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

1) Kessler Syndrome + CostsHowever what my opponent is missing is the fact that I brought up last round where Kessler himself that the Kessler syndrome is over exaggerated and is highly unlikely. Thus meaning that your point is invalid through the fact that he has reccanted his own theory. However my opponent brings up more grey area with his arguement but I'll cite somemore evidense here. The aff isn’t going to solve – only enforceable international treaties can actually solve security. Black and Butt 10 (Samuel and Yousaf, research associate at the Henry L. Stimson Center and staff scientist in the High-Energy Astrophysics Division at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics that is currently on leave at the National Academy of Sciences, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, The growing threat of space debris, March 2010, Vol. 66 Issue 2, p1-8, SP) Luckily, recognition of the space debris issue is now widespread, and many countries have expressed a willingness to take steps to address it. China’s 2000 White Paper on Space Activities, for example, stated, “[Beijing will] continuously make efforts to explore, together with other countries, ways and means to mitigate and reduce space debris, and promote international cooperation on this issue.”24 India’s delegation promised in 2007 its “full support and cooperation” with COPUOS’s efforts to prevent space debris.25 The U.S., French, and Pakistani delegations all made similar statements in support of efforts to mitigate space debris at COPUOS meetings in 2007.26 In addition, a number of diplomatic initiatives have been proposed to address the long-term debris consequences of destructive ASAT weapons. China and Russia have submitted a draft treaty at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament that would seek to prevent the placement, or use, of weapons in outer space.27 The U.S. government and many independent experts, however, feel that the draft treaty has serious flaws—e.g., the absence of prohibitions on the research, development, and deployment of ground-based ASATs (such as the one tested by China) and the absence of any verification measures.28 Another initiative is a European Union–sponsored voluntary code of conduct that addresses issues such as space-traffic management, debris mitigation, and destructive ASAT testing. By agreeing to certain rules, states would clarify responsible and irresponsible actions, facilitating responses to the latter, which would include debris-creating events.29 But China, Russia, and others have expressed a desire for a legally binding agreement, a condition that the European Union code does not satisfy. A third initiative is a narrowly focused proposal that would ban destructive testing against space objects. Such a treaty would directly address a pernicious source of space debris without approaching many of the contentious issues entailed in the more comprehensive approach taken by China and Russia. The idea was broached at a 2008 workshop organized by the Henry L. Stimson Center (where one of the authors of this article is employed), but no country has formally endorsed it.30 No international consensus exists on which of these approaches would enhance space security the most. China and Russia remain publicly committed to a comprehensive, legally binding treaty. The European Union is conducting rounds of consultations with other spacefaring nations on its code of conduct. And discussions on the narrow treaty proposal have so far been largely academic. It is unfortunate that at present, an international agreement addressing the largest potential source of debris, destructive ASAT tests, does not appear to be forthcoming. Without it, international security and the use of space are under threat. 2) Orion and Catchers Mitt I guess I'll defend against these, but most of the technology here that my opponent brings up isn't fessible like the roberts and the water wall or illegal which I have brought up before. Lassers are illegal to use in space. Thus meaning that what my opponent is planning on having the US preform is illegal. The reason that the private sector is doing better is because they are better than the Public sector where they aren't weighed down by the corrupt government.http://online.wsj.com...;, http://www.msnbc.msn.com...My opponent also over looks the fact that a lot of space junk belongs to the former USSR so that means we have to go and ask all the nations that use to make up the USSR inorder to remove their space junk.So in conclusion you'll be voting Con for the following reasons.-It's illegal on various level-If such plan is implament we'll lose money which we can't afford.- Kessler admitted himself that the Kessler Syndrome is over exaggerated- Space Junk is not a problem-Most of the legal clean up plans aren't fessible-Russia, China, and the EU won't like such a program.