Resolved: The United States shall implament the a program to clean up space junk.

Alrightly, from the looks of it, I can group Pro's arguements into two seperate contentions.1. Space Junk and the Kessler Syndrome and the Costs.In this contention I would like to point out a few things. First off Kessler admitted in an interview that the Kessler syndrome is all hyped up. "To fight debris, he said, designers will have to give spacecraft more and more shielding, struggling to protect the craft from destruction and making them heavier and more costly in the process. At some point, he said, perhaps centuries from now, the costs will outweigh the benefits."- Kesller. Kessler called it the worst case scenario an exaggeration. So it's obvious that even when the guy who comes up with it recants it it's pretty bad. http://www.nytimes.com.... Second thing I would like to bring up is that this debate's resolution states that the United States shall implament a plan to clean up space junk, but if you look at the specifics in international law. The United States can't clean up all space junk because it would be illegal via international to clean up other nation’s space junk since the space debris still belongs to that nation. So you can see here Pro can’t solve for space junk. http://www.onorbitwatch.com...OrionWe’ll now look at the two space debris clean up programs and see why they are both flawed. Grossman has reported from about the orion space debris program, “NASA scientists have suggested shooting space junk with lasers before. But earlier plans relied on military-class lasers that would either destroy an object altogether, or vaporize part of its surface and create little plasma plumes that would rocket the piece of litter away. Those lasers would be prohibitively expensive, the team says, not to mention make other space-faring nations nervous about what exactly that military-grade laser is pointing at.” , http://www.wired.com... Secondly such a program has been outlawed by international law in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 http://history.nasa.gov...Even if it is somehow legal this technique will only increase the amount of space junk.Catcher's Mitt Catcher’s Mitt fails, it would cost 3.8 billion dollars to match ORION in efficiency. Phipps 10 (PhD at Stanford University in plasma physics, Photonic Associates, “Catcher’s Mitt” as an Alternative to laser Space Debris Mitigation, 2010, http://photonicassociates.com..., AX) Table 4 shows the results for particles of size 1 and 10 cm and densities 1 (representing polymers) and 9 g/cm3 (steel). To slow all these particles, the Table shows that the mitt thickness must be 47 cm, so mitt mass from Eq. (4) must be m = 81 kT on orbit. With current launch technology, m/M = 4.8% [5], so launch vehicle mass M would be 1.7 MT, and would require a thruster capable of 3.8 billion pounds thrust at liftoff, 500 times larger than any thruster ever built. Even if the object were divided into 500 payloads, the cost would be prohibitive. Lenard David who has been reporting on the space industry for the past decade has reported that cleaning up space debris is not fessible. http://www.msnbc.msn.com..., Thus meaning even if the United States implaments this plan that we will just be throwing money at a problem and we all know that throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away.