The United States should establish a base on the moon.

The ResolutionFor this debate, a "base" is a habitation designed to be manned continuously for a period of at least two decades. The debate question is whether the US building a base is a worthwhile expenditure, or whether the money should be spent on something else or there is some other reason for not building it.To set the context of the debate, the moon base is proposed to include a power generator for a habitable environment and to support mining and manufacturing operations. The purposes of the base may include support of deep space exploration, the construction of large space structure for use in earth orbit for experiments in power generation and climate engineering, and for basic scientific research concerning the moon and the outer planets. I take no position in this debate on whether this constitutes a permanent colony or not. It might be abandoned after it's missions have been accomplished, or more likely be replaced if and when new missions are defined. The moon base effort should begin immediately at the level of study and planning, and proceed to building the base over a period of about 15 or 20 years. Use of the base to accomplish it's missions would continue beyond that.Whether its a US-only effort or a joint effort of many nations is not an issue for the debate. If partners participant, that's good, but the project is not contingent on international participation. The Chinese would be invited to provide a restaurant, for sure.BackgroundPresident George W, Bush proposed a moon base is 2004. [P1 http://articles.latimes.com...] A Wikipedia article outlines the Bush proposal. [P2 http://en.wikipedia.org...] The Bush proposal as primary aimed as a stepping stone for a Mars mission.Debate RulesBoth sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules ignored by readers judging the debate:DR. 1. The first round of the debate is for acceptance and for clarification of terms and conditions only. I will provide the specific Pro contentions in R2. DR 2. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. the debate has a lot of technology involved, so detailed explanations of what is intended For various large space structures and experiments can be linked rather than explained in detail in the debate. No arguments in comments.DR 3. Sources must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No sources in comments.DR 4. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 5. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments.DR 6. The debaters urge that the arguments be judged based upon the preponderance of evidence. If based upon the arguments and evidence presented the building a base seems worthwhile, then arguments go to Pro. If the building the base does not seem worthwhile, then arguments go to Con. DR 7. This debate is similar to a national academic debate topic, but it stands on its own.DR 8. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modiy rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.