel] was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its [Aynak] copper mine. The minister has since been replaced. American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistans mineral wealth, which could upset the United States. Such statements suggest some of the broader geopolitical interests motivating Washingtons occupation of Afghanistan. In the struggle to grab Afghanistans raw materials and cheap labor and deny them to its rivals, Washington intends to fully exercise its one main advantage: it has more boots on the ground than its rivals. This February, after Adel was forced out over the Aynak license, Kabul canceled bidding on the massive Hajigak iron mine. Business Week explained, Indian and Chinese companies eager to tie up resources for the worlds two fastest-growing major economies had sought the Hajigak deposit China has wrestled with the worlds main iron ore suppliersBrazils Vale SA, London- based Rio Tinto Plc and Australias BHP Billiton Ltd in an attempt to circumvent rising global prices. Iron ore prices have skyrocketed as BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, and Vale have succeeded in bidding up prices in recent years, since the main importer of iron oreChinais completely dependent on their supplies. They demanded 90-100 percent price increases for iron ore this spring, after several years of comparable price increases. Xinhua reported that Chinese steel firms would pay $110-$120 per ton of imported iron ore, compared to $62 per ton last year. Nor is the iron ore market the only one in which control of Afghan mines might prove decisive. The Times article yesterday reported that deposits of lithiuman essential material for laptop and smart-phone batteriesin Afghanistans Ghazni province alone could rival those of Bolivia, which currently has the worlds largest reserves. The Times cited an internal Pentagon memo describing Afghanistan as the Saudi Arabia of lithium, that is, a country whose production (of oil, in the Saudi case) would determine world market prices. A frank exposition of how US wars benefit parasitic corporate and financial interests would provoke mass outrage, in the US and abroad. As a result, the Times ludicrously presented Washingtons interest in Afghan mineral wealth as the product of the lucky work of a few isolated US geologists, who arrived in Afghanistan in 2004. Having stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts in Afghan libraries, they commandeered an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft thatin a fit of absent-mindedness, perhaps?had been fitted with advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment.

Having flown over 70 percent of the country, they produced a report noting that they had discovered astonishing mineral wealth, and returned with a more sophisticated British aircraft for further exploration in 2007. Their work, according to the Times, then gathered dust for two years in US offices. In fact the US government was well aware, as it invaded Afghanistan, that it was invading a country with vast mineral riches. Despite the Times deceptive presentation of the matter, its account objectively shows that US and NATO officials have been carefully studying and documenting these resources for years, as the war progressed. As for the Times absurd presentation, US documents show that Washington has long been aware of Afghanistans riches. COIN key Sengupta 10Diplomatic Correspondent, The Independent (Kim, Afghanistan's resources could make it the richest mining region on earth, 15 June 2010, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghanistansresources-could-make-it-the-richest-mining-region-on-earth-2000507.html, AMiles) But last night Jawad Omar, a senior official at the ministry, insisted: "The natural resources of Afghanistan will play a magnificent role in Afghanistan's economic growth. The past five decades have shown that every time new research takes place, it shows our natural reserves are far more than what was previously found. This is a cause for rejoicing, nothing to worry about." According to The New York Times, the US Geological Survey flew sorties to map Afghanistan's mineral resources in 2007, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a 3-D profile of deposits below the surface. It was when a Pentagon task force charged with formulating business development programmes and helping the Afghan government develop relationships with international firms came upon the geological data in 2009, that the process of calculating the economic values began. "This really is part and parcel of General [Stanley] McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy," Colonel Lapan said yesterday. "This is that whole economic arm that we talk about but gets very little attention." 2NC Timeframe/Instability Means No Mining

Their ev assumes we have to totally win the war, but we can actually mine now Sengupta 10Diplomatic Correspondent, The Independent (Kim, Afghanistan's resources could make it the richest mining region on earth, 15 June 2010, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghanistansresources-could-make-it-the-richest-mining-region-on-earth-2000507.html, AMiles) Stan Coats, former Principal Geologist at the British Geographical Survey, who carried out exploration work in Afghanistan for four years, also injected a note of caution. "Considerably more work needs to be carried out before it can be properly called an economic deposit that can be extracted at a profit," he told The Independent. "Much more ground exploration, including drilling, needs to be carried out to prove that these are viable deposits which can be worked." But, he added, despite the worsening security situation, some regions were safe enough "so there is a lot of scope for further work". And, if we are winning in mining regions, that solves Landay 10/4nat. security and intelligence correspondent, McClatchy News. (Jonathan, Afghan, U.S. forces face growing insecurity in key province, 4 Oct. 2010, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/04/101581/afghan-us-forces-face-growing.html, AMiles) While the U.S. military has focused on the Taliban's southern strongholds, the militants and allied groups have been gaining ground in the north. The difficulties in Baghlan are emblematic of the uphill battle the United States and its allies face in trying to stabilize Afghanistan enough to begin drawing down troops next year. The smaller NATO units that operate in the north are under restrictions driven by opposition to the war at home. "Insurgency is a naturally lazy animal," said an ISAF intelligence official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly. "Like water and electricity, it goes wherever there are the least amounts of resistance."