Resolved: The International Community should ban nuclear powered spacecraft.

The Negative in this debate has attempted to make this debate an issue of semantics, however the Affirmative has explicitly and repeatedly stated that the issue is not over passive generators. I repeat my earlier definition of the RTGs, the radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which generate power by absorbing the energy of the neutrons that escape from the core of the fuel and so do not even have a reactor component. The issue is over the spacecraft that pose a tangible threat to the people of the United States through the use of a nuclear reactor as a fuel source for propulsion. The only real debate of definition occurs when the lines are blurred with craft such as the proposed tow to prevent an asteroid impact; in that case, a small nuclear reactor is used to provide power for an ion engine and so a decision must be made whether the engine is large enough to constitute a potential threat. However, that particular project is not even in the planning stage at this point in time, so there is no information available as to an engine size and, by proxy, potential threat of abuse. However, a larger nuclear reactor in a spacecraft could only be distinct from a ballistic missile by the control measures within the reactor. As in this article, http://www.thebulletin.org..., it is possible for the same facilities that make fuel for nuclear power plants to create fuel for nuclear devices, and the only difference between and power-generating reactor and a nuclear bomb lie in the control mechanisms. By substituting the highly-enriched uranium, the only measure needed to make a nuclear-propelled spacecraft into a WMD is to retract the control mechanisms in the reactor soon enough to allow for detonation, a simple task. Thus, a WMD can be made quite easily from a nuclear-propelled spacecraft. Next, I will refute the summary points of my opponent, and will conclude by summing my own. I would like to point out the issue of Burden of Proof. In theory, as my opponent instigated this debate, it stands to reason that he should hold said burden, but I will not hold him to that particular standard. However, assuming the burden, as I am forced to do, entails that said person can frame the confines of the debate, and extraneous issues hold their own BoPs for admission. For instance, Neg's issue of an asteroid tug must be accompanied by evidence to prove that a propulsion system powered by a nuclear reactor, that said project is feasible, and that the engine would fit within the confines of the plan which I have outlined. The opponent has done none of these things except by stating one article which was purely theoretical and about which no further steps have been taken. If evidence like this is allowed into the debate, then I may cite numerous articles by scientists who would propose numerous systems, but like the authors of the article which the Neg describes, have no experimental grounding. There is no proof of the issue at hand being resolved by the evidence, as not even lab-testing has been tried, as corroborated by the article at hand. On the opponent's article by Charles Choi: firstly, the link does not lead to an actual article as cited in the last argument, but the impact does not stand because the opponent has not refuted the danger posed by the exposure to radiation in flight, which would pose lethal risks to any prospective astronauts (I would cite the scientific article "Measurements of Energetic Particle Radiation in Transit to Mars on the Mars Science Laboratory", in which 17 qualified scientists evaluated data from the Curiosity travel concerning radiation exposure and its potential lethality to astronauts). Cary Zeitlin of the Southwest Research Institute stated that, in reference to a Mars flight, "In terms of accumulated dose, it's like getting a whole-body CT scan once every five or six days." (http://www.theguardian.com...). Without being able to account for these discrepancies, the economic impact of job growth in response to a Martian landing cannot occur. Thus, that point does not stand. As to the contention that I must prove that a conventional rocket can take us to Mars, I do not have to at all. By introducing an extraneous case, my opponent assumes the BoP for that contention, and fails. I cite Curiosity, however, as to whether it is possible for conventional rockets to take humans to Mars. Finally, my arguments on the expense of said flight to Mars reflect to the infeasibility of said project in the current world economy, however if Con wishes to express that view (that nation specifics should be ignored), then his nonexistent Choi article has yet another reason for failing to be evidence. I have already defeated my opponent's arguments on Curiosity (see numerous earlier statements of the exclusion of the passive RTGs by my plan) and as he has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the asteroid tug is viable (one article biased in its own favor and not verified by scientific testing is hardly reliable evidence), thus not reaching the BoP for that contention. On the next contention, concerning enforcement of the international law, my opponent has stated that countries deserve more rights than people do. I am not sure how to respond to this, as it is a very strange ethics-based appeal which is not shared in many civilized countries. I would argue that as government is an extension of the will of the people (or at least is supposed to be), it deserves the same right as a human being. If I understand my opponent's contention, we should also allow countries such as Iran and North Korea to develop WMDs of all kinds and use them to exert their will, as acting as an international body to prevent the use of said weapons would violate their sovereignty. I do not agree with this statement, and my analogy holds: though a law be difficult to uphold, it should still be enforced. Finally, my opponent argues that I have not proved how the possibility of a nuclear-propelled spacecraft has been made as a WMD. I have corrected this at the beginning of this argument. The danger of a WMD should not have to be stated, but I will cite a scholarly article (http://academic.mu.edu...) which includes estimates of the damage from two of the earliest atomic bombs, including 126,000 deaths as a result of the Hiroshima bomb within two weeks, and not accounting for deaths by radiation exposure in the long term. We have refined the nuclear device since then (such as the experimental Starfish Prime, which was one hundred times more powerful than the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs, http://www.npr.org...) and a blast, even a high-altitude blast, could have serious ramifications for Earth. The first thermonuclear device, the "Sausage", was able to destroy an entire island and make a crater 6,240 feet across(http://nuclearweaponarchive.org...), and modern devices are even more powerful. Further, with the state of intercontinental ballistic missiles, it is difficult enough to apprehend a nuclear strike, which becomes next to impossible within four minutes of launch (http://www.aps.org...). This is why the Outer-Space Treaty of 1967 was signed, to prevent possible WMDs from entering the atmosphere and endangering the world in ways that cannot be protected against, but nuclear-propelled spacecraft void that measure. I have already defined a WMD for this debate, and the OST states that, "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner." (http://www.unoosa.org...). As a nuclear-propelled device, as defined by the Affirmative's plan, can act as a weapon of mass destruction in both the definition of potential destruction and in lethal radiation exposure, it then falls under the treaty. Thus, this resolution is not a new international law, it is amending a vacancy left by an internationally ratified treaty. It is akin to an amendment to the US Constitution: as not all conditions could be seen by the framers of the treaty, it is being corrected by the Affirmative's plan. This is the only BoP that Pro must hold, because if a device breaks this treaty, it is an international and malicious crime, and the Affirmative has proved through legal definitions that such a spacecraft as described by the plan is defined as a WMD, and thus not tolerated under the treaty. In very brief summary, my opponent's arguments do not stand, as no credible sources exist for the debate at hand that are not biased or have been tested. Additionally, my opponent's analytical arguments hinge on the reliability of said evidence, and are discredited. I have not only proved that nuclear-propelled devices as defined by the Affirmative's plan violate the OST of 1967 (the only necessary BoP), but also have shown through evidence the ability for a regular reactor to be outfitted as a WMD without noticeable changes and the reason why such a device is next to impossible to resist under the status quo, as well as the disastrous results possible with a nuclear device. Thus, Affirmative has won the debate because the Negative's arguments were discredited, Aff provided reliable sources that are confirmable by outside agencies, and the Affirmative has fulfilled the Burden of Proof for what was necessary. G&S is a matter of personal opinion, and conduct has been highly respectful for both sides. I urge an Aff vote and thank my opponent for this stirring debate. Apologies extended for any typos, this was created at 3 AM.