Resolved: The International Community should ban nuclear powered spacecraft.

First, I will refute my opponent's impact, then proceed to clarify my own arguments that have been called into question. With the new perspective, I will re-evaluate Neg's new arguments, then strengthen my own. First, the Neg's Impact: In the original impact points, my opponent stated that Prof. Randy Fillmore would allow for a manned trip to Mars. Firstly, the article in question, which I believe is "UF Researchers: Nuclear Power Will Make Mars Trip Shorter, Safer", is from 1997. The information presented in the article is vague and corroboration for facts is lacking. From the article, the most that can be deduced is that nuclear propulsion will allow for a shorter trip to Mars, but the fact of the matter is that without any corroborating evidence (as the article is necessarily biased in its own favor), this facet of an impact does not stand. I would also like my opponent to state his evidence from Charles Choi. Finally, it would not even be plausible for a Mars mission in the near future, in which time any number of other solutions could be raised, including the promising ion engine. As it stands, NASA is hoping to retain their rough budget of $17 billion, though the program is facing cuts amidst financial planning in Washington. Additionally, this budget has been planned for use already and a Mars landing would be prohibitively expensive. The Apollo program during its preparation years required over 10 billion in 1994 dollars. To put this in perspective, as well as adjusting for inflation in the decade since 1994, we would need to double the current NASA budget to accomplish the lunar landing (supposing the technology was not in order). Faced with a similar situation, how much more cost-prohibitive is a Mars landing? Estimates for such a feat have been optimistically $100 billion, but so many issues have not been resolved. Most of all, even with the extremely optimistic estimates of Fillmore on travel time, radiation doses would be so extreme for astronauts that the only known way to accomplish the task if keeping astronauts from being exposed to lethal radiation would be an even more horrendous fate: a one-way trip. While Chief Astronaut Robert Behnken has stated it is not being sought, it may be considered as a last ditch method. Next, my opponent has cited craft such as Curiosity. I have addressed this impact in my arguments. Those craft use RTGs (already defined in my first round) which are not reactors for nuclear propulsion as fit the resolution I, the affirmative, am seeking to prove, but passive energy collectors which do not remotely fit as nuclear reactors. Effectively, it is the same principle as geothermal power of passively gaining energy from heat. As these RTGs do not fit the resolution, and that the first impact statement has been called severely into question, the remainder of the second impact is null and void. Finally, the opponent's third impact statement about asteroids has no scientific founding as of yet. The mechanics necessary to successfully use the tug the article describes have not been tested at all. Neither the method of cohesion between asteroid and craft, nor the feasibility of the program in any firm have been tested, and the craft would only questionably fall under the resolution. The craft is propelled by an ion drive, not a reactor. A small reactor is used to provide energy for the ion engines, but it is not comparable to the devices this plan seeks to prohibit. Though estimates are wanting, a small reactor such as seems to be called for in the article might not be classified as a WMD, meaning it does not violate the OST of 1967. As to the fourth impact statement, I compare it to the 2012 Aurora shooting. In that case, there was little the authorities could have done to prevent the shooting, but does that mean they should stop trying in the future? We cannot condone the possibility of crimes against humanity by saying that said crime is difficult to police. Thus, all of the impacts of the opponent's case have been called into question. Next, clarifying my points: I reiterate that the plan solves for Nuclear-Propelled craft, which require a large enough reactor to operate as to be a potential WMD Additionally, the opponent is turning to the argument of nuclear power. While the case of the asteroid tug is still in debate over whether it qualifies (due to the fact that the craft is completely hypothetical with no testing done), craft like Curiosity do not count under the resolution as the "nuclear power" is not a reactor, it is simply a mechanism to capture the energy of escaping neutrons to collect heat. Next, attacking my opponents new arguments: As the case of the asteroid prevention has no scientific grounding besides unproven hypotheses concerning the tug, it cannot be shown that this is definite evidence of outweighing harms, as the Neg's arguments cannot even prove an effect concerning the asteroids, meaning the status quo in that theater is identical on both sides, and thus Neg still has the harm of a giant asteroid as well as potential WMDs in space, meaning a greater harm is on Neg, as Aff has only the asteroids with the solving of this plan. I do not have to prove that spacecraft have been used as potential WMDs, I do not even have to prove that they can be used as potential WMDs; all that doing that objective would do is solidify my arguments further. Thus, only one of my opponent's arguments has any weight when considered under the plan Aff is arguing, and that one cannot be decided because the tug in question has not even been designed enough to discover whether it fits the plan. It has no scientific founding besides a hypothesis. Onto my arguments: First, I will address that a nuclear-propelled spacecraft equates to a WMD. Citing 18 USC S.2332a, a WMD can be defined as a weapon able to deal dangerous radiation. Any reactor capable of launching a spacecraft into orbit will have a powerful enough reactor to count under this definition, though the tug might not (as the plans call for a chemical booster rocket to launch into orbit. The reactor is far too small to count as a WMD, and is not covered under the plan). On my contest that nuclear propulsion is not needed, my opponent cites the asteroid attack, and I have shone doubt upon this argument earlier. My opponent has appeared to concede to my arguments on the inherent dangers of nuclear propulsion, as his only contest was the argument on the dangers of asteroids, which he has failed to link how his tug definitively account for that. My opponent has attempted to shirk my argument that nuclear-propelled spacecraft pose a WMD threat by saying that none has occurred. However, he has failed to address the core argument, that it is possible. Just because a country is not currently able to implement that class of weapon does not preclude its use in the future as hostile powers such as North Korea seek avenues to gain influence and leverage. He has also failed to address that by the fact that the spacecraft in question could be classified as a WMD easily, that it would be infringing upon the OST of 1967, a severe offense. On my final argument, concerning resources, my opponent has skirted the point by attempting to argue semantics via trying to count RTGs under the plan, which I have addressed. The other arguments are conceded. In summary, the opponents arguments have no footing as all were brought into more than reasonable doubt, and the Judges should vote Affirmative as my core plan, to prohibit nuclear-propelled vessels in space, still holds on all of my points. As a final note, there are no hard feelings from Aff about the forfeit. Aff approves of simply handling the forfeiture as an ignored round.