Russia Adv – 1ac

Colonization Possible

Mars colonialism is possible, most likely, and allows access to vast resources

Collins 08; (David Collins, Lecturer, The City Law School, City University, London, UK. B.A.Hon., J.D.(Toronto), M.Sc., B.C.L. (Oxford) The author would like to thank Frank Collins for research assistance.; ARTICLE: EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ON THE PLANET MARS; Summer 2008; Lexis)
Serious interest in Mars will continue to intensify for two important reasons. First, Mars is far more capable of sustaining human life than any other planetary body in the Solar System. Roughly half the size of Earth, and with about the same amount of dry land, Mars' gravity and temperature are within the range of human tolerance. It is already known that Mars possesses vast resources of frozen carbon dioxide from which the important fuels of oxygen, deuterium and helium-3 can be derived. Liquid water, which could be used both for its oxygen and for irrigation in agriculture, is now thought to exist not far beneath the planet's surface. n10. The presence of water also raises the potential that isolated ecosystems may exist on Mars. Such ecosystems could provide genetic material that could be used to treat illnesses. n11 Mars' atmosphere, temperature and air pressure could be made to sustain human life through a complex process called terraforming, rendering the planet a potential refuge for humans should Earth become uninhabitable. n12 Mars has a 24-hour day. Mars is the only such celestial body in the solar system to have a 24 hour day other than Earth, which could allow greenhouses to be used to create gases necessary for human life. n13 Many useful ores also may exist on Mars that could be used to facilitate habitation. n14 Secondly, land claims on Mars will [*204] become more significant precisely because of its isolation from Earth. While Mars is close by astronomical standards(it is as little as 56 million kilometers away), with our current technology a mission to Mars would last at minimum two years and regular "return trips" to Earth are consequently unrealistic. It is therefore much more probable that Mars will eventually host a permanent, autonomous colony than, for example, the Moon. This much greater time frame for travel necessitates a commitment to reliable, independent systems and infrastructure. n15 Claims staked on land, such as mining, agricultural and settlement rights could last for whole life spans of colonists or beyond.

a2 Diseases

No disease problem on Mars - small preliminary colonies and life detection tech solves.

Davies et al 10 - Beyond Center, Arizona State University

Paul, Dirk Schulze-Makuch, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Washington State University, “To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars”; http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html

While the pragmatic advantages of this approach are clear, we anticipate that some ethical considerations may be raised against it. Some in the space agencies or public might feel that the astronauts are being abandoned on Mars, or sacrificed for the sake of the project. However, the situation these first Martian settlers are in, who would of course be volunteers, would really be little different from the first white settlers of the North American continent, who left Europe with little expectation of return. Explorers such as Columbus, Frobisher, Scott and Amundsen, while not embarking on their voyages with the intention of staying at their destination, nevertheless took huge personal risks to explore new lands, in the knowledge that there was a significant likelihood that they would perish in the attempt. A volunteer signing up for a one-way mission to Mars would do so in the full understanding that he or she would not return to Earth. Nevertheless, informal surveys conducted after lectures and conference presentations on our proposal, have repeatedly shown that many people are willing to volunteer for a one-way mission, both for reasons of scientific curiosity and in a spirit of adventure and human destiny. Others may raise objections based on planetary protection considerations, depending on whether indigenous life exists on Mars or not. However, any Martian biota is almost certainly restricted to microbes that would be adapted to the natural environment of that planet, and would therefore almost certainly not pose a safety concern for the colonists due to their presumably different biochemical make-up (e.g., Houtkooper and Schulze-Makuch 2007). Nevertheless, caution has to be urged since we do not know the biochemistry of the putative Martian biota at this time. Thus, it might be prudent to launch a life detection mission or even a sample return mission prior to a one-way human mission to Mars. On the other hand, if Martian organisms really do pose a hazard to human health, it may be preferable to limit the exposure to the crew of a one-way mission rather than place at risk the entire human population from a botched sample return mission (Rummel et al. 2002).

a2 International Law

The treaties carry little weight in international law and are contradictory

Collins 08; (David Collins, Lecturer, The City Law School, City University, London, UK. B.A.Hon., J.D.(Toronto), M.Sc., B.C.L. (Oxford) The author would like to thank Frank Collins for research assistance.; ARTICLE: EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ON THE PLANET MARS; Summer 2008; Lexis)
Together the space treaties embody the now widely-criticized notion ⁿ²⁷ that  [*206]  every human, as represented by the states in which they are members, has an effective "right" to Mars. Under this regime the allocation of Martian resources, possibly including land itself, will be determined by the "administrative model" in which each nation decides the distribution based on each country having an equal vote, much like the current United Nations regime. ⁿ²⁸ Not surprisingly, the United States and the Soviet Union rejected the limitations on the use of space resources, refusing to sign the Moon Treaty. Indeed none of the signatories of the Moon Treaty has space travel capability, suggesting that it does not reflect any practical concerns in space exploration and development. Rather, the Moon Treaty illustrates resistance to the idea of private advancement through the acquisition or use of space resources as expressed through the voting dominance of less-developed nations in intergovernmental organizations. ⁿ²⁹ Still, as many legal commentators have noted, the benefit sharing doctrines enunciated in the treaties are fortuitously vague and as such have little force in international law. At best they are loose policy guidelines, not concrete obligations. ⁿ³⁰ Interestingly, the treaties also present inconsistent principles: the Moon Treaty's common ownership concept contradicts the prohibition against national appropriation found in the Outer Space Treaty, ⁿ³¹although this is little more than a semantic distinction. The ambiguity of these treaties and the fact that the Moon Treaty has not been ratified by space-faring nations suggests that property law in space remains, hopefully for the purpose of incentivization, clouded. Many commentators, notably Carl W. Christol, further assert the need to clarify and formalize the law of space exploration generally. ⁿ³² An internationally recognized legal regime for property rights on Mars is essential; otherwise uncertainty (if not the fear of expropriation in the name of mankind) will endanger financial investment both in reaching and then colonizing the planet.