Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine the moon for He3.

Contention 1: International Law and Hegemony My opponent states that it is in the way of progression and that the other nations have no way of enforcing it, but both of these statements are indeed false. First is that the punishment for violating law. Many nations will likely renounce the US actions and will be forced to make some sort of counter collective action against the United States. (http://www.globalization101.org...) Russia, a nation who has it's name on the Treaty as well, controlls the US rocket system ever since the US government defunded the rocket program from NASA and the Russian Federation could respond by cutting off the American access to their space launching which would immidiately halt any/all US advancement into space and the US would have wasted billions upon billions of dollars into a program that doesn't lead to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. (http://www.nytimes.com...) Russia has threatend to cut the US off over the Ukrainian Crisis so something that would do this and violate a peaceful treaty would definiately cause the Russians to end the argreement between the Americans and the Russians over the launch program. My opponent drops my hegemonic argument so I extend that across the board. Here is the graph that I had provided last round, but apparently did not post. Contention 2: He-3 on the moon Not worth it and economic alternatives exist. My opponent tries to discount my first source, but apparently his credidentials of being a Physist at Oxford University is not good enough, but here are a list of his awards and honners he recieved in his works. He became a Fellow of the Institute of Physics in 1991. The Institute of Physics awarded him its 1996 Kelvin Medal and Prize, which is given "for outstanding contributions to the public understanding of physics".[2] From 1993–9, he was Vice-President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He was appointed an OBE in 2000. Since 2003, he has been Chairman of the British team (BPhO) in the International Physics Olympiad, based at the University of Leicester.[3][citation needed] 2013 Awarded the Royal Society Michael Faraday Prize] (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The thing about radiation is that what my opponent is doing causes the same thing as it is provided by Frank Close, which was dropped by my opponent. My opponent states that Li-6 is not ready for use, but he is incorrect as we has been using it to power Hydrogen bombs which makes the atomic bomb look like a firecracker. ( http://en.wikipedia.org...) My opponent drops my afgument on how we are getting 5 billion bottles of He-3 from natural gasses due to the withdrawling it to increase combustion. Contention 3: Price Tag My opponent brings up Space-X breaking the cost barrier, but what he fails to tell you is that it's a Private Company and due to the resolution it must be a federal organization which would be NASA. (http://www.spacex.com...) According to NASA it costs 10k to put a pound into LEO alone, not an LEO mission like my opponent had stated. (http://www.nasa.gov...) So with that I extend across the rest of my argument here.