1nc

(Josh, “Running Against Obama, Republicans Positioned for Midterm Sweep”, http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/running-against-obama-republicans-positioned-formidterm-sweep-20141020, ldg)
That's not all that different from what's happening in politics, where armchair pundits and number-crunching congressional-race modelers frequently overhype the latest polls, while downplaying the broader environment. They're directly related.
The leading fundamentals of an election— presidential approval, right track/wrong track, and the congressional generic ballot, among them—are like "park effects" in baseball.
If a hitter is playing in the thin air of Denver's Coors Field, it's much easier to hit a home run. Likewise, in a political landscape where the president is deeply unpopular, it's much easier for the messages of the other party's challengers to resonate, even if they're running weaker campaigns.
In July, I wrote that the odds of a nationalized election were growing because of that worsening environment for Democrats
. Back then, there were clear signs that the red-state races were tilting in the GOP's direction, while Republicans were running surprisingly strong campaigns in swing states.
Those trends have only solidified since then. The national environment can change over time—few could have predicted a panic over Ebola in the summer, for example—but it was hard to see the issues dragging down the president and his party subsiding by the fall. Now, it's becoming likely that
Republicans will win more than the six seats necessary to retake control of the Senate. Throughout this election cycle, the Democrats have been dogged by the president's health care law
. Dissatisfaction over
Obamacare, compounded by its disastrous rollout, sent the president's approval ratings tumbling. They haven't recovered. The law's popularity hasn't improved since then, even with the administration delaying unpopular provisions until after the midterm elections. When Democratic senators spent time strategizing on how to inoculate themselves from their past support of the law instead of defending it, it was clear that this would long remain a vulnerability for the party. Indeed, despite conventional wisdom that health care has diminished as a top issue in the midterms, it's still (by far) the dominant theme in Republican congressional campaign ads, according to The Cook Political Report's Elizabeth Wilner. Not only does it mobilize angry Republican voters, but it persuades disaffected independents as well. In the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, support for the health care law isn't far from its all-time low, with 36 percent supporting and
48 percent opposing (a whopping 43 percent opposing strongly). After the health care website debacle in December 2013, 34 percent supported and 50 percent opposed. Its potency as an issue isn't too far off from 2010, an election where Republicans made historic gains in the House. Before the 2010 midterms, 36 percent of voters listed health care as one of their top two issues. Now, it's at 30 percent, ranking below economic growth, partisan gridlock, and military action against
ISIS—but still a potent campaign theme.
Over the summer, worsening foreign policy was also an issue that looked bound to get worse for Democrats, not better.
Presidential speeches and promises can only do so much in combating the reality of terrorists gaining ground in the Middle East and Russian President
Vladimir Putin making a land grab in eastern Ukraine
. As George W. Bush learned in his presidency, when events turn bad overseas, it's rare that they improve quickly. President Obama is now talking about defeating ISIS in terms of decades, not months or years. The limited airstrikes in Iraq and
Syria have only had a limited effect, with the terrorist group creeping closer to Baghdad despite the U.S efforts. As a result, the president's approval ratings on foreign policy and national security—a first-term strength—have dropped to at or near all-time lows, and haven't recovered much with his prime-time address.
All told, the cascading number of controversies and scandals in the president's second term has fed into the perception that this administration is out of its depth in doing its primary job: managing government. And that's not good for Democrats, both the party in power and the party associated with an activist federal governm ent. The dominant theme in the campaign's final month is Democratic Senate candidates struggling to distance themselves from the president, from Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor's awkward assessment of the president's handling of the Ebola crisis to Kentucky Senate candidate
Alison Lundergan Grimes's refusal to discuss whom she voted for in the 2012 election.
Republicans now are positioned to net between six and nine Senate seats in the upcoming midterms, with the higher end looking more likely
.
Most of the battleground Senate contests are now either trending in a Republican direction or remaining stable with a GOP advantag e. Trailing in the North Carolina Senate race throughout much of the fall, Republican Thom
Tillis has
lately put
Sen. Kay
Hagan on the defensive by connecting her to the president's management of the ISIS threat and the outbreak of Ebola.
In Colorado, GOP Rep. Cory
Gardner has led in all of the six public polls released in
October
, with leads ranging from 2 to 6 points. Early voting data out of Iowa is looking favorable for Republican Joni Ernst, consistent with public polls showing her with a small advantage.
The Cook Political Report recently moved the New Hampshire race between Sen.

Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Scott Brown into toss-up status, indicative of polling showing
Shaheen still ahead but with a rapidly narrowing lead
. Outside of Kansas, political analyst Stuart Rothenberg now has Republicans holding an edge in all the red-state races, reflecting a nationalized environment against the party in power. Democrats are hoping to upend the rough environment in conservative states like Kansas, Georgia, and South Dakota.
All those GOP-held seats feature Republican candidates who have run weak races.
Thanks to effective ads targeting David Perdue's history of outsourcing (and his ham-handed responses to the attacks), Democrat Michelle Nunn holds the momentum in the Georgia Senate race, though it's still likely to head into a January runoff. A late Democratic investment in South Dakota is keeping the four-way race competitive, but GOP reinforcements should push former Republican Gov. Mike Rounds over the finish line. Even Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who has run a dismal campaign, has gotten some late traction against independent candidate Greg Orman, thanks to a flurry of outside GOP involvement. In a neutral environment, Democrats would hold a good shot at an upset or two.
But in a nationalized midterm, Republicans should catch breaks in states where the fundamentals favor them.
(Sam, “Getting High: Public Opinion on Marijuana
Legalization in 4 Charts,” http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/getting-high-public-opinion-onmarijuana-legalization-in-4-charts.html/?a=viewall, accessed 8-29-14, CMM)
Anyone who has been paying an ounce of attention to the news over the past couple of years is well aware that the nation’s attitudes towards drugs — and marijuana
in particular — are going through a radical shift. Data has shown that the War on Drugs has turned out to be a monumental failure
, wasting billions, if not trillions of dollars and leading to the incarceration of untold amounts of people.
As the Internet has allowed more people to access information easily, it’s
also become common knowledge that marijuana is not the incredibly dangerous narcotic it was made out to be for many generations, and instead could be a real driver of economic prosperity
— if we allow it to be.
During the
2012 election cycle
, both
Colorado and Washington became the first states to pass legislation legalizing marijuana for recreational use within their borders
. The news was met with great fervor, and everyone across the country has sat back and watched with much anticipation to see what the fallout would be. The DEA announced they would let the states’ experiment proceed forward without interference, and so far, things have gone off without a hitch
. Tax revenue is pouring in, access to cannabis has become safer and convenient, and other states are getting to work drafting their own legislation to follow in
Colorado and Washington’s footsteps. The positive effects of the legalization process have really been undeniable in both Colorado and Washington. Fewer people are getting in trouble with the law, police officers have one less thing to worry about, and it’s opening up an entire new industry for entrepreneurs and investors to wade into.
Still, there are some holdouts who still believe cannabis should be outlawed and criminalized.
For the most part, the divide in attitudes has been along generational and political lines, but those rifts are starting to close up, which is one of the major reasons the legalization efforts have been able to pick up steam. Looking at data collected by
the
Pew
Research Center, we can take a closer look at exactly how these shifts are happening
, and when they started to occur. Read on to see four charts explaining the generational and political shifts in marijuana legalization attitudes that are driving the U.S. towards new drug policies, and as a result, economic prosperity in the brand new cannabis industry.
The biggest shift in attitudes towards cannabis legalization has been across the entire demographic spectrum. The chart above shows how people of all races, genders, and age groups feel about legalizing marijuana, and as anyone can plainly point out, there has been a huge change
. Starting at around
1990, legalization popularity bottomed out with just 16 percent of those polled supporting it. That number doubled in just ten years to 31 percent in the year 2000.
Since 2000, support grew wildly, and eventually reached the 52 percent threshold during 2012. Currently, numbers are the highest they’ve ever been
. At the beginning of 2014,
CNN polls show 55 percent support
. As more and more data becomes available from Colorado and
Washington’s opening industries, it’s hard to think that these numbers would see any regression
.
A closer look into the political demographics show that the left is a very strong supporter of the legalization effort, while

conservatives still have a ways to go.
Eighty-one percent of the solid liberal base has given legalization advocates their support
, compared to just 28 percent of conservatives of the same degree.
In fact, the above chart shows that only the far right on the political spectrum still maintain fledgling support, while all those on the left and in the center have jumped on board. This may actually seem counter-intuitive, as conservatives generally vie for less regulation and open markets. The fact that their attitude does not bleed into the cannabis debate tells of some other factors at play. Of course, everyone was skeptical of legalization at first, but now that most people are behind it, the right will most likely see their attitudes evolve. Even Colorado Republicans have changed their minds, and if the rest of the party doesn’t change, it could end up hurting them come election time.
Much in-line with the previous chart, here we get a glimpse of the two main political parties themselves, not just political beliefs of those polled
.
It’s painfully obvious that there is a huge gap between Democrats and
Republicans, to the tune of 22 percent
. Once again, those numbers may seem counterintuitive, as the Republican party’s platform usually is all-for free markets and less government interference, while the Democrats typically champion more government regulation. One interesting thing to watch as 2014 and 2016 elections come up is whether or not these numbers see a radical shift.
If the majority of people are supporting the legalization effort, a 37 percent rating from the Republican side could really put a damper on conservative’s hopes of gaining more power in Congress, and by passing legislation.
Republicans didn’t support legalization measures in either Colorado or Washington,
and if their views don’t morph to fit the mainstream a little more
, it could cost them.
In our final chart, we see just where exactly the biggest rift currently sits when it comes to attitudes regarding marijuana legalization. The rise of the millennial population has been the most significant driving force behind the legalization effort, with 65 percent of those born after 1981 supporting the notion
.
That number has exploded over the past ten years or so
, nearly doubling from a mere 34 percent in the mid-2000s. All other generations have seen increases as well, but none so much as the millennials.
Another giant leap in progress has been made in the baby boomer demographic, in which now half support legalization. As the boomer population makes up a large percentage of the overall population, their increasing support lends a heavy hand in the overall evolving attitudes of the country. Generation X has
also reached a point to where more than half of the generation is on board as well, and as the silent generation ages and passes on, many who are against legalization will go with them
. It’s obvious that things are changing, and generational and political lines are still the biggest factors in deciding attitudes towards marijuana legalization for many. Expect that to change in coming years, as cannabis becomes an even bigger issue than it ever has before, especially when monstrous profit and tax revenue is involved.
Zachary, The Midterm Elections and the Asia Pivot, 4/22/2014, Managing Editor of The Diplomat where I author the Pacific Realist blog and a monthly columnist at The National Interest. I’m also a researcher at the Middle East Desk at the online global consulting firm Wikistrat, and an M.A. candidate in the
Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/the-midterm-elections-and-the-asia-pivot/
There is a growing sense in the United States that when voters go to the polls this November, the Republican Party will
win enough Senate seats to control both houses of Congress
. This would potentially introduce more gridlock into an already dysfunctional American political system. But it needn’t be all doom and gloom for U.S. foreign policy, including in the Asia-Pacific. In fact, the
Republicans wrestling control of the Senate
from the Democrats this November could be a boon for the U.S. Asia pivot. This is true for at least three reasons. First, with little prospect of getting any of his domestic agenda through Congress
, President Barack
Obama will naturally focus his attention on foreign affairs.
Presidents in general have a tendency to focus more attention on foreign policy during their second term, and this effect is magnified if the other party controls the legislature
. And for good reason: U.S. presidents

have far more latitude to take unilateral action in the realm of foreign affairs than in domestic policy. Additionally, the 2016 presidential election will consume much of the country’s media’s attention on domestic matters. It’s only when acting on the world stage that the president will still be able to stand taller in the media’s eyes than the candidates running to for legislative office.
Second, should the
Democrats get pummeled in the midterm elections this year,
President
Obama is likely to make some personnel changes in the White House and cabinet
. For instance, after the Republican Party incurred losses in the 2006 midterms, then-President George W. Bush quickly moved to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the less partisan (at least in that era) Robert Gates. Obama followed suit by making key personnel changes after the Democrats “shellacking” in the 2010 midterm elections.
Should the Democrats face a similar fate in the 2014 midterm elections, Obama is also likely to make notable personnel changes.
Other aides, particular former Clinton aides, are likely to leave the administration early in order to start vying for spots on Hillary Clinton’s presumed presidential campaign. Many of these changes are likely to be with domestic advisors
given that domestic issues are certain to decide this year’s elections. Even so, many nominally domestic positions
—such as Treasury and Commerce Secretary— have important implications for U.S. policy in Asia.
Moreover, some of the post-election changes are likely be foreign policy and defense positions, which bodes well for Asia given the appalling lack of Asia expertise among Obama’s current senior advisors
. But the most important way a Republican victory in November will help the Asia Pivot is that the
GOP in Congress are actually more favorable to the pivot than are members of Obama’s own party
. For example,
Congressional opposition to granting President Trade Promotional Authority — which is key to getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership ratified — is largely from Democratic legislators. Similarly, it is the Democrats who are largely in favor of the defense budget cuts that threaten to undermine America’s military posture in Asia
. If Republicans do prevail in November, President Obama will naturally want to find ways to bridge the very wide partisan gap between them.
Asia offers the perfect issue area to begin reaching across the aisle. The Republicans would have every incentive to reciprocate the President’s outreach
. After all, by giving them control of the entire Legislative Branch,
American voters will be expecting some results from the GOP
before they would be ostensibly be ready to elect them to the White House in 2016. A
Republican failure to achieve anything between 2014 and 2016 would risk putting the GOP in the same dilemma they faced in the 1996 and 2012 presidential elections. Working with the president to pass the
TPP and strengthen America’s military’s posture in Asia would be ideal ways for the GOP to deliver results without violating their principles
. Thus, while the president will work tirelessly between now and November to help the
Democrats retain the Senate, he should also prepare for failure by having a major outreach initiative to Congressional Republicans ready on day one. This initiative should be Asia-centric.
2/10/
(Fred, “editorial page editor of The Post. He writes editorials for the newspaper and a biweekly column that appears on
Mondays. He also contributes to the PostPartisan blog. Hiatt has been with The Post since 1981. Earlier, he worked as a reporter for the Atlanta
Journal and the Washington Star. At The Post, he covered government, politics, development and other issues in Fairfax County and statewide in Virginia, and later military and national security affairs on the newspaper’s national staff. From 1987 to 1990, he and his wife were co-bureau chiefs of The Post’s Tokyo bureau, and from 1991 to 1995 they served as correspondents and co-bureau chiefs in Moscow. He joined the editorial board in 1996 and became editorial page editor in 2000. He is the author of “The Secret Sun: A Novel of Japan,” which was published in 1992, as well as two books for children, “If I Were Queen of the World” (1997) and “Baby Talk ” (1999). “Asian tensions add urgency to
Obama’s ‘pivot’” http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-10/opinions/37026174_1_kim-jong-eun-diaoyu-islands-young-leader)
As President
Obama
ponders his second-term foreign policy, he faces jihadists
spreading across North Africa, Syria dissolving into chaos, Israelis and Palestinians further apart than ever, Iraq trending toward civil war,
Afghanistan mired in corruption and Iran relentlessly accelerating its nuclear program. That may turn out to be the easy stuff
. In Asia, things could get really scary. Since he entered the White House,
Obama
has wanted to shift attention and resources to the Pacific
. The biggest opportunities are there: economic growth, innovation, potential for cross-border investment and trade.
That the 21st century will be a Pacific century has become a cliche. The cliche may still

prove out
. But rather suddenly, the region of economic miracles has become a zone of frightening confrontation
. The
North Koreans are turning out videos depicting New York in flames. Chinese warships have fixed their weapon-targeting radar on a Japanese ship
and helicopter.
Quarrels
have intensified between
South Korea and Japan, North Korea and South Korea, China and the Philippines, India and China.
Taiwan is always a possible flashpoint. Any one of these could drag the U nited S tates in.
The scariest development may be in North Korea
, the world’s only hereditary prison camp, where the young leader — the third-generation
Kim — seems determined to expand and improve his nuclear arsenal until he becomes a genuine threat not only to South Korea and Japan but to the U nited
S tates as well
.
Chinese officials are
said to be alarmed by his intransigence but unwilling to try to rein him in, fearing even more
the instability
that might result. Obama in his first term adopted a reasonable policy of ignoring North Korea as much as possible, while making clear that he would reciprocate if it became more accommodating. Kim Jong Eun, who is thought to be in his late 20s, could find ways to make that stance untenable. Meanwhile,
China’s increasing assertiveness discomfits neighbors throughout Southeast and East Asia
.
China
has claimed pretty much the whole South China Sea
, though its coastline is farther from much of it than that of Vietnam, Malaysia or the Philippines
.
It
has sent planes and ships to challenge Japan over a few rocky outcroppings that Japan calls the Senkakus
and China the Diaoyu Islands.
It has been steadily increasing the size and capability of its military forces
; for the first time in many years, a neighbor, Japan, is following suit
. If all this seems decidedly last century, maybe it’s because new leaders in every key country are second- or third-generation, bearing the burdens of their past. Japanese Prime
Minister Shinzo Abe is the grandson of a leader of imperial Japan—including in occupied China — who remade himself as a pro-American prime minister after World War II. South Korea’s president-elect, Park Geun-hye, is the daughter of a longtime president; her mother was killed by a devotee of North Korea. (The bullet was intended for her father, who was later assassinated by his intelligence chief.) Xi Jinping, China’s new president, is the son of a revolutionary colleague of Mao Tsetung who helped battle the Japanese during World War II. North Korea’s Kim Jong
Eun is the grandson of Kim Il-sung, who according to North Korean mythology fought the Japanese in the 1930s and 1940s and the Americans and South Koreans in the 1950s.
It’s intriguing to speculate on the ghostly whisperings
these leaders
may hear. It may be more useful
, though, to focus on the national weaknesses that may propel them to act. North
Korea is a failed and hungry state for which blackmail and bluster have long been the only survival strategy
.
China is a rising power
and a growing economy — but led by a one-party regime that may be tempted to use nationalism to distract a restive population from domestic troubles.
Japan has discarded one prime minister after another
, pretty much on an annual basis
, for most of the past decade, an instability that
leaves it punching below its economic and military weight. All of this makes the region hungry for
U.S. presence and leadership
, which Obama understood with his first-term promise of a “pivot” to Asia
.
Regional leaders hope he can make good on that promise in a second term but wonder whether U.S. policy, too, will be shaped by political weakness. They notice when the Navy announces that it is, again, reducing its planned number of ships or Defense Secretary Leon Panetta orders an aircraft carrier kept in port because of budgetary constraints. They wonder who will inherit the Asia focus of former secretary of state
Hillary Rodham Clinton and departing assistant secretary Kurt Campbell.
They see the dangers
, from Mali to Kandahar, that pull
Obama’s attention. They hope it won’t take a more dangerous crisis in their region to make the pivot a reality.

Charles Faupel, Department of Sociology Auburn University 2003 Drug Policy:
Prohibition, Decriminalization, Legalization Lecture 10 http://www.auburn.edu/~faupece/CR501/Powerpoint/lecture10.ppt
.
Legalization A general policy orientation that involves the lifting of all criminal and civil proscriptions
and sanctions
-3/19/
Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2014-25
Cooperative Federalism and Marijuana Regulation http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2411707&download=yes–
Importantly, modifying the CSA to allow cooperative agreements between the states and the federal
government would allow the federal government to guide state policy without commandeering the state legislatures, while giving states freedom to develop the best approach for regulating marijuana.
Furthermore, variations among the state laws and regulations would allow for experimentation short
of full legalization. While some states would maintain their current marijuana prohibitions , others
would likely test out different regulatory schemes permitting more or less marijuana activity. The relative successes and failures of the various marijuana legalization models would help inform other states – and possibly, eventually the federal government – about the best practices for legalizing marijuana for adults while maintaining public safety. Moreover, this model mitigates the impact of marijuana legalization on states choosing to maintain the status quo.

7/26/
– David, editorial page editor at the New York Times, “Let States Decide on
Marijuana” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-let-states-decide-onmarijuana.html
In 1970, at the height of his white-hot war on crime, President Richard
Nixon demanded
that
Congress pass the C ontrolled
S ubstances
A ct to crack down on drug abuse
. During the debate, Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut held up a package wrapped in light-green paper that he said contained $3,000 worth of marijuana. This substance, he said, caused such “dreadful hallucinations” in an Army sergeant in Vietnam that he called down a mortar strike on his own troops. A few minutes later, the Senate unanimously passed the bill.
That law, so antique
that it uses the spelling “marihuana,” is still on the books
, and is the principal reason
that possessing the substance
in Senator Dodd’s package is considered illegal
by the United States government.
Changing it wouldn’t even require an act of Congress — the attorney general or the secretary of Health and Human Services could each do so — although the law should be changed to make sure
that future administrations could not reimpose the ban.
Repealing it would allow the states to decide whether to permit marijuana use and under what conditions
.
Nearly three-fourths
of them have already begun to do so
, liberalizing their laws
in defiance of the federal ban.
Two
have legalized recreational use outright
, and if the federal government
also recognized the growing public sentiment to legalize
and regulate marijuana, that would almost certainly prompt more states to follow along.
The increasing absurdity of the federal government’s position is evident in the text of the Nixon-era law.
“
Marihuana” is listed in Schedule I of the C ontrolled
S ubstances
A ct alongside
some of the most dangerous and mindaltering drugs on earth, ranked as high as heroin, LSD and
bufotenine, a highly toxic and hallucinogenic toad venom
that can cause cardiac arrest.
By contrast, cocaine and meth amphetamine are a notch down on the government’s rankings
, listed in Schedule II.
That illogical distinction shows why many states have begun to disregard the federal government’s archaic rules
. Schedule II drugs, while carrying a high potential for abuse, have a legitimate medical use. (Even meth is

sold in prescription form for weight loss.) But according to the language of the law, marijuana and the other Schedule I drugs have “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” States Take the Lead
No medical use? That would come as news to the millions
of people who
have found
that marijuana helped them through
the pain
of AIDS, or the nausea and vomiting of chemotherapy, or the seizures of epilepsy. As of this month,
35 states and
the
D istrict of
C olumbia permit some form of marijuana consumption for medical purposes
. New York is one of the latest states to defy the tired edict of the
Controlled Substances Act.
It’s hard for the public to take seriously a law that says marijuana and heroin have exactly the same
“high potential for abuse
,” since that ignores the vastly more addictive power of narcotics
, which have destroyed the lives of millions of people around the world. (There are no documented deaths from a marijuana overdose.)
The
44-year refusal of Congress and eight administrations to alter marijuana’s place on Schedule I has made the law a laughingstock
, one
that states are openly flouting.
In addition to the medical exceptions,
18 states and
the
D istrict of
C olumbia have decriminalized marijuana
, generally meaning that possession of small amounts is treated like a traffic ticket or ignored.
Two states
, Colorado and Washington, have gone even further and legalized it
for recreational purposes; two others, Alaska and Oregon, will decide whether to do the same later this year. The states are taking the lead because they’re weary of locking up thousands
of their own citizens for possessing a substance that has less potential for abuse and destructive behavior than alcohol. A decision about what kinds of substances to permit, and under what conditions
, belongs in the purview of the states,
as alcohol is handled.
Consuming marijuana is
not a fundamental right that should be imposed on the states by the federal government, in the manner of abortion rights, health insurance, or the freedom to marry a partner of either sex. It’s a choice
that states should be allowed to make based on their culture and their values
, and it’s not surprising that the early adopters would be socially liberal states like Colorado and
Washington, while others hang back to gauge the results. Pre-empted by Washington
Many states are unwilling to legalize marijuana as long as possessing or growing it remains a federal crime.
Colorado, for instance, allows its largest stores to cultivate up to 10,200 cannabis plants at a time. But the federal penalty
for growing more than 1,000 plants is a minimum of
10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10 million. That has created a state of confusion in which law-abiding growers in Colorado can face federal penalties.
Last August, the Justice Department issued a memo saying it would not interfere with the legalization plans of Colorado and Washington as long as they met several conditions
: keeping marijuana out of the hands of minors or criminal gangs; prohibiting its transport out of the state; and enforcing prohibitions against drugged driving, violence and other illegal drugs. The government has also said banks can do business with marijuana sellers, easing a huge problem for a growing industry. But the Justice Department guidance is loose; aggressive federal prosecutors can ignore it
“if state enforcement efforts are not sufficiently robust,” the memo says.
That’s a shaky foundation on which to build confidence in a state’s legalization plan.
More important, it applies only to this moment in this presidential administration
. President
Obama’s Justice Department could change its policy at any time
, and so of course could the next administration. How to End the Federal Ban
Allowing states to make their own decisions on marijuana
— just as they did with alcohol after
the end of
Prohibition
in 1933 — requires unambiguous federal action.
The most comprehensive plan to do so is a bill introduced last year by Representative Jared Polis, Democrat of Colorado, known as the Ending
Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act.
It would
eliminate marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, require a federal permit for growing and distributing it, and have it regulated (just as alcohol is now) by the Food and Drug Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives. An alternative bill, which would not be as effective, was introduced by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, as the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act. It would not remove marijuana from Schedule I but would eliminate enforcement of the C ontrolled
S ubstances
A ct against anyone acting in compliance with a state marijuana law
. Continue reading the main story Congress is clearly not ready to pass either bill, but there are signs that sentiments are changing.
A promising alliance is growing on the subject between liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans
. In a surprise move in May, the House voted 219 to 189 to prohibit the D rug
E nforcement
A dministration from prosecuting people who use medical marijuana, if a state has made it legal.
It was the first time the House had

voted to liberalize a marijuana law; similar measures had repeatedly failed in previous years. The measure’s fate is uncertain in the Senate.
While waiting for Congress to evolve
, President
Obama
, once a regular recreational marijuana smoker, could practice some evolution of his own
. He could order the attorney general to conduct the study necessary to support removal of marijuana from Schedule I. Earlier this year, h e told The New Yorker that he considered marijuana less dangerous than alcohol
in its impact on individuals, and
made it clear that he was troubled by the disproportionate number of arrests of African-Americans and Latinos on charges of possession. For that reason
, he said, he supported the Colorado and Washington experiments. “It’s important for it to go forward,”
he said, referring to
the state legalization s, “ because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”
But a few weeks later, he told CNN that the decision on whether to change Schedule I should be left to Congress, another way of saying he doesn’t plan to do anything to end the federal ban. For too long, politicians have seen the high cost
— in dollars and lives locked behind bars
— of their pointless war on marijuana and chosen to do nothing
.
But many states have had enough, and it’s time for Washington to get out of their way.

—Nathaniel, J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School, 2014, “ARTICLE: INITIATIVE 502 AND
CONFLICTING STATE AND FEDERAL LAW,” 49 Gonz. L. Rev. 187, lexis
In dealing with the conflicting state and federal law, enforcement decisions will affect the U nited
S tate s
' role as an actor in international law and the direction of international cooperation in combatting illegal drug trade
.
First, if the U nited
S tates breaches its treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, it would undermine the international rule of law . A strong international rule of law is desirable "to establish and maintain order and enhance reliable expectations" in international affairs.
142 As there are no enforcement mechanisms for international legal obligations equivalent to that which exists with domestic law, the weight of obligations relies to some extent on comity among the states involved
. 143
As long as states agree to limit their sovereignty and comply with international law, states will be more likely to respect one another's reasonable expectations and fulfill their obligations.
144
Both conventions have provisions that read, "If there should arise between two or more Parties a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention, the Parties shall consult together with a view to the settlement of the dispute by ... peaceful means of their own choice," and should this fail, they agree to jurisdiction before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 145 [*208] Despite this possibility of justiciability of breach, it is highly unlikely that any state party would bring a case before the ICJ over domestic non-enforcement of the treaty

obligations, as diplomatic channels are more predictable and possible noncompliance with ICJ judgments weakens the international rule of law.
146
If the United States fails to enforce the CSA and allows the Washington legalization system to succeed , it may signal to other states that the U nited
S tates is willing to allow its domestic law overcome its international law obligations and may not be reliable in international transnational enforcement efforts in the future
.
It also signals to other states that they may allow their domestic law to inhibit effective enforcement of international treaty obligations, which may undermine the United
States' goals in the future.
Aside from rule of law concerns, breach of treaty obligations may undermine the international cooperation required to combat international drug trafficking
.
The United States has historically been a strong proponent of drug prohibition and prioritization of enforcement efforts against trafficking, so legalization and non-enforcement of a Schedule I drug within our borders would send a conflicting message
. 147 The former Administrator of the DEA, John C
. Lawn, commented, "A violation of these treaties by the
United States would destroy our credibility with drug source and drug transit countries that are now working with the United States in the global war on drugs." 148 Some parties have already softened their domestic enforcement policies and similar action by the United States would make this course more acceptable. 149 If other governments follow suit and legalize drugs in some capacity, this may decrease the focus on enforcement against drugs generally, which may negatively impact coordinated efforts against illicit drug trafficking. Thus, if the United States allows legalization of marijuana in its borders, it should be ready to support the change in policy that this represents and address it at the international level. The United States would need to restate the importance of cooperation against international drug trafficking, even though some amount of domestic social experimentation may be permissible.
– Allison, University of Minnesota Law School, J.D. candidate 2015; Temple University, B.A.
2008, “Note: Lighten Up: Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,” 23 Minn. J. Int'l L. 213,
Lexis
3. Amending the Single Convention is the Best Option
In light of the newly passed legislation within the United States concerning recreational marijuana and proposed legislation in the international community, the best means of aligning the Single Convention
with evolving norms is to amend the treaty . 153 Amendments allow for formal changes to be made
to a treaty while maintaining the treaty's existence. 154 This allows for adjustment as "parties'
understanding of the issue" 155 change or circumstances surrounding the issue change without requiring the drafting of a new treaty or termination of an existing one. By amending the Single
Convention to allow for the recreational use of marijuana, the U nited S tates and other countries considering such legislation would be able to continue the legislative process without any international obligations impeding the progression towards marijuana legalization .
Article 47 within the Single Convention provides instructions for amending the treaty, stating that
"any party may propose an amendment to this Convention." 156 In order to make such a proposal, the amendment itself and the reasons behind the amendment must be transferred to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations in writing who will then disseminate the proposed amendment to the
other parties of the treaty and the Commission. At this point, the Commission has the power to decide

if a conference should be held to discuss the proposal or if the parties should simply be asked if they are willing to accept. 157 If there is no objection within 18 months, the amendment becomes fully
adopted; if there is an objection, the Commission may then choose to hold a conference to review the
proposal. 158
With 153 current parties to the Single Convention, arriving at a consensus may prove difficult. This does not preclude the option to amend as "amendments require agreement between treaty parties, but not
necessarily between all parties." Once an [*237] amendment has been proposed and adopted, parties
are free to decide if they will become a party to the amendment. 159 Those who opt not to join the amendment remain bound by the treaty's original obligations. 160 By proposing an amendment that would permit the use of marijuana for recreational purposes, those countries who wish to pursue
such legislation would be permitted to do so and those countries who remain in opposition would be
able to remain parties to the original treaty preventing the use of recreational marijuana. 161
Benjamin, is the International Relations Stonex PhD Scholar at LSE IDEAS, “The laws of war and cyberspace on the need for a treaty concerning cyber conflict,” Strategic Update 14.2 http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/SU14_2_Cyberwarfare.pdf
The UN
Disarmament & International Security Committee appears to be the most appropriate forum for talks to commence on a cyber war treaty
.
The incentive structure for states to engage in such a process is easily framed in the game theory terms that are familiar to students of bargaining and cooperation under anarchy.46 The simplest explanatory analogy is the Prisoner's
Dilemma: it is in the interest of all states if cyberspace becomes a more ordered military domain, by anchoring expectations and introducing a degree of certainty for governments. It is in the private interest of each state to defect from this regime and secure the benefits of unrestrained cyber warfare on its own.
To avoid all states from following their private interest and defecting, it is necessary to monitor compliance, ideally through an institution charged with this task (which generates what Axelrod and Keohane call the
'shadow of the future'). Curiously,
although international law has no formal enforcement mechanism , states' adherence to it, as has been noted
, is widespread and consistent . The reasons are likely to be a mixture of enlightened self-interest in an ordered international community, legitimacy
(both of international law and of the compliant state in the eyes of
its population as well as the international community
) and the norms of socialisation that have built up over the past century as international law grew in depth and breadth.47
The main hurdle
facing this scheme is
that states fear giving up a military advantage
a fear that is nullified if all states sign
up to the treaty - and the worry that regulating a decentralised, non-hierarchical network like cyberspace is antithetical to its fundamental purpose. Specifically, concerns have been voiced that regulating cyberspace will generate momentum for those states that seek to exert censorship and state control over the Internet.4*The idea that information is free, with the Internet as the medium to decentralise the global flow of knowledge and empower citizens across the globe, is indeed appealing to those who believe in freedom of speech as a fundamental force for good in the world. At the same time, it is easy to romanticise this point. Whether or not citizens enjoy a 'free web' still depends first and foremost on the domestic legal situation in which they find themselves. A state intent on censoring the Internet can do so easily, with or without a treaty on cyber war. What advocates for an open Internet seem to miss is that a key ingredient of the web is trust between the disparate nodes and actors in the network. A gradual militarisation of cyberspace will hamper cyberspace's effectiveness as a tool for commercial and social exchange. Moreover, the arms race dynamic that can develop absent a treaty
on cyber war is

a boon to cybercriminals , who, if left unchecked , will make e-commerce
an increasingly slow, costly and cumbersome
affair.
That is in nobody's interest.
Bruce, is the Chief Technology Officer of Co3 Systems, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center, and a board member of EFF, “Cyberwar Treaties,” https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/06/cyberwar_treati.html
We're in the early years of a cyberwar arms race
. It's expensive,
it's destabilizing
, and it threatens the very fabric of the Internet
we use every day.
Cyberwar treaties
, as imperfect as they might be, are the only way to contain the threat.
If you read the press and listen to government leaders, we're already in the middle of a cyberwar. By any normal definition of the word "war," this is ridiculous. But the definition of cyberwar has been expanded to include government-sponsored espionage
, potential terrorist attacks
in cyberspace, large-scale criminal fraud
, and even hacker kids attacking government networks and critical infrastructure. This
definition is being pushed
both by the military and by
government contractors
, who are gaining power and making money on cyberwar fear.
The danger is that military problems beg for military solutions.
We're starting to see a power grab in cyberspace by the world's militaries: large-scale monitoring of networks, military control of Internet standards, even military takeover of cyberspace.
Last year's debate over an "Internet kill switch" is an example of this; it's the sort of measure that might be deployed in wartime but makes no sense in peacetime. At the same time, countries are engaging in offensive actions in cyberspace, with tools like Stuxnet and Flame.
Arms races stem from
ignorance and fear
: ignorance of the other side's capabilities
, and fear that their capabilities are greater
than yours. Once cyberweapons exist, there will be an impetus to use them. Both Stuxnet and Flame damaged networks other than their intended targets. Any military-inserted back doors in Internet systems make us more vulnerable to criminals and hackers. And it is only a matter of time before something
big happens
, perhaps by the rash actions of a lowlevel military officer
, perhaps by a non-state actor
, perhaps by accident
. And if the target nation retaliates, we could find ourselves in a real cyberwar.
The cyberwar arms race is destabilizing.
International cooperation and treaties are the only way to reverse this.
Banning cyberweapons entirely is a good goal, but almost certainly unachievable. More likely are treaties that stipulate a no-first-use policy
, outlaw unaimed or broadly targeted weapons
, and mandate weapons that self-destruct at the end of hostilities.
Treaties that restrict tactics and limit stockpiles could be a next step. We could prohibit cyberattacks against civilian infrastructure
; international banking, for example, could be declared off-limits.
Yes, enforcement will be difficult.
Remember how easy it was to hide a chemical weapons facility? Hiding a cyberweapons facility will be even easier. But we've learned a lot from our Cold War experience in negotiating nuclear, chemical, and biological treaties.
The very act of negotiating limits the arms race and paves the way to peace
. And even if they're breached, the world is safer because the treaties exist.

(Jason, “Hacking Nuclear Command and Control”, July, http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf, ldg)
This paper will analyse the threat of cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use open source knowledge to identify the structure of nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be compromised through computer network operations, and how doing so would fit within established cyber terrorists’ capabilities, strategies, and tactics. If access to command and control centres is obtained, terrorists could fake or actually cause one nuclear-armed state to attack another , thus provoking a nuclear response from another nuclear power
. This may be an easier alternative for terrorist groups than building or acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves. This would also act as a force equaliser, and provide terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high speed, removal of geographical distance, and a relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing computer tracking technologies which could trace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in establishing an internationally agreed upon legal framework to guide responses to computer network operations, point towards an inherent weakness in using computer networks to manage nuclear weaponry. This is particularly relevant to reducing the hair trigger posture of existing nuclear arsenals
.
All computers which are connected to the internet are susceptible to infiltration and remote control.
Computers which operate on a closed network may also be compromised by various hacker methods, such as privilege escalation, roaming notebooks, wireless access points, embedded exploits in software and hardware, and maintenance entry point s
. For example, e-mail spoofing targeted at individuals who have access to a closed network, could lead to the installation of a virus on an open network . This virus could then be carelessly transported on removable data storage between the open and closed network. Information found on the internet may also reveal how to access these closed networks directly.
Efforts by militaries to place increasing reliance on computer networks, including experimental tech nology such as autonomous systems, and their desire to have multiple launch options , such as nuclear triad capability, enables multiple entry points for terrorists
. For example, if a terrestrial command centre is impenetrable, perhaps isolating one nuclear armed submarine would prove an easier task.
There is evidence to suggest multiple attempts have been made by hackers to compromise the extremely low radio frequency once used by the US Navy to send nuclear launch approval to submerged submarines. Additionally, the alleged Soviet system known as Perimetr was designed to automatically launch nuclear weapons if it was unable to establish communications with Soviet leadership. This was intended as a retaliatory response in the event that nuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet leadership; however it did not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists blocking communications through computer network operations in an attempt to engage the system. Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further enhanced through additional computer network operations. By using proxies, multi-layered attacks could be engineered
.
Terrorists could remotely commandeer computers in China and use them to launch a US nuclear attack against Russia. Thus Russia would believe it was under attack from the US and the US would believe China was responsible. Further, emergency response communications could be disrupted, transportation could be shut down, and disinformation, such as misdirection, could be planted, thereby hindering the disaster relief effort and maximizing destruction.
Disruptions in communication and the use of disinformation could also be used to provoke uninformed responses .
For example, a nuclear strike between India and Pakistan could be coordinated with
Distributed Denial of Service attacks against key networks, so they would have further difficulty in identifying what happened and be forced to respond quickly.
Terrorists could also knock out communications between these states so they cannot discuss the situation. Alternatively, amidst the confusion of a traditional large-scale terrorist attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of war could be falsified in an attempt to instigate a hasty military response.
These false claims could be posted directly on Presidential, military, and government websites. E-mails could also be sent to the media and foreign governments using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials . A sophisticated and all encompassing combination of traditional terrorism and cyber terrorism could be enough to launch nuclear weapons on its own, without the need for compromising c ommand and c ontrol centres directly .

/14 – “Biden: US would help Iraq pursue federal system” http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-us-would-help-iraq-pursue-federalsystem/2014/08/22/499e75c0-2a59-11e4-8b10-7db129976abb_story.html
WASHINGTON — Vice President Joe
Biden says the U.S. is prepared to help Iraq pursue a federal system that would decentralize power away from Baghdad.
In an opinion piece in The Washington Post,
Biden says Iraq is making progress in forming a new government. But
he says sectarian divisions are fueling extremist movements like the Islamic State.
Biden says federalism is emerging as one approach to Iraq’s future. He’s alluding to a plan he proposed in 2006 that would see Iraq divided into three semi-independent regions
for Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
Biden says such a plan would keep Iraq united, protect local populations and ensure oil revenues are shared fairly, while squeezing the Islamic State group.
He says the U.S. would offer training and other assistance to help that model of government succeed.
7/13/
– Zalmay, Counselor at CSIS, served as US Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the
United Nations, “Get Ready for Kurdish Independence” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/opinion/iraqs-urgent-need-for-unity.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON — In the coming weeks,
Iraq’s leaders must make existential decisions
.
If they cannot form a unity government
led by a new prime minister and motivate Sunni moderates
and tribes to fight
the
I slamic
S tate of
I raq and
S yria,
Iraq is likely to disintegrate
.
If the central government fails to grant satisfactory concessions to
Sunnis and Kurds, the Kurds will push for
sovereignty and independence
. The Kurds are serious, and the international community must adapt to this emerging reality. While all Iraqi leaders bear responsibility for resolving the current crisis, the greatest share lies with the country’s Shiite politicians, who dominate the central government.
Shiite parties must select a candidate
for prime minister who can share power, decentralize the government and depoliticize the security forces. As a prerequisite for working with the central government, Kurdistan seeks the right to export its
own oil
; integrate
Kirkuk and other recently acquired areas; settle
past budget issues and keep its
own autonomous finances; and maintain control of the region’s Peshmerga security forces
, including acquiring weapons to defend itself against ISIS. The
Kurds aren’t confident
that
Baghdad will accept these demands
and have initiated parallel preparations for independence. Massoud Barzani, the Kurdish president, has asked the region’s parliament to establish an electoral commission and set a date to conduct a referendum.
Kurdistan’s arguments for sovereignty are reasonable.
It is different than Arab
Iraq: it is more stable, more prosperous and more tolerant. Baghdad is unable to protect its people, and won’t be able to do so for the foreseeable future. Close to one million Iraqis, including many Christians, have taken refuge there.
In the wake of ISIS advances,
Kurdistan
now shares a 600-mile border with a terrorist entity that proclaims itself the new Islamic
Caliphate
. In order to defend itself, the Kurds must
be able to acquire their own arms and maintain security relations with other nations
.
Baghdad
has suspended budget payments to Kurdistan. To pay its bills,
Kurdistan must therefore sell its oil.
For years,
Iraq’s Shiite-led government
has failed to treat Sunnis or

Kurds as equal partners
.
Many Sunnis
now so profoundly oppose the government that they have aligned themselves with a terrorist organization that even Al Qaeda considers extremist
. The
Sunnis demand federalization and autonomy for their provinces
, an end to de-Ba’athification, and the delegation of local security to local forces. For their part, the Kurds were incorporated into Iraq against their will, and endured much of the 20th century under repressive, often murderous, rule. In recent weeks, Kurdish leaders have launched a major diplomatic initiative, both regionally and internationally, to promote their dual-track approach to independence. As Washington adapts to the new reality on the ground, it would do well to adopt a similar two-pronged strategy: continue to help Iraq’s leaders forge a unity government, but prepare for the failure of those efforts. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, whose parliamentary bloc emerged victorious in the April 30 election, has no intention of giving up power.
The major obstacle to the formation of a unity government is
the vehement opposition of Sunni
Arabs, Kurds, and some Shiite parties to prolonging Mr. Maliki’s rule
. Iraq’s senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has also signaled his preference for change. As the American ambassador to Iraq, I worked directly with Mr. Maliki, and I know that he will stubbornly resist attempts to replace him. If he ultimately agrees to step down, he will likely demand a guarantee that his successor be chosen from among a small, trusted circle; he may also insist on a position elsewhere in the government.
Absent the formation of a unity government, Iraq’s civil war will continue unabated .
Sectarian conflict, and chaos in the Sunnis areas, will grow
— and so will ISIS
.
Shiites will become more reliant on sectarian militias, and
on
Iran
.
This trajectory threatens America’s security
.
The U nited
S tates must continue to work for a unity government in Iraq, and extend limited assistance in the fight against ISIS. But it should
also step up relations with Kurdistan by deploying a team to assess Kurdistan’s needs and coordinate security strategies to protect the region against ISIS
. To help Kurdistan pay it bills, Washington should soften its opposition to direct
Kurdish oil sales while increasing humanitarian assistance for refugees and displaced persons there.
The coming weeks will be decisive
.
The best-case scenario would be the establishment of a decentralized Iraq with a federal system in the Arab-majority areas, operating in confederation with Kurdistan.
The alternative is civil war between Shiites and Sunnis, and the emergence of an independent Kurdistan.
Although Washington shouldn’t abandon its efforts to help Iraq form a unity government yet, it must think seriously about realistic alternatives if Iraq falls apart.
Whatever happens, strengthening ties with Kurdistan now will serve American interests down the road.
(David, New York Times, “Middle East sectarian strife biggest threat,” http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Middle-East-sectarian-strife-biggestthreat-4787199.php)
What's the biggest threat to world peace right
now? Despite the horror, it's not chemical weapons in Syria. It's not even, for the moment, an Iranian nuclear weapon. Instead, it's the possibility of a wave of sectarian strife building across the Middle
East.
T he Syrian civil conflict is both a proxy war and a combustion point for spreading waves of violence.
This didn't start out as a religious war. But both Sunni and Shiite power players are seizing on religious symbols and sowing sectarian passions that are rippling across the region.
The Saudi and Iranian powers hover in the background fueling each side.
As the death toll in Syria rises to Rwanda-like proportions, images of mass killings draw holy warriors from countries near and far. The radical groups are the most effective fighters and control the tempo of events. The Syrian opposition groups are themselves split violently along sectarian lines so that the country seems to face a choice between anarchy and atrocity. Meanwhile, the strife appears to be spreading.
Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq is spiking upward.
Reports in The New York Times and elsewhere have said that many
Iraqis fear their country is sliding back to the worst of the chaos experienced in the past decade.
Even Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain and Kuwait could be

infected.
“
It could become a regional religious war similar to that witnessed in Iraq 2006-2008, but far wider and without the moderating influence of American forces,” wrote
Gary Grappo
, a retired senior
Foreign Service offic er with long experience in the region. “It has become clear over the last year that the upheavals in the Islamic and Arab world have become a clash within a civilization rather than a clash between civilizations,” Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote recently. “The Sunni versus Alawite civil war in Syria is increasingly interacting with the Sunni versus Shiite tensions in the Gulf that are edging Iraq back towards civil war. They also interact with the Sunni-Shiite, Maronite and other confessional struggles in Lebanon.” Some experts
even say
that we are seeing the emergence of a single big conflict that could be part of a generation-long devolution
, which could end up toppling regimes and redrawing the national borders that were established after World War I.
The forces ripping people into polarized groups seem stronger than the forces bringing them together.
James A
Senior Lecturer, National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School,
(Spring)
“Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East” IFRI,
Proliferation Papers, #26, http://www.ifri.org/downloads/PP26_Russell_2009.pdf
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists ; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes
the bargaining
framework strategically unstable;
(4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack ; (5) the prospect that Iran’s response to pre-emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United
States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework participants .
These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors , it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons . It would be a mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework.
Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact s uggest a certain increase in the probability of war – a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcom e, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world
.

3/20/
– Virginia, Senior Press Secretary at Sierra Club, “Alaskans Highlight Lessons Learned,
Continuing Risks” http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2014/03/exxon-valdez-25-years-later-0
WASHINGTON, D.C. –
Alaskan community members, along with oil spill, climate and offshore drilling experts, gathered today
in Washington, D.C. to mark the 25th anniversary of the
Exxon Valdez
oil spill disaster. On
March 24, 1989, the Exxon tanker spilled more than 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, coating 1,300 miles of shoreline
– about the length of California’s coast.
Twenty-five years later the environment and the local economy have still not recovered
, and plans for new offshore drilling in the
dangerous
Arctic
waters show
that few lessons have been learned.
“Our wild fishing way of life collapsed overnight.
Herring and wild salmon runs disappeared and
have never fully recovered
. The herring fishery was 50% of our annual income and provided food and jobs for our families. So, what have we learned in the last 25 years? I know that no matter where an oil spill happens, industry and government can't clean it up
, no matter what they say or try to make the public believe. I also learned that preservation is the key to restoration of any kind, whether it is endangered habitat, culture or Native languages,” said Eyak Native Dune Lankard, a commercial and subsistence fisherman.
The oil spill took a devastating toll on wildlife
, from shorebirds and the nearly $300 million herring fishery.
More than half of the wildlife populations
, habitats, and resource services injured in the spill have yet to be considered “recovered” by the government.
Many animal populations are considered “not recovering” today
, including herring and the AT1 pod of orca whales, which is expected to go extinct.
The disaster
illustrated the difficulty of cleaning up an oil spill in Arctic conditions, and forebodes future offshore drilling disasters where the risk of oil spills is inevitable
.
Despite this, plans continue to move forward to drill in the Arctic
Ocean.
“Shell Oil’s 2012-2013 Arctic program was a disaster, its mishaps culminating with its drilling rig running aground near Kodiak Island, Alaska. It was forced to abandon its plans to drill this summer because of its own lack of preparedness and technical failures.
Shell has only proven that no oil company is ready to drill in the
Arctic’s harsh and unpredictable climate
,” said Cindy Shogan, Executive Director, Alaska Wilderness League. “The take-home lesson from Exxon Valdez is this: if we genuinely care about a coastal or marine area, such as the Arctic Ocean or Bristol Bay, we should not expose it to the dangerous risks of oil development.
Even with
the best safeguards
possible, spills will undoubtedly occur
.
And when they do, they can’t be cleaned up; they can cause long-term, even permanent, ecological injury; human communities can be devastated; and restoration is impossible. This would be particularly true of a major spill in ice-covered waters of the Arctic Ocean,” said Rick
Steiner, a professor and international oil spill expert involved with the Exxon Valdez oil spill clean-up and restoration.
– J. Wesley, Associate Professor of Political Science at Widener University, “Federalism and the Gulf Oil Spill” http://theamericanpartnership.com/2011/04/20/federalism-and-the-gulf-oil-spill/
Disasters always
seem to highlight
some of the difficulties
inherent in
our noncentralized
form of American federalism. As we commemorate the
first anniversary of the disaster on the Deepwater Horizon
, I thought it might be important to revisit some of the federalism issues that affected the response to the
Gulf oil spill
. The major issues revolved around lack of familiarity with oil spill policy jurisdiction, differing government objectives in the aftermath of the blowout, and political positioning.
Federalism, Planning , the Unified Command and The Clean-up
One
major intergovernmental controversy involved control
over the clean up in the immediate aftermath
of the blowout.
State and local officials argued
that the lines of authority were blurred between

the
BP response team and
the
Coast Guard
. Local officials felt the system was too top heavy, resulting in sluggish response times to requests and the impression
that no one was in charge.
Both state
and local officials claimed
that the response should operate under the assumption of spend first and argue over reimbursement later
. Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco gave voice to this sentiment when she declared that states should “act and send them the bill and fight over it later”. Part of the problem was that state
and local officials were more accustomed to operating under
the federal legislation responding to natural disasters
such as hurricanes than regulations dealing with off-shore oil spills
. Gulf state officials are used to operating under the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act which covers natural disasters such as hurricanes. Under this federal legislation governors request help from the federal government but the states retain primary control over the effort with FEMA assisting them.
The Gulf Oil Spill was covered by the National
Contingency Plan
(NCP) which gives the federal government the primary responsibility
for responding to the crisis.
Under this legislation the federal On-Scene Coordinator acts as the primary partner with states
in a
Unified Command structure.
State and local governments cannot spend funds without the authorization from the On-Scene Coordinator
.
As a consequence there was
a lot of conflict between governments because of an unfamiliarity with the NCP
. Throughout the process there was very little role for local governments who felt they were being kept out of the decision making process.
Economic Development vs. Long-term
Environmental Clean-up
The second conflict resulted from the tension between the economic development priorities of
some
Gulf states and the federal government’s focus on
the long-term environmental consequences
of the disaster.
State governments
, particularly Louisiana, were interested in quick action
to protect their economies based on tourism, fishing and the oil industry (13.4% of Louisiana’s employment is oil-related). In a post-Katrina environment their attitude was do something first and worry about the consequences later. Conversely, the federal government was concerned
that quick solutions might exacerbate
the long-term environmental consequences
of the oil spill. Needless to say, the conflict over economics also extended to the federal government’s moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf which state and local governments claimed would lead to job losses for their constituencies.
There was particular conflict over Louisiana’s plan to build sand berms and rock barriers to prevent oil from reaching its shores
. On the one hand the state viewed their construction as a job creation tool
.
However, they sought to use the oil spill as a reason to begin construction of permanent berms and barriers which were part of the state’s long-term plans to address coastal restoration
. For policy wonks this was a classic example of Kingdon’s policy streams where an existing solution (berms) is attached to a focusing event (oil spill) to achieve political objectives.
The federal government was less sanguine concerning the construction of the berms which led to political struggle between the levels of government.
Federalism and Politics Finally, good old-fashioned political posturing accounted for some of the conflict between governors and the federal government. Bobby Jindal was elected governor in post-Katrina
Louisiana partly on his claim that he had the background to competently address natural disasters. His assertiveness on behalf of the state was an achievement heading into his 2011 reelection campaign. It should also be noted that all five Gulf states had Republican governors (Jindal,
Charlie Crist – Florida, Haley Barbour – Mississippi, Bob Riley – Alabama, Rick Perry – Texas) who had no incentive to make the Obama administration look good, particularly since three of them (Barbour, Crist and Jindal) were potential presidential candidates at the time. Models of Federalism
The intergovernmental problems related to the Gulf spill were in many ways the result of conflicting jurisdictional priorities
that are endemic to our federal system
.
State and local governments, responsive to their electoral constituencies, were focused on ensuring
the economic livelihoods of their citizens. Federal officials were responding to a national emergency and were focused on the longterm consequences of their actions as opposed to their immediate impact
. In the final analysis the response to the Gulf Oil Spill could be considered an example of cooperative federalism from the vantage point of the Obama Administration while state and local governments perceived it as top-heavy coercive federalism.

(Violet, “Global Environmental Change: An Inuit Reality”, 10-15, http://www.mcgill.ca/files/cine/Ford.pdf)
The Arctic ecosystem is
a fundamental
contributor to global processes and
the balance of life on earth
. Both the unique
physical and biological characteristics
of the Arctic ecosystem play key roles in maintaining
the integrity of the global environment
. Massive ice sheets
and ice cover regulate
the global temperatures
by reflecting much of the solar radiation back into space, the Arctic ocean influences global ocean currents which are responsible for a variety of weather conditions and events, to name but two. The Arctic is also the recipient of the by-products of southern-based industry and agricultural practices. In February 2003, UNEP’s Governing Council passed a resolution effectively recognizes the Arctic as a “barometer” or indicator region of the globe’s environmental health.
This is important and is further reason why Arctic indigenous peoples should work together at the international level. Late last year ICC and RAIPON participated in the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Council meeting in Beijing, China with the aim of sensitizing this organization to the Arctic dimension of global environmental issues. I understand that the GEF is now willing to consider indigenous peoples and their organizations to be distinct and separate from environmental and other NGO’s.

– U.S. Senate Minority Report, “United States Senate Committee on Environment &
Public Works – Minority Report” http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=6ceef5b2-07ef-
4f68-8938-d947f409019d
Regrettably, the current EPA regularly circumvents the States in implementation and enforcement of the
Clean Air Act
. As explained in a recent letter signed by 17 State Attorneys General and the environmental official of an 18th State, there is a “serious, ongoing problem in environmental regulation: the tendency of the EPA to seek to expand the scope of its jurisdiction at the cost of relegating the role of the States to merely implementing whatever Washington prescribes
, regardless of its wisdom, cost, or efficiency in light of local circumstances.”33
There is
a growing concern
that
EPA, instead of cooperating with the States as equal and valued partners , is coopting and coercing the States by treating them as mere regional offices of a massive federal environmental bureaucracy .
Cooperative federalism is treated as an obstacle
to be overcome, rather than a principle
which guides and informs.
This trend
, if left uncorrected, threatens to undermine the cooperative strategy that has helped to ensure the CAA’s success
and garnered it broad public support.
It also threatens to undermine job growth and America’s global economic competitiveness.
7/30/
– Amy, reports on Energy Policy for The Wall Street Journal’s Washington, D.C., bureau, “Energy Regulators Say EPA's Climate Rule Poses Grid Challenges” http://online.wsj.com/articles/energy-regulators-say-epas-climate-rule-poses-grid-challenges-
1406659902
WASHINGTON—President Barack
Obama's
proposed rule to curb carbon emissions from the nation's power plants could raise costs and affect reliability in the U.S. electricity system, federal regulators told Congress.
But the commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the government agency charged with overseeing the electric grid and other parts of the nation's energy infrastructure, also said at a House hearing that the government has a responsibility to act on climate change.
As part of Mr. Obama's climate agenda, the E nvironmental
P rotection
A gency i s proposing to cut carbon emissions from the electricity sector by 30% by 2030 based on emissions levels in 2005. States are expected to comply with the rule by using cleaner, though potentially more expensive, energy.
Utility companies are already shifting away from coal because of the natural-gas
boom and other environmental regulations.
The rule is expected to accelerate the trend
, which could put pressure on a grid that has been dominated by coal-fired plants.
"I think all transitions cost money
, so a transition to a new resource mix
because of the environment or some other reason— the long-term costs are unknown and depend on the relative cost of the fuel," said
Acting
FERC Chairman
Cheryl
LaFleur
, a Democrat first nominated by Mr. Obama in 2010. Tony
Clark
, a Republican commissioner, pointed to the extreme cold weather seen in many parts of the country last winter
—known as a polar vortex— to say FERC must ensure that the high electricity costs and close calls with rolling blackouts that have occurred in the
Northeast " aren't exported to other regions of the country."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/11132145/Afghanistan-signs-deal-tokeep-US-troops.html
Afghanistan signs deal to keep US troops
New Afghan government signs security deals that will allow US and Nato troops to remain in country next year A U.S soldier stands guard at the site of a suicide car bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan A U.S soldier stands guard at the site of a suicide car bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan Photo:
Xinhua News Agency/REX Dean Nelson By Dean Nelson, South Asia Editor and Zubair Babakarkhail in Kabul9:23PM BST 30 Sep 2014 Ashraf
Ghani,
Afghanistan's new president
, signalled a new era of cooperation with America and the West on Tuesday as he signed deals to allow Nato troops to stay in the country next year.
The agreements will allow about 12,000 troops to stay on and support Afghan forces
after the majority of Nato's combat contingent withdraws in
December. Hanif Atmar, the national security adviser, and James Cunningham, the US ambassador, signed a bilateral security agreement in a televised ceremony at the presidential palace, a day after Mr Ghani was inaugurated. Minutes later a separate Nato deal was signed. "As an independent country … we signed this agreement for stability, goodwill, and the prosperity of our people, stability of the region and the world,"
Mr Ghani said, fulfilling his campaign vow to have the deal signed on his first full day in office. Barack
Obama welcomed the agreement
, which
he said " strengthens Afghan sovereignty, stability, unity
, and prosperity, and contributes to our shared goal of defeating
al-Qaeda and its extremist
affiliates." Mr Ghani's predecessor, Hamid Karzai, had rejected the deal, citing his anger at civilian casualties. He refused to accept a deal despite a "loya jirga" grand assembly to settle the issue supporting it. Nato's followup mission, which will take over on Jan 1, will comprise 9,800 US troops, and the remainder from Germany, Italy and other member nations.
Related Articles Peaceful progress in Afghanistan 30 Sep 2014 Ashraf Ghani sworn in as Afghanistan president 29 Sep 2014 Is Afghanistan ready for a high-profile first lady? 29 Sep 2014 Relief for allies as Hamid Karzai bows out as Afghan President 29 Sep 2014
Afghanistan observers said the agreement would bring relief throughout the country
. "
It's not the American soldiers, but the money in the pockets of the army and police, that's the critical thing
.
If you're trying to fight an insurgency with soldiers and police who are not getting paid, then good luck", said
Kate
Clark of the Afghanistan Analysts Network
. It was not clear whether American air support for Afghanistan's forces would be maintained under the agreement but the Taliban had become "bolder" in the past year as Nato air operations decreased, Ms Clark added.
Michael
Semple, the former deputy European Union rep resentative in Kabul, said the agreement highlighted a new "cooperative" relationship between Afghanistan and the US
. "A majority of Afghans have worried that the previous regime's approach of antagonising the international community jeopardised the strategic relationship and help that Afghanistan depends on," he said.

Robert D., Senior Fellow and Director of the Program on Crisis, Conflict, and Cooperation at the CSIS,
‘South Asia Regional Dynamics and Strategic Concerns, http://csis.org/files/publication/140116_Lamb_SouthAsiaRegionalDynamics_WEB.pdf
Afghanistan's neighbors would suffer the consequences of a major escalation of
Af- ghanistan's internal conflict. All neighboring countries are concerned
about refugee flows. All are concerned about incursions by combatants across their borders to stage attacks, recruit fighters, or form alliances with local extremist groups. All are concerned about the safety of their nationals working in Afghanistan (diplomats, development officials, train- ers, advisers, and so on). And all are concerned about the security of any economic projects that they are sponsoring or would benefit from. Some are concerned about the safety of Afghans who share their ethnic identify. And Pakistan and India are concerned about having influence with the central government in Kabul and, in Pakistan's case, with the governors and power brokers in the provinces along its border.
In the event of conflict escalation in Afghanistan, China would be in direct contact with the Afghan government, the power brokers it has a relationship with, and with Pakistani civilian and
(especially) military leaders to strongly encourage a political settlement
. It would put its economic projects on hold temporarily. But it would not become involved militarily; instead, it would try to contain the fallout with
, for example, stronger border security. Iran would certainly take similar measures to contain spillover
from an escalated Afghan conflict, but otherwise its involvement would depend almost entirely on the state of its conflicts and rivalries in the Levant and the Gulf, much higher-priority areas than Afghanistan. If things settle down to its west and south, Iran might turn some attention eastward to Afghanistan's conflict.
This would not be in the form of direct military incur- sions but rather of funding, military equipment, and possibly safe haven
to Hazara, Tajik, and Uzbek groups, as it has in the past, with a particular priority on protecting Afghani- stan's Shi'ite minority.
Saudi Arabia, working with Pakistan, would probably offer support to groups that oppose Iranian-support groups. Qatar
might follow Saudi Arabia's lead or it might offer to mediate talks between opposing groups, as it has recently
. Beyond that, Qatar and UAE would probably stay out.
Russia would probably increase its security presence in Central Asia
, as noted above, but work diplomatically with the United States, European powers, or NATO to find ways to contain the spread of violence from Afghanistan into Central Asia
.
(Al, “Nuclear Terrorism: Are We Prepared?”, Homeland Security Affairs, http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=8.1.9, ldg)
The popular assumption is that terrorists are actively working with “rogue nations” to exploit WMD materials and technology, or bidding for materials and technology on some nebulous global black market. They might be buying access to scientists and engineers who used to work on state WMD programs. The historical record doesn’t demonstrate that.
An examination of any of the past annual reports of the National
Counterterrorism Center reveals that the basic modus operandi of terrorists and insurgents is to use conventional military weapons, easily acquired commercial (or improvised) explosives, and knives and machetes
.8 It is relatively easy to train laypersons to use military firearms
, such as the AK-47 automatic rifle and the RPG-7 rocket launcher.
These groups have technical experts who develop improvised explosive devices using available and accessible materials from the local economy. Conventional weapons have known

weapon effects and minimal challenges in handling and storing
.
Terrorists get their material and technology where they can. They don’t have the time, funds, or interests to get exotic. It’s what we see, over and over again.

(Vanda, “A Shared Responsibility: Counternarcotics and Citizens' Security in the Americas”, 3-31, http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2011/03/31-counternarcotics-felbabbrown)
Policies that focus on degrading the belligerents’
physical resources by attempting to destroy the illicit economy are frequently ineffective with respect to the objective of drying up the belligerents’ resources.
In the case of labor-intensive illicit economies where there are no legal economic alternatives in place , such policies are especially counterproductive
with respect to securing intelligence and weaning the population away from the terrorists and insurgents. Eradication of illicit crops has dubious effects on the financial profits of belligerents. Even when carried out effectively, it might not bring great, if any, financial losses to the belligerents since effective suppression of the production of the illicit commodity may actually increase the international market price for the commodity. Given continuing demand for the commodity, the final revenues may be even greater. This was, for example, the outcome of the Taliban ban on poppy cultivation in Afghanistan
in 2000: after production was suppressed by ninety percent, the value of the
Taliban opium and heroin stocks increased ten times. Moreover, the extent of the financial losses of the belligerents also depends on the ability of the belligerents, traffickers, and farmers to store drugs, replant after eradication, increase number of plants per acre, shift production to areas that are not subject to eradication, or use high-yield, high-resistance crops.
Belligerents also have the opportunity to switch to other kinds of illicit economies – synthetic drugs , illicit logging, gems, illicit trade in wildlife, or fundraising among wealthy sympathetic populations. There has not been one case when eradication bankrupted the belligerent organization to the point of defeating it.
Yet although the desired impact of eradication – to substantial curtail belligerents’ financial resources – is far from certain and is likely to take place only under the most favorable circumstances, eradication will definitely increase the political capital of the belligerents since the local population will all the more strongly support the belligerents and not provide the government with intelligence.
Policies to interdict drug shipments or anti-money laundering measures are less counterproductive in terms of antagonizing the local populations from the government, but they are extraordinarily difficult to carry out effectively. Most belligerent groups maintain highly diversified revenue portfolios. Attempts to turn off their income are highly intelligence- and resource-intensive. With the exception of some tactical successes in Colombia, such efforts have yet to weaken any significant belligerent group. Counternarcotics policies hence have to be weighed very carefully, with a clear eye as to their impact on counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. Seemingly quick fixes, such as blanket eradication in the absence of alternative livelihoods, will only strengthen the insurgency and compromise state-building and ultimately counternarcotics efforts themselves.
It is also important to note that some illicit economies and new smuggling methods to which belligerents are pushed as result of
suppression efforts against the original illicit economy can have far more dangerous repercussions for the global security and the
United States than the original illicit economy did. Such alternative sources of financing could involve
, for example, obtaining radioactive materials for resale on the black market.
Reports that the leftist Colombian guerrilla group, the FARC
(Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), acquired uranium for resale in order to offset the temporary fall in its revenues
as a result of eradication during early phases of Plan Colombia before coca cultivation there rebounded, is an example of how the unintended policy effects in this field can be even more pernicious that the problem they are attempting to address.
The FARC’s switch to semisubmersibles for transportation of drugs and their proliferation provides another worrisome example of unintended consequences of a policy, this time intensified air and maritime interdiction.
The more widespread such
transportation technologies are among non-state belligerent actors, the greater the likelihood that global terrorist groups will attempt to exploit them for attacks against U.S. assets or homeland.

“Threats to Water Resources” http://www.nps.gov/seki/naturescience/threats.htm
Air Pollution and Contaminants By far, the single biggest threat to the parks’ water is air pollution .
Air pollution adds acidic deposition, nutrients, and other contaminants to the parks’ waters.
Acidic deposition is most acute as episodic events during early snowmelt and during late-summer and fall thunderstorms. Fortunately, at current levels, the parks’ waters are not showing chronic acidification, but this could change because the waters are poorly buffered and
therefore limited in
their capacity to neutralize acids
. Because the parks’ waters are naturally low in nutrients, the addition of airborne nitrates and ammonia is likely to be causing some level of change to the natural system. The drift of pesticides and
other contaminants from upwind agricultural areas is one of our most serious concerns
. We know that measurable amounts of pesticides fall on the park, and that pesticides have been found in the tissues of
aquatic fauna
. We suspect that the extirpation of two species
in Sequoia National Park may be linked to pesticide drift
—foothill and mountain yellow-legged frogs. Alteration of Fire Regime The alteration of the natural fire regime by over a century of fire exclusion through grazing activity and fire suppression is another stressor to the parks’ waters. Fire affects the quantity of water in streams and its water chemistry. Sediment transport rates are different in burned and unburned watersheds. Fire affects nutrients, buffering capacity, water temperature, and other water characteristics. Human Use of Park Water
Park facilities generate sewage effluent
.
This water contains high concentrations of nutrients
. In addition to sewage effluent, there are
probably other unwanted chemicals entering the parks’ waters from roads and parking lots
. These have not been investigated within the parks, but they are known to be serious problems in urban areas.
Backcountry use is another source of pollutants in park waters
. In areas that routinely see large concentrations of backcountry users, human feces can be a problem
.
Although human waste is required to be buried in the parks’ backcountry, in areas of high use, water percolating through the feces-contaminated soil eventually enters the streams and lakes
.
Other ways
that backcountry visitors may be adding unwanted chemicals
to water include misuse of soap or by swimming in lakes
and streams when
their bodies are covered in sunblock and insect repellent
.
Because the water contains so few natural dissolved constituents, the contribution of exotic chemicals on human bodies may be significant.

Chief Scientist and Vice President, The Nature Conservancy (Peter, Michelle
Marvier --professor and department chair of Environment Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara
University, Robert Lalasz -- director of science communications for The Nature Conservancy, Winter,
“Conservation in the Anthropocene,” http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-
2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene/)
2.
As conservation became a global enterprise in the 1970s and 1980s, the movement's justification for saving nature shifted from spiritual and aesthetic values to focus on biodiversity
.
Nature was described as primeval, fragile, and at risk of collapse from too much human use and abuse
. And indeed, there are consequences when humans convert landscapes for mining, logging, intensive agriculture, and urban development and when key species or ecosystems are lost.
¶ But ecologists and conservationists have grossly overstated the fragility of nature, frequently arguing that once an ecosystem is altered, it is gone forever.
Some ecologists suggest that if a single species is lost, a whole ecosystem will be in danger of collapse, and that if too much biodiversity is lost, spaceship Earth will start to come apart. Everything, from the expansion of agriculture to rainforest destruction to changing waterways, has been painted as a threat to the delicate inner-workings of our planetary ecosystem.
¶
The fragility trope dates back
, at least, to
Rachel
Carson
, who wrote plaintively in Silent Spring of the delicate web of life and warned that perturbing the intricate balance of nature could have disastrous consequences
.22 Al Gore made a similar argument in his
1992 book, Earth in the Balance.23 And the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment warned darkly that, while the expansion of agriculture and other forms of development have been overwhelmingly positive for the world's poor, ecosystem degradation was simultaneously putting systems in jeopardy of collapse.24¶ The trouble for conservation is that the data simply do not support the idea of a fragile nature at risk of collapse
. Ecologists now know that the disappearance of one species does not necessarily lead to the extinction of any others, much less all others in the same ecosystem
. In many circumstances, the demise of formerly abundant species can be inconsequential to ecosystem function. The American chestnut
, once a dominant tree in eastern North America, has been extinguished by a foreign disease, yet the forest ecosystem is surprisingly unaffected. The passenger pigeon
, once so abundant that its flocks darkened the sky, went extinct, along with countless other species from the Steller's sea cow to the dodo
, with no catastrophic or even measurable effects .
¶
These stories of resilience are not isolated examples -- a thorough review of the scientific literature identified 240 studies of ecosystems following major disturbances such as deforestation, mining, oil spills, and other types of pollution. The abundance of plant and animal species as well as other measures of ecosystem function recovered
, at least partially, in
173 (
72 percent) of these studies
.25¶
While global forest cover is continuing to decline, it is rising in the Northern Hemisphere, where "nature" is returning to former agricultural lands
.26 Something similar is likely to occur in the Southern Hemisphere, after poor countries achieve a similar level of economic development. A 2010 report concluded that rainforests that have grown back over abandoned agricultural land had 40 to 70 percent of the species of the original forests
.27 Even Indonesian orangutans, which were widely thought to be able to survive only in pristine forests, have been found in surprising numbers in oil palm plantations and degraded lands.28¶
Nature is so resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most powerful human disturbances. Around the Chernobyl nuclear facility,
which melted down in 1986, wildlife is thriving, despite the high levels of radiation
.29
In the Bikini Atoll, the site of multiple nuclear bomb tests
, including the 1954 hydrogen bomb test that boiled the water in the area, the number of coral species has actually increased relative to before the explosions
.30 More recently, the massive 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was degraded and consumed by bacteria at a remarkably fast rate
.31¶ Today, coyotes roam downtown Chicago, and
peregrine falcons astonish San

Franciscans as they sweep down skyscraper canyons to pick off pigeons for their next meal
.
As we destroy habitats, we create new ones: in the southwestern U nited
S tates a rare and federally listed salamander species seems specialized to live in cattle tanks
-- to date, it has been found in no other habitat.32
Books have been written about the collapse of cod in the Georges Bank, yet recent trawl data show the biomass of cod has recovered to precollapse levels
.33
It's doubtful that books will be written about this cod recovery since it does not play well to an audience somehow addicted to stories of collapse and environmental apocalypse.
¶
Even that classic symbol of fragility -- the polar bear
, seemingly stranded on a melting ice block -- may have a good chance of surviving global warming if the changing environment continues to increase the populations and northern ranges of harbor seals and harp seals
.
Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago during a cooling period in Earth's history
, developing a highly specialized carnivorous diet focused on seals. Thus, the fate of polar bears depends on two opposing trends -- the decline of sea ice and the potential increase of energy-rich prey.
The history of life on
Earth is of species evolving to take advantage of new environments only to be at risk when the environment changes again.
¶
The wilderness ideal presupposes that there are parts of the world untouched by humankind, but today it is impossible to find a place on Earth that is unmarked by human activity. The truth is humans have been impacting their natural environment for centuries.
The wilderness so beloved by conservationists -- places "untrammeled by man"34 -- never existed, at least not in the last thousand years, and arguably even longer.

2nc

-Governance Studies at Brookings-3/
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2013/3/26%20marijuana%20legalization%2
0localism%20rauch/Washington%20Versus%20Washington%20and%20Colorado_Rauch_v17.pdf
Washington Versus Washington (and Colorado):
Why the States Should Lead on Marijuana Policy
When Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana
by decisive margins in initiatives last November, they set up
not just one but two conflicts
.
The first,
of course, is about drug policy
.
No less important, albeit less widely noticed , is a conflict about power
.
To what extent can and should the states act independently of the federal government on an issue with national ramifications
?
The choices that Colorado and both Washingtons make over the coming months are likely to affect the course not only of drug policy but of state-federal relations for years to come
. The American public is closely divided on whether marijuana should be legal. But it has a clear preference on the question of how to decide. In three recent polls that asked whether the federal government or the states should decide—or, in a different wording, whether the federal government should let Colorado and Washington implement their legalizations—respondents favored state leadership by margins ranging from 14 to 25 percentage points. Significantly, CBS News, in November, found that even among those who oppose legalizing marijuana (47 percent—the same percentage as favored legalizing), 49 percent thought the states should be allowed to decide.1 This paper argues that the public’s preference is well grounded. Specifically, it makes three points. First, the clash over marijuana, far from being anomalous, is the latest and greatest in an escalating series of state-federal confrontations on hot-button issues.
If not handled with care, it could lead to legal confusion, policy incoherence , and political resentment .
Law by itself cannot decide how to proceed; there is no avoiding making political choices which determine whether and how the federal government and states will cooperate or collide. Second, in making those choices, a good place to look for insight is to same-sex marriage.
Though the two issues are substantively and legally very different, from a political point of view their similarities are quite striking. With samesex marriage, a state-led approach has been a remarkable success, particularly at containing social conflict and adapting deliberately to social change. Most of the reasons for that success also apply to marijuana legalization. Third, letting states lead on marijuana decision-making is legally more difficult than letting them lead on marriage, and it is politically less natural. State leadership was the default option with marriage; for marijuana it will take hard work and a willingness to stretch. That said, the work is worth doing. Trying to impose and sustain a one-size-fits all, top-down resolution from Washington, D.C., is likely to be too unsustainable and inflexible to succeed.
-3/19/
Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2014-25
Cooperative Federalism and Marijuana Regulation http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2411707&download=yes
With growing majorities of Americans in favor of legalizing marijuana,167 the tension between state and federal law will not go away on its own.
Short of a decision by Congress to drop marijuana from the C ontrolled S ubstances A ct entirely – an unlikely political outcome
, even given the majority of Americans who might favor it
– a more modest federal

legislative solution is needed. The cooperative federalism solution that we suggest
is both feasible and effective – it will allow state experimentation to proceed while giving the federal government the ability to influence the direction of that legal change.
http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,5931.msg13200.html#msg13200
The objective is a topic requiring sweeping change by the affirmative. The sentiment expressed in the topic committee discussions is for topical action to involve large change: large change is preferred for better clash in debates and to provide a basis for the uniqueness of DAs.

et al-prof law UC Irvine-3/19/
Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2014-25
Cooperative Federalism and Marijuana Regulation http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2411707&download=yes
Importantly, modifying the CSA to allow cooperative agreements between the states and the federal government would allow the federal government to guide state policy
without commandeering the state legislatures, while giving states freedom to develop the best approach for regulating marijuana. Furthermore, variations among the state laws and regulations would allow for experimentation short of full legalization .
While some states would maintain their current marijuana prohibitions,
others would likely test out different regulatory schemes permitting more or less marijuana activity.
The relative successes and failures of the various marijuana legalization models
would help inform other states – and possibly, eventually the federal government
– about the best practices for legalizing marijuana
for adults while maintaining public safety. Moreover, this model mitigates the impact of marijuana legalization on states choosing to maintain the status quo.
et al-prof law UC Irvine-3/19/
Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2014-25
Cooperative Federalism and Marijuana Regulation http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2411707&download=yes
Finally, in Part V we turn to legislative solutions to the current, unstable status quo. Legislators, policy experts, commentators and others have proposed numerous possible solutions to this quandary.
Some have suggested amending federal law to reschedule marijuana, while others have proposed less sweeping but still significant changes to the CSA to ease the federal prohibition
. We discuss the various pieces of legislation that have been introduced in Congress but that have not thus far gained significant traction.
We then suggest a more incremental
"cooperative federalism" solution that would allow willing states to experiment
with novel regulatory approaches while leaving the federal marijuana prohibition unchanged for the remaining states
. Under our approach the Attorney General would be required to create a certification process allowing states to opt out of the CSA's marijuana provisions if state laws and regulatory frameworks meet specified federal criteria reflecting the enforcement priorities that DOJ has announced.7 In opt-out states certified by the Attorney General, state law would exclusively govern marijuana- related activities and the CSA marijuana provisions would cease to apply. Federal agencies could continue to cooperate with opt-out states and their local governments to jointly enforce marijuana laws, but state law rather than the CSA would control within those states' borders. Equally important, nothing would change in those states content with the status quo under the
CSA.
This proposed approach embodies the best characteristics of federalism by allowing some states to experiment while maintaining a significant federal role to minimize the impact of those experiments on other states.

TERM: legalize. TEXT: To make legal that which otherwise is illegal. To confirm something already done; not to authorize something in the future.
Vol. 28 20
[204-215]
—Reynolds v. Larkins, 14 P. 114, 10 Colo. 126 Colo. 1887. In the act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to hear and determine all complaints
, etc., the word
“in” should be construed to mean “throughout ” such counties
.
[Burton's Legal Thesaurus, William C. Burton. Used with permission of The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/legalize] legalize
verb approve, authorize, bring into conformity with law
, confirm, confirm by law
, decree by law, enact by law, ferre, legislate, legitimate
, legitimatize
, make lawful, make legal
, order by law, permit by law, pronounce legal, sanction, sanction by law, validate
See also: allow, approve, authorize, certify, confirm, constitute, establish, formalize, legitimate, notarize, pass, seal, validate

– JUDGE DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
CENTRAL STATES SOUTHEAST & SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND V B…, 610 F SUPP 1505
In an attempt to ascertain the common [**15] meaning of the term "substantially," the court consulted several dictionaries.
Many define the term as meaning "of ample or considerable amount, size, or quantity," see e.g., Random House
Dictionary of the English Language, p. 1418. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, p. 2280, defines "substantially" as "being that specified to a large degree or in the main." Webster's goes on to list "massive" as the synonym of "substantially."
These definitions indicate that the common meaning of the phrase "substantially all" must be something which indicates
"a large degree" or "large amount" of all; the terms "almost all" or "nearly all," though admittedly imprecise, capture the essence of the phrase. If "substantially" is synonymous with "massive," then
"substantially all" must mean some percentage which is very near 100%.

– Edward, 8-25, BA & MA from Ohio State in IR & History. AM & ABD from Harvard, J.D. from
New Mexico, A Climate of Gridlock: Climate Change Adaptation, Federalism, and Expansion of the
National Electric Transmission Grid, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2315790
According to this distributed responsibilities view, because climate phenomena
like temperature swings, extreme storms, and sea level rise will manifest differently in a variety of contexts, no single level of government can or should predominate or lead in fashioning an over-arching legal and policy response.
21
The fluid, multi-faceted nature of climate adaptation means that no single level of government is optimized to deal with the problem, and so by necessity multiple levels of government must cooperate in facing it. 22 This cooperation might draw upon traditional models, like the venerable “cooperative federalism” approach to environmental law that calls for flexible state implementation of standards set at the federal level.23
Alternately, more innovative frameworks for “new governance” or “dynamic federalism” might
deliberately create overlapping areas of state and federal areas of collaboration, moving beyond past notions of state compliance with federal standards or rigid divisions of responsibility among differing levels of government
– Edward, 8-25, BA & MA from Ohio State in IR & History. AM & ABD from Harvard, J.D. from
New Mexico, A Climate of Gridlock: Climate Change Adaptation, Federalism, and Expansion of the
National Electric Transmission Grid, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2315790
Most obviously, extreme weather such as storms and heat waves will threaten physical stresses far greater in scope than the original builders of the electric transmission grid anticipated
in the twentieth century.14 This paper will explore the hitherto relatively unexplored problem of climate change adaptation and its impact on law and policy governing a critical component of the U.S. electricity infrastructure – the 157,000 or so miles of pylons, power lines, and related facilities making up the nation’s electric power transmission grid.15 In particular, as explained below, the
perceived urgency of adapting the electricity transmission grid to the demands of climate change will likely increase pressures for federal preemption of traditional state supremacy in this area
– pressures that were already building even before climate change became a factor. Thus, climate adaptation alone could end state supremacy over transmission, even if climate mitigation measures on a national scale never occur at all.
Such an outcome risks heavy-handed federal preemption that ignores local concerns over the siting of electric transmission facilities
.
To avoid that
outcome, an eventual new legal framework should balance urgent national interests in a strong electrical transmission network with new mechanisms designed to safeguard local interests

7/31/
– Jonathan, contributing editor of National Journal and The Atlantic, is the author of several books and many articles on public policy, culture, and economics. “Colorado's Marijuana
Legalization Rollout is a Success” http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/07/31-coloradomarijuana-legalization-implementation-hudak-rauch
Frequently in your report, you stress flexibility in Colorado’s approach
: a learning-by-doing mentality and a willingness to adapt and adjust
. Why is flexibility so important, and how—if at all—can Colorado preserve it over time? I think what many Americans are fed up with in their government is stubbornness.
In any job—in any context in life— being unwilling to learn from new info rmation or
from mistakes is a fast track to failure. In Colorado, regulators realize they won’t get everything right on the first try.
And so they’ve embraced an approach that involves regulatory lookback
, where they’re frequently trying to improve existing regulations and adjust their approach to enforcement
.
That’s an effective regulatory approach which the federal government could use more of. As for preserving
regulatory flexibility
over time, that depends on
the personnel
in Colorado’s agencies, the leadership
of its government, and
the evolution of its political environment
.
Right now Colorado has all three going for it
. But what’s ahead is an open question. Who’s coming up to the plate next might determine whether legal marijuana is a home run or a fast out.

Matthew, FEDERALISM, TRUST, AND THE PROBLEM OF SECTARIANISM IN IRAQ,
Master’s candidate at the University of Ottawa – public and international affairs, http://www.ruor.uottawa.ca/fr/bitstream/handle/10393/26097/SAAYMAN,%20Matthew%2020135.pdf
?sequence=1
Second, how does a federal system generate trust among the citizenry? I provided an overview of federalism, comparing and contrasting holding together federations to coming together federations, consociationalism to territorial federalism, and asymmetrical federalism to symmetrical federalism. Then I examined the concept of trust and its related concept social capital. I described the various forms of trust and social capital, including particularized and generalized trust, and bridging and bonding social capital, and I examined the apparent relationship between such forms of trust and social capital and ethnic strife. I proceeded to apply the concepts of trust and federalism to the modern political history of
Ethiopia and Nigeria
. Both are heterogeneous states and political elites of both countries have struggled to generate a common identity
, a ―civic nationalism.‖ While Ethiopia uses a model similar to the consociational model to mitigate ethnic divisions, Nigeria uses the territorial model for the same purpose. Both models were found wanting in the way of ameliorating relations between the major groups. Third, will restructuring Iraqi federal relations contribute to resolving sectarian tensions?
I identified the concept of regional federalism and defined it as a synthesis of consociationalism and territorial federalism. I examined the articles of Iraq‘s constitution pertaining to federalism and to the treatment of minorities.
The Iraqi constitution
is implicitly a regional federal model but in practice has not upheld the rights of minorities or allowed for a greater devolution of power from the central government. The actual upholding of certain constitutional provisions
, Article 125 and Article 119 for example, could aid in resolving sectarian tensions. But what is the likelihood of federal relations being restructured? For a peaceful settlement to emerge between two or more parties, leaders
of the conflicting parties must perceive that they are in a situation in which neither can defeat the other and that an impending catastrophe will harm them both
if no settlement is reached. Thus the timing must be ―ripe‖ for peace
.215 This is what Zartman calls the ―mutually-hurting stalemate.‖ What ended the civil war of 2006-2008 may have been the recognition of such a situation, as some commentators have argued that the reduction in violence had more to do with fatigue from violence than with prudential leadership.216 217 As of today, it would appear that Iraqi political elites have yet to perceive a mutually-hurting stalemate.
Maliki, who has condemned federalism, is unlikely to pursue a policy of restructuring federal relations and he continues to enjoy the support of Tehran and
Washington
.218 219 To put pressure on Maliki,
Washington could shift its support from the central government to the KRG
, although some analysts worry that doing so could lead to the break-up of Iraq. On the other hand, supporting Erbil would undermine Iran while benefiting Turkey220 and would also mean supporting a government with a greater commitment to liberal democracy.221 Critics might point out that it is against Turkish interests to have a more autonomous Kurdistan, given its own problems with the Kurds. That might be true if we conceive of the state in the realist sense, as a unitary actor. If, on the other hand, we conceive of the state in more liberal terms, as being made up of a multitude of societal actors222, then in some ways Turkey could benefit from a more autonomous
Kurdistan. Finally, I have neglected to discuss the ongoing conflict in Syria and its effect on Iraqi sectarian tensions. In fact, the sectarian tensions in Syria are fuelling growing animosity in Iraq. How and when that civil war is resolved will affect the future stability of Iraq. 223

– Mustafa, staffwriter, “Could Law 21 Save Iraq?” http://www.iraqbusinessnews.com/tag/federalism/
How can a country like Iraq
– with
its different sects
, religions and ethnicities – be governed appropriately?
Some are
now suggesting
that giving all of Iraq’s provinces the powers they were granted by a law amended mid-2013 could be a way out of the current crisis . Local authorities would govern themselves better than Baghdad and Iraq would remain united
. As Iraqi politicians have been trying to form a new government, more than one analyst has said that the country’s current crisis is due to the policies established by
the most recent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
, and his desire to monopolize and centralize power.
Various solutions have been suggested
regarding the problem.
These have included introducing amendments to the Iraqi Constitution, creating new laws to reign in the Prime Minister
’s powers or
just simply removing al-Maliki from the job
– which may well happen anyway as some of the Shiite Muslim Prime Minister’s most important allies seem to have deserted him.
However there is one other potential solution
to at least some of Iraq’s current woes – and that is to
properly enact, and then commit to, Law 21
, which was amended by the Iraqi Parliament
in the middle of 2013.
There are at least 18
Iraqi cities regularly complaining about the monopolization of power by Baghdad .
They say the government interferes in provincial affairs far too much
, that it makes decisions that
actually go against the Iraqi constitution and
that it prevents local officials from making good decisions and local appointments. “Iraq is a country with many ethnicities, sects and religions
,” explains local political analyst Saeed
Radi. “
It’s
very difficult for any one party to manage all affairs. A Shiite Muslim-dominated government would be hard pressed to know what Iraq’s Sunni Muslims and Kurds want and need.”

– Michael, director of the Federalism Project at the American Enterprise Institute, “Germany's
Bad Example for Iraq” http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB112830489903758204
Berlin is far from Baghdad
, and the Germans at least want to keep it that way.
But
for all the obvious differences,
Germany's inconclusive election results and the impending constitutional referendum in Iraq point to some identical obstacles to effective and constitutional government
.
These obstacles are proportional representation and " cooperative federalism
." As it happens, well-meaning
U.N. officials
, NGOs and U.S. advisers have been urging these constitutional arrangements upon
numerous fledgling democracies, including
Iraq
. That may not be good advice. Proportional representation -- PR -- is said to be more democratic, inclusive and respectful of minorities than British-American winner-take-all, first-past-the-post elections. Unfortunately, it does nothing to foster clear majorities capable of effective government. Germany's system of almost pure PR has consistently produced coalition governments and now, for the first time, a situation in which no party constellation can produce a government with a coherent program for much-needed reforms. Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher's reform of Britain's sclerotic economy wouldn't have been possible with PR and cooperative federalism; nor could one imagine Prime
Minister Junichiro Koizumi accomplishing anything similar in Japan. The more subtle but ultimately more insidious problem is that PR -- unless balanced by plebiscitary institutions such as a directly elected, powerful executive -- tends to be constitutionally unstable. Instead of institutional checks and balances, PR constitutions resemble temporary peace pacts among contending interests, classes or warlords. The structure is only as stable as the underlying constellation of forces; or it is stabilized by nonpolitical means. That's the function of Germany's cherished social welfare state: reducing political competition to promises of transfer payments, and compressing the range and intensity of social and political conflict. That sort of stability translates into economic malaise, political indecision and fears of much worse down the road.
Germany's "cooperative" federalism reflects the same disposition and tendencies. To ensure fairness and "solidarity" between levels of government and among the Länder (states), Germany mandates comprehensive revenue-sharing and complex fiscal transfers, from the federal to state and local governments and from rich to poor states. This fiscal constitution creates holdouts and gridlock. Germany cannot be effectively governed without the active support of the Länderfürsten, as state prime ministers are fittingly known -- whose fortunes, in turn, depend on federal funding formulas. Worse, economically competitive states are punished for success, as a good chunk of their revenues will be transferred to less prosperous brothers. Like PR, moreover, cooperative federalism entrenches the political instabilities it is meant to contain.
Germany's fiscal constitution has been subject to incessant litigation and repeated amendments. The principal means of ensuring a modicum of stability is to raise taxes
, to make all participants in
the intergovernmental revenue wrangling better off . But stability turns into sclerosis when the economy sags under the accumulated burdens.
Fast forward, or rather backward, to Iraq, whose National Assembly was elected, under U.N. and American pressure, on a PR basis. A just-proposed election law envisions a slightly modified system of party lists and PR. (At least every third delegate must be a woman.)
The proposed constitution puts a hydra-headed executive at the mercy of the parliament. While
the federalism arrangements are still in flux, the proposed document promises a thoroughly cooperative regime, with
the " fair distribution" of federal offices
(including foreign missions); of international aid, grants, and loans; of oil and gas revenues; and
of a "fair share" of other federal revenues. In conflicts between regional and federal law, regional law shall prevail
-- thus providing potent incentives to extort fiscal transfers. This construct is at best a state of (hopefully) suspended civil war. A constitution, it is not.
To appreciate the difference, consider the U. S. Constitution. Without proportional representation, we have a stable two-party system. We have an independently elected executive, no "fiscal constitution" and
(aside from the Nixon administration's ill-fated experiment) no general revenue sharing. Instead, we have independent taxing authority and competition, subject to only minor constitutional provisos. The states do not owe each other much beyond keeping each other's borders inviolate and their own borders open. Within those ground rules, they may and must compete. In short, the U.S. Constitution is not a peace pact
among interests or an attempt to entrench a social balance. It establishes rival institutions with the means and the motives to resist one another, in the hope that counteracting ambitions will keep the outcomes within bounds.
The system
, to be sure, produces

lots of friction and wheel-spinning
-- but it is also capable of energy and decision when needed.
We do not owe the stability of our political institutions to economic forces or temporary social alignments. American politics is constitutionally stable.
Cooperative federalism and transfer payments may sometimes be the only way to buy (literally) a temporary respite from regional or ethnic separatism
.
Even so, the
U.N.-
U.S. push for
proportional representation and cooperative federalism in Iraq looks more like a reflex than a carefully considered option
. And it only postpones the hard work of building a stable constitutional order -- one not subject to political drift, indecision, gridlock and sclerosis. Energetic government and constitutional stability may seem in tension, if not conflict
. In truth, they go together.
For many still-young republics
in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, they make a far more attractive package than the
German model of consensus, cooperation and paralysis
.
– Fellow, Carr Center for Human Rights, Harvard Kennedy School of Government. J.D. 2003,
Harvard Law School; M.P.A. 2003, Harvard Kennedy School of Government; B.S. 1997, Cornell University.
(Sharmila, “IRAQ’S CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE TO JUSTLY DISTRIBUTE WATER: THE IMPLICATIONS OF
FEDERALISM, ISLAM, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS,” The Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev., 42)
As clean water becomes increasingly scarce in Iraq, the potential for conflict increases . Iraq’s asymmetrical, consociational federal structure could lead to jurisdictional disputes, and thereby fuel
ethnic and sectarian tensions over water in Iraq. Iraq’s Constitution grants the federal, regional and governorate governments differing degrees of power over water: : Article 110 gives the federal govern- ment exclusive power over external policy; and Article 114 gives the federal and regional governments concurrent power over inter- nal water policy. In contrast, the governorates do not have any express authority over water under the Constitution. Under this regulatory scheme, Iraq’s federal and regional
governments could develop conflicting water policies, which would directly or indi- rectly impact the
governorates. If such conflicting policies were created, the law of the regions would take precedence under Iraq’s constitution. Given the unequal distribution of water in Iraq, such an outcome could negatively impact downstream users and exacer- bate ethnic and sectarian relationships. Such concerns could be alleviated by the creation of policies emanating from the federal and regional governments’ constitutional mandate to ensure the “just distribution” of water. Looking to Islamic law, international transboundary law, and human rights law, the “just distribution” requirement would encourage Iraq to
develop a water governance scheme that promotes “cooperative federalism” and that recog- nizes a human right to water.

– Law Professors Blog Network, run by Paul L. Caron, Professor of Law Pepperdine University
School of Law Herzog Summer Visiting Prof. in Tax'n University of San Diego School of Law, “Gulf Spill:
"Un"cooperative Federalism?” http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/civpro/2010/06/gulf-spilluncooperative-federalism.html
The article documents
the difficulties
that private parties and various levels of government authorities have faced in coordinating control and cleanup efforts
. From the article: Closer to shore, the efforts to keep the oil away from land have not fared much better, despite a response effort
involving thousands of boats, tens of thousands of workers and millions of feet of containment boom. From the beginning, the effort has been bedeviled by a lack of preparation, organization, urgency and clear lines of authority among federal, state and local officials
, as well as BP. As a result, officials
and experts say, the damage to
the coastline and wildlife has been worse than it might have been if the response had been faster and orchestrated more effectively.
“
The present system is not working
,” Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said Thursday at a hearing in Washington devoted to assessing the spill and the response.
Oil
had just entered Florida waters
, Senator
Nelson said, adding that no one was notified at either the state or local level , a failure of communication that echoed
Mr.
Bonano’s story
and countless others along the Gulf Coast.
“The info rmation is not flowing
,” Senator Nelson said. “
The decisions are not timely
. The resources are not produced
. And as a result, you have a big mess , with no command and control
.” (emphasis added) This should not be news. Similar complaints were leveled in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Erin Ryan
(William & Mary) gives a thorough outline of these problems and various responses in her article Federalism and the Tug of War Within:
Seeking Checks and Balance in the Interjurisdictional Gray Area, 66 Md. L. Rev. 503, 518-36 (2007).
Are these problems of cooperative
/shared/interactive federalism intractable?
Or can we learn and improve from the Katrina and BP experiences before the next disaster, particularly before incidences that might have a lower profile but cause equal devastation to local residents and paralysis among state, local, and federal officials.

[December 17, 2012. Jack Belcher is the Executive Vice President of HBW Resources and consults energy and transportation clients on government relations, regulatory affairs, situational risk management, coalition building and stakeholder relations; he is also
Managing Director of the National Ocean Policy Coalition. “Survey & Analysis of Impacts of Regulations & Federal Agency Actions on Oil & Gas
Activities on Federal Lands” HBW Resources. http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Fed%20Lands%20Survey%20and%20Report.pdf]
State Coordination and Sharing Lessons Learned –
Federal land managers and regulators should work with their state counterparts to share best practices that eliminate duplication, and provide greater efficiency and consistency that will result in a better overall process for permit issuance
and other approvals.
Federal agencies should evaluate processes and policies utilized by state regulators,
and implement those processes when they can improve performance.
When state and federal offices are performing duplicative functions or activities, federal agencies should allow those functions to be performed by states

Scott
, Electricity Reliability Coordinating Council Director, 6/25/
, ERCC Comments Submitted to
EPA on the New Source Performance Standards for Power Plant Carbon Emissions, www.electricreliability.org/ercc-comments-submitted-epa-new-source-performance-standards-powerplant-carbon-emissions
Given the regulatory uncertainty related to future EPA regulations on a wide variety of energy sources
—and not just coal— keeping all options on the table for energy generation
, as the President has suggested multiple times, is essential to maintaining America’s energy supply
. In recent years, coal
-fired power plants have provided
40 to
50 percent of the electricity used by US consumers and businesses
each year. The number is lower now due to pending EPA regulations and market conditions associated with the price of natural gas, but even today, notwithstanding
the historically low cost of natural gas
and newly adopted regulatory obstacles for coal, several power producers in the U.S. are seeking to develop new state-of-the-art coal-fired power plants for a variety of reasons
. Some of them are concerned about the historic volatility in natural gas prices and their inability to obtain long-term contracts with stable pricing for natural gas
, preferring the long-term price stability that comes with coal
.
Some
of them are developing new plants in areas that have localized
, economical supplies of coal
or other solid fuel.
Others
simply do not want to put all their eggs in one basket and want to maintain fuel diversity
in their generation mix. Despite EPA’s recognition that the CAA requires the agency to consider “energy requirements” in connection with proposed standards of performance, the proposed rule does not even consider these important energy policy issues.[13]
As aging coal
-fired power plants are forced to shut down
due to other EPA air pollution regulations and additional plants are temporarily idled to install mandated pollution controls, we need to ensure a reliable stream of electrical power is available to meet the nation’s energy needs
.
As a result of
the combination of
EPA’s regulations
, including the proposed rule and the inevitable 111(d) rule for existing coal-fired units, the country may experience a shortage of electricity
, and the reliability of our electricity grid will face substantial risks
. The loss of future coal
-fired generation
, investment in current coal
-fired generation, and closures
of existing coal-fired generation capacity that
may result f rom the combination of the proposed rule and other EPA regulatory actions risks a variety of reliability problems
. In most cases, coal
-fired plants cannot be replaced overnight by natural gas plants
, as the time it takes to install pipeline and
other infrastructure necessary
even to begin conversion of an old plant or construction of a new one is considerable
. Additionally, as NARUC Chair David Wright testified recently, coal
-fired generation is an important aspect of
“resource diversity
,” and EPA needs to “recognize the needs of States and regions to deploy a diverse portfolio of cost-effective supplyside and demand-side resources based on their own unique circumstances and characteristics.”[14] ERCC is concerned that the proposed rule establishes a future for electricity generation that is narrowly prescribed to a small group of technologies, some of which do not even exist commercially at this time, and that EPA’s plan for the future risks disruption in the reliable supply of electricity. EPA needs to carefully consider the consequences of polices that may not allow for a flexible and reliable supply of electricity, because the
impacts of reliability problems can be devastating
. The downside impacts of reduced electric reliability are substantial
and must be taken into account in any responsible analysis of the proposed rule. As ISO New England has stated:
A reliable supply of electricity is a foundation of our prosperity and quality of life
.
Without it
, our world literally grinds to a halt
— businesses cannot plan and operate productively
, hospitals and schools cannot provide their essential services
, and residents cannot depend on the electricity they need simply to live their daily lives
.
Without reliable electricity, the financial and societal costs would be enormous.
[15] The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers of the U.S. (IEE-USA) has further observed that even minor occurrences in the electric power grid

can
sometimes lead to catastrophic ‘cascading’ blackouts
, and that the loss of a single generator can result in an imbalance between load and generation
. The resulting blackouts cause incalculable economic damage
. For example, the direct costs to high-technology manufacturing in the San Francisco Bay Area alone during the California blackouts alone ran as high as one million dollars a minute due to lost production, and the relatively brief Northeast blackout of 2003 cost business about
$13 billion in lost productivity.[16]
These are costs that the our economy and communities cannot afford to bear
, and EPA needs to carefully consider reliability concerns before moving forward with the proposed rule.
– Wyoming Mining Association, serves as a unified voice, providing value at a reasonable cost to its membership, by communicating, influencing, and promoting issues on behalf of the mining industry. WMA promotes the mining industry by communicating with elected officials, regulators, educators, and the public in a credible way that encourages trust and confidence, and earns respect as a reliable source of information on issues pertinent to the industry, “Arch Coal: EPA Greenhouse Regulations to Place US Economy at Risk” http://www.wyomingmining.org/2014/06/arch-coal-epa-greenhouse-regulations-to-place-us-economy-at-risk/
US coal producer
Arch Coal
on Monday joined the fray in commenting on the
US Environmental Protection Agency’s
(
EPA’s
) proposed greenhouse-gas (
GHG
) regulations
announced a week ago, saying the plan for regulating GHG would place the entire
US economy at serious risk. The NYSE-listed coal producer said after analysing the EPA’s 645-page proposal, it believed that the plan would result in rising electricity prices and mine closures.
Arch senior VP of strategy and public policy Deck Slone said the US power grid was already in a precarious state
with the lights kept on during the past winter “ by the slimmest of margins
”, owing to regulation-driven power plant retirements that were just now getting under way. “
Despite
these obvious stresses – and
the very real costs they are imposing on US consumers
– the Administration
has proposed another round of regulations that would drive still more plant closures
. Most surprising is the fact that the administration would be willing to pursue such costly regulations without the potential for any discernible impact on GHG concentrations in the atmosphere,” Slone said. However, Slone pointed out that the ultimate authority for addressing GHG regulations under the relevant provision of the Clean Air Act rests with the states. “
Many state legislatures and attorneys general have already spoke n out in opposition to any plan that threatens to drive up consumer energy costs and force premature power plant closures
. The EPA-proposed caps are remarkably punitive for many states – particularly those that house America’s manufacturing base,” he said. Slone noted that the company would continue to encourage the states to stand their ground against the EPA’s efforts to impose a “costly new programme that goes far beyond what the law allows”. “
America cannot shrink its way to a low-carbon future, nor
can we address global climate concerns unilaterally
. The fact is that fossil fuels are virtually certain to remain the primary fuel source for world energy needs through at least mid-century. “
We strongly encourage the administration to reconsider its regulatory approach and to focus instead on robust investment in advanced technologies
, including carbon capture, use and storage. That is the rational way forward for addressing climate concerns,” Slone said.
‘BETTER WAYS’ The EPA last Monday announced its first proposed limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants, seen as a significant part of President Barrack Obama‘s plan to fight climate change, which the agency predicted would cut coal output by about 18%. The draft proposal aims to cut emissions by 30% of existing US power plants by 2030 – a move that would likely force many cheap coal generators to shut. US National Mining Association president and CEO Hal Quinn last week commented that the association believed there is a better pathway to move the US toward its environmental goals without raising electricity costs, eliminating thousands of jobs and jeopardising the reliability of the electric grid. He said the EPA’s new, “ overzealous” GHG regulations would force the closure of many of the existing coal-based power plants that currently generate 40% of the nation’s electricity
– at the very time that advanced technologies were making America’s fleet of coal-generation plants cleaner and more efficient. “Since 2005, carbon dioxide emissions from coal-based power plants have been reduced by 24% and the power plants built with today’s new technologies emit 90% fewer traditional pollutants than the plants they replaced from 30 years ago. “
States that rely on coal for 50% or more of their electricity generation enjoy 30% lower electricity costs and, thus, also tend to be home to the nation’s strongest manufacturing base
.
These states will be at the losing end of what is essentially a capand-trade system
that [the] EPA is proposing,” Quinn said.
He likened the EPA’s model to that of California,

where electricity costs were trending 45% higher than the national average.
“
Also on the losing end are middle-class and lower-income Americans and retirees on fixed incomes who will bear the brunt of the cost increases
that will result from putting the country on a restricted energy budget. “
These regulations also endanger the reliability of the electric grid
. As we saw this past winter, our nation’s grid barely withstood a major surge in demand, which was satisfied in large part by the very coal plants [the] EPA is targeting for closure
. America needs balanced policies that encourage a diverse mix of energy sources, including coal, so our nation can grow with low-cost, reliable electricity,” Quinn said. The US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Thomas Donohue argued that the proposed carbon framework would add “ immense cost” and regulatory burdens on America’s job creators
.
The business group recently released a report saying that the rule would cost the economy $50-billion a year.

– Mario, former foreign and defense counsel to the U.S. Senate Republican Policy
Committee, “Obamacare’s State Exchanges and the Dangers of Cooperative Federal-State Regulation“ http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/335990/obamacares-state-exchanges-and-dangerscooperative-federal-state-regulation-mario-loyo
In yesterday’s WSJ, the editors agreed with what Michael Cannon, myself and others have said repeatedly here on the Corner, namely that states should absolutely refuse to create the optional state exchanges under Obamacare
and should instead let the feds come in and do it themselves. In responding specifically to Douglas Holtz-Eakin (who created a bit of a stir on the Corner recently when he argued in favor of the state exchanges) the editors offer a crucial insight, one with sweeping implications far beyond the healthcare context:
The “federalism” ruse is a special instance of bad faith .
If federal-state cooperation means anything
, then it requires some element of genuine state control and the freedom to innovate
.
The
H ealth and
H uman
S ervices
Department is abusing the laboratories-of-democracy line as cover even as it prohibits states from doing experiments
.
And it’s dictating details down to the lab coats and microscopes. The
folks at
HHS envision
the exchanges as centralized, interventionist, hyper-regulatory bodies
.
HHS’s idea of flex ibility is telling the states they can make the exchanges even more centralized and interventionist
.
But if they don’t agree to that model, then Washington will impose it anyway.
The “cooperative” regulatory arrangement
contemplated in Obamacare’s state exchange provisions is actually pervasive in the Federal government’s basic scheme for controlling state governments. In fact, because it allows the feds to deputize state officials, which is supposed to be unconstitutional, it is a huge part of the operations of Congress.
The arrangement is essential
, for example, in the C lean
A ir
A ct, under which the E nvironmental
P rotection
A gency “ approves” State
Implementation Plans
, threatening
all the while to impose a Federal Implementation Plan
. And we know, because
we’ve been told by EPA officials, that
EPA will “crucify” local businesses to make examples of them, when given the chance. Hence, the immediate incentive for states to comply with federal conditions for “permission” to implement the plans themselves
(Michael, “China’s Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure”, International Security 36.3, lexis, ldg)
In theory, globalization should help developing countries obtain and absorb advanced technology. In practice, however, this may not occur because some of the knowledge and infrastructure necessary to absorb certain technologies cannot be specified in a blueprint or contained within a machine. Instead they exist in peoples’ minds and can be obtained only through “hands-on” experience. The World Bank recently calculated that 80 percent of the wealth of the United States is made up of intangible assets, most notably, its system of property rights, its efficient judicial system, and the skills, knowledge, and trust embedded within its society. If this is the case, then a huge chunk of what separates the United States from China is not for sale and cannot be copied. Economies and militaries used to consist primarily of physical goods (e.g., conveyor belts and tanks), but today they are composed of systems that link physical goods to networks, research clusters, and command centers. 72
Developing countries may be able to purchase or steal certain aspects of these systems from abroad, but many lack the supporting infrastructure, or “absorptive capacity,” necessary to integrate them into functioning wholes.
73 For example, in the 1960s, Cummins Engine Company, a U.S. technological leader, formed joint ventures with a Japanese company and an Indian company to produce the same truck engine. The Japanese plant quickly reached U.S. quality and cost levels while the Indian plant turned out second-rate engines at three to four times the cost. The reason, according to Jack Baranson, was the “high degree of technical skill . . . required to convert techniques and produce new technical drawings and manufacturing specifications.” 74 This case illustrates how an intangible factor

such as skill can lead to significant productivity differences even when two countries have access to identical hardware. Compared to developing countries such as China, the United States is primed for technological absorption. Its property rights, social networks, capital markets, flexible labor laws, and legions of m ulti n ational c ompanie s not only help it innovate, but also absorb innovations created elsewhere
. Declinists liken the U.S. economic system to a leaky bucket oozing innovations out into the international system. But in the alternative perspective
, the United States is more like a sponge, steadily increasing its mass by soaking up ideas, technology, and people from the rest of the world. If this is the case, then the spread of technology around the globe may paradoxically favor a concentration of technological and military capabilities in the United States.

(Henry and Laura, “India, Pakistan keep lid on tensions”, 12-6, http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/06/world/fg-indiapakistan6, ldg)
Hostility
between India and Pakistan is at its worst
in years, but tensions
stemming from
last week's terrorist attacks in
Mumbai are unlikely to bloom into full-blown
war
between the nuclear-armed rivals -- at least for now, according to analysts on both sides of the border. Indian authorities say that the gunmen who rampaged through luxury hotels and other crowded sites in Mumbai, leaving more than 170 people dead, were trained and guided by the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba. New Delhi has angrily demanded that Islamabad turn over leaders of Lashkar and officials have pointedly refused to rule out military action, warning that they reserved the right to protect Indian territory "with all the means at our disposal." But a combination of new political and economic realities, U.S. pressure and
perhaps some lessons learned in the past have inhibited a rush to open conflict
.
Any war would be financially devastating
, especially at a time of worldwide economic downturn.
India's economic juggernaut has lost some steam; and
even more dire,
Pakistan has had to appeal to the I nternational
M onetary
F und to keep its economy afloat
.
Foreign investment in both countries
, which fled during a 2001-02 standoff, would vanish
once again in the event of
an armed clash
. "
No one can afford it," said
Abhay Matkar, a former Indian army major
in Mumbai. "
Both countries are not ready for war, and it will not happen."
Ayesha Tammy Haq, a popular talk-show host in Pakistan, questioned whether Pakistan's armed forces were even prepared militarily for a war, conventional or otherwise. "We've had decades of propaganda about how strong we are, but we can't win a war," Haq said. "We have an army that's fat, not a welloiled fighting machine."
Another factor leading to the relatively restrained response may be the lessons learned from a somewhat similar attack seven years ago this month -- an incident that some say almost led both countries to press the nuclear button. On Dec. 13, 2001, a group of gunmen stormed the Indian Parliament complex in New Delhi and came close to killing the high-ranking lawmakers inside. When the gun battle was over, a dozen people lay dead, including the five assailants and six security personnel. India also blamed that attack on Pakistani Islamic extremists, allegedly abetted by their country's powerful intelligence agency. Within days, India lashed back by deploying the first of hundreds of thousands of troops along its border with Pakistan, which promptly followed suit. The military standoff lasted for months before intense international diplomacy helped dissuade the archrivals from launching their fourth war in 55 years. Though the number of dead in
last week's coordinated assault in
Mumbai was
more than
10 times
that of the
2001 attack
, the Indian government has shown no signs
this time of moving soldiers closer to Pakistan, despite
some public pressure
for hard-fisted action. Part of
India's forbearance
, some analysts say, is because it
ultimately gained little from the
20
01
-
02 military faceoff
. A peace process initiated in 2003 has improved the air somewhat, but real progress toward resolving the dispute over Kashmir, the divided Himalayan region that lies at the heart of the two countries' animus, has been fitful and elusive. "The step taken in 2001 and 2002 was not the wisest. Maybe they learned from that," said Ved Marwah, an expert on Indo-Pakistani relations at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi.
The political actors on both sides of the divide are also different this time around. In 2001, Pakistan was ruled by a military dictator, Gen.
Pervez
Musharraf
, who was forced to step down this year as the nation's president and was replaced by an elected president
, Asif Ali Zardari. Although Zardari's clout is weak and the military remains Pakistan's most powerful government entity, there is a sense in New Delhi that perhaps he ought to be granted some time to muster a satisfactory response. Zardari has so far denied that the Mumbai attacks were launched from Pakistani soil, but promised to act if his nation received solid proof. "Here is a civilian leader who's saying all the right things, so we should give him a chance. It's the right thing from the Indian side," said C. Raja Mohan, an Indian security analyst based in Singapore. "If anyone thinks it's going to be the same script [as 2001-02], they'll be mistaken."
(Sumit, “Nuclear Stability in South Asia”, International Security, Fall, lexis, ldg)
The Robustness of Nuclear Deterrence
As the outcomes of the
19
99 and
2001-
02 crises show
, nuclear deterrence is robust in South Asia
.
Both crises were contained at levels considerably short of full-scale war
. That said, as Paul Kapur has argued, Pakistan's acquisition

of a nuclear weapons capability may well have emboldened its leadership, secure in the belief that India had no good options to respond. India, in turn, has been grappling with an effort to forge a new military doctrine and strategy to enable it to respond to Pakistani needling while containing the possibilities of conflict escalation, especially to the nuclear level. 78 Whether Indian military planners can fashion such a calibrated strategy to cope with Pakistani probes remains an open question. This article's analysis of the 1999 and 2001-02 crises does suggest, however, that nuclear deterrence in South Asia is far from parlous, contrary to what the critics have suggested. Three specific forms of evidence can be adduced to argue the case for the strength of nuclear deterrence
. First, there is a serious problem of conflation in the arguments of both Hoyt and Kapur. Undeniably, Pakistan's willingness to provoke
India has increased commensurate with its steady acquisition of a nuclear arsenal. This period from the late 1980s to the late 1990s, however, also coincided with two parallel developments that equipped Pakistan with the motives, opportunities, and means to meddle in India's internal affairs--particularly in Jammu and
Kashmir. The most important change that occurred was the end of the conflict with the Soviet Union, which freed up military resources for use in a new jihad in
Kashmir. This jihad, in turn, was made possible by the emergence of an indigenous uprising within the state as a result of Indian political malfeasance. 79 Once the jihadis were organized, trained, armed, and unleashed, it is far from clear whether Pakistan could control the behavior and actions of every resulting jihadist organization. 80 Consequently, although the number of attacks on India did multiply during the 1990s, it is difficult to establish a firm causal connection between the growth of Pakistani boldness and its gradual acquisition of a full-fledged nuclear weapons capability. Second, India did respond with considerable force once its military planners realized the full scope and extent of the intrusions across the Line of Control. Despite the vigor of this response,
India did exhibit restraint
. For example,
Indian pilots
were under strict instructions not to cross the Line of Control in pursuit of their bombing objectives. 81 They adhered to
these guidelines even though they left them more vulnerable to Pakistani ground fire
. 82
The
Indian military exercised such restraint to avoid provoking Pakistani fears of a wider attack
into Pakistancontrolled Kashmir and then into Pakistan itself.
Indian restraint was also evident at another level.
During the last war in Kashmir in 1965, within a week of its onset, the Indian Army horizontally escalated with an attack into Pakistani Punjab. In fact, in the Punjab, Indian forces successfully breached the international border and reached the outskirts of the regional capital, Lahore. The Indian military resorted to this strategy under conditions that were not especially propitious for the country. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, had died in late 1964. His successor, Lal Bahadur Shastri, was a relatively unknown politician of uncertain stature and standing, and the Indian military was still recovering from the trauma of the 1962 border war with the People's Republic of China. 83 Finally, because of its role in the Cold War, the Pakistani military was armed with more sophisticated, U.S.-supplied weaponry, including the F-86 Sabre and the F-104 Starfighter aircraft. India, on the other hand, had few supersonic aircraft in its inventory, barring a small number of Soviet-supplied MiG-21s and the indigenously built HF-24. 84 Furthermore, the Indian military remained concerned that China might open a second front along the Himalayan border. Such concerns were not entirely chimerical, because a Sino-Pakistani entente was under way. Despite these limitations, the Indian political leadership responded to Pakistani aggression with vigor and granted the Indian military the necessary authority to expand the scope of the war. In marked contrast to the politico-military context of
1965, in 1999 India had a self-confident (if belligerent) political leadership and a substantially more powerful military apparatus. Moreover, the country had overcome most of its Nehruvian inhibitions about the use of force to resolve disputes. 85 Furthermore, unlike in 1965, India had at least two reserve strike corps in the Punjab in a state of military readiness and poised to attack across the border if given the political nod. 86 Despite these significant differences and advantages, the Indian political leadership chose to scrupulously limit the scope of the conflict to
the
Kargil
region. As K.
Subrahmanyam, a prominent Indian defense analyst and political commentator, wrote in 1993:
The awareness
on both sides of a nuclear capability
that can enable either country to assemble nuclear weapons at short notice induces mutual caution.
This caution is already evident
on the part of India.
In
19
65
, when Pakistan carried out
its "
Operation Gibraltar
" and sent in infiltrators,
India sent its army across the cease-fire line
to destroy the assembly points of the infiltrators.
That escalated
in to
a full-scale war.
In 1990
, when Pakistan once again carried out a massive infiltration of terrorists trained in Pakistan,
India tried to deal with the problem on Indian territory and did not send its army into Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. 87

(John, “Calming Our Nuclear Jitter”, Issues in Science and Technology http://www.issues.org/26.2/mueller.html, ldg)
In contrast to these predictions, terrorist groups seem to have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going atomic
. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes, they, unlike generations of alarmists, have discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to be successful. The most plausible route for terrorists, according to most experts, would be to manufacture an atomic device
themselves from purloined fissile material (plutonium or, more likely, highly enriched uranium).
This task
, however, remains a daunting one, requiring that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered
and in sequence.
Outright armed theft of fissile material is exceedingly unlikely
not only because of the resistance of guards, but because chase would be immediate. A more promising approach would be to corrupt insiders
to smuggle out the required substances.
However, this requires the terrorists to pay off a host of greedy confederates
, including brokers and money-transmitters, any one of whom could turn on them or, either out of guile or incompetence
, furnish them with stuff that is useless. Insiders might also consider the possibility that once the heist was accomplished, the terrorists
would, as analyst Brian Jenkins none too delicately puts it, “ have every incentive to cover their trail, beginning with eliminating their confederates.
”
If terrorists were
somehow successful at obtaining a sufficient mass of
relevant material
, they would then probably have to transport it a long distance
over unfamiliar terrain and probably while being pursued by security forces.
Crossing international borders would be facilitated by following established smuggling routes, but these are not as chaotic as they appear and are often under the watch of suspicious and careful criminal regulators
.
If border personnel became suspicious of the commodity being smuggled, some of them might find it in their interest to disrupt passage, perhaps to collect the bounteous reward money that would probably be offered by alarmed governments once the uranium theft had been discovered.
Once outside the country with their precious booty, terrorists would need to set up a large and well-equipped machine shop to manufacture a bomb
and then to populate it with a very select team of highly skilled scientists, technicians, machinists, and administrators.
The group would have to be assembled and retained for the monumental task while no consequential suspicions were generated among friends, family, and police about their curious and sudden absence from normal pursuits back home. Members of the bomb-building team would also have to be utterly devoted to the cause, of course, and they would have to be willing to put their lives and certainly their careers at high risk, because after their bomb was discovered or exploded they would probably become the targets of an intense worldwide dragnet operation
. Some observers have insisted that it would be easy for terrorists to assemble a crude bomb if they could get enough fissile material.
But Christoph Wirz and Emmanuel Egger, two senior physicists in charge of nuclear issues at Switzerland‘s Spiez Laboratory, bluntly conclude that the task “could hardly be accomplished by a subnational group
.” They point out that precise blueprints are required
, not just sketches and general ideas, and that even with a good blueprint the terrorist group would most certainly be forced to redesign
.
They also stress that the work is difficult, dangerous, and extremely exacting, and that the technical requirements in several fields verge on the unfeasible
. Stephen Younger, former director of nuclear weapons research at Los Alamos Laboratories, has made a similar argument, pointing out that uranium is “exceptionally difficult to machine
” whereas “plutonium is one of the most complex metals ever discovered
, a material whose basic properties are sensitive to exactly how it is processed.“ Stressing the “daunting problems associated with material purity, machining, and a host of other issues,” Younger concludes, “ to

think that a terrorist group, working in isolation with an unreliable supply of electricity and little access to tools and supplies” could fabricate a bomb
“is farfetched at best
.”
Under the best circumstances, the process of making a bomb could take months or even a year or more, which would, of course, have to be carried out in utter secrecy
. In addition, people in the area, including criminals, may observe with increasing curiosity and puzzlement the constant coming and going of technicians unlikely to be locals. If the effort to build a bomb was successful, the finished product, weighing a ton or more, would then have to be transported to and smuggled into the relevant target country where it would have to be received by collaborators who are at once totally dedicated and technically proficient at handling, maintaining, detonating, and perhaps assembling the weapon after it arrives.
The financial costs of this extensive and extended operation could easily become monumental
. There would be expensive equipment to buy, smuggle, and set up and people to pay or pay off. Some operatives might work for free out of utter dedication to the cause, but the vast conspiracy also requires the subversion of a considerable array of criminals and opportunists, each of whom has every incentive to push the price for cooperation as high as possible.
Any criminals competent and capable enough to be effective allies are also likely to be both smart enough to see boundless opportunities for extortion and psychologically equipped by their profession to be willing to exploit them.
Those who warn about the likelihood of a terrorist bomb contend that a terrorist group could, if with great difficulty, overcome each obstacle and that doing so in each case is “not impossible.” But although it may not be impossible to surmount each individual step, the likelihood that a group could surmount a series of them quickly becomes vanishingly small. Table 1 attempts to catalogue the barriers that must be overcome under the scenario considered most likely to be successful.
In contemplating the task before them, would-be atomic terrorists would effectively be required to go though an exercise that looks much like this
. If and when they do, they will undoubtedly conclude that their prospects are daunting and accordingly uninspiring or even terminally dispiriting. It is possible to calculate the chances for success.
Adopting probability estimates that purposely and heavily bias the case in the terrorists’ favor—for example, assuming the terrorists have a 50% chance of overcoming each of the 20 obstacles—the chances that a concerted effort would be successful comes out to be less than one in a million. If one assumes, somewhat more realistically, that their chances at each barrier are one in three, the cumulative odds that they will be able to pull off the deed drop to one in well over three billion.
(Michael, “How Likely is a Nuclear Terrorist Attack on the United States?”, 4-13, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13097/how_likely_is_a_nuclear_terrorist_attack_on_the_united_states
.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fby_type%2Fonline_debate, ldg)
How likely is a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States? I doubt anyone knows. I also suspect that the exact answer isn’t all that important—even a small chance of catastrophe is worth worrying about. What is valuable is thinking through those factors that make nuclear terrorism either more or less likely; even if the exercise doesn’t yield a definitive conclusion, it helps us figure out how to prevent nuclear terrorism. I want to argue that many analyses of nuclear terrorism miss important factors that tend to make nuclear terrorism less likely than it otherwise would be. Today I want to highlight one: terrorists’ fears of failure. A nuclear weapon requires highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium, materials that don’t occur in nature and that terrorist groups cannot produce themselves. The ease of access to materials in state stockpiles is thus one of the main factors affecting the odds of a nuclear terrorist attack
. The other big factor is motivation. Most terrorist groups have little incentive to pursue nuclear terrorism, since mass murder doesn’t serve their political ends
—but for some groups, indiscriminate killing is precisely the goal. Most analysts agree that the availability of nuclear weapons and materials, and the utility to terrorist groups of successful nuclear attacks, are the two most important factors in determining the likelihood of nuclear terrorism, even if they disagree over how hard acquiring materials would be or over how many groups might expect to benefit from nuclear terrorism. So let me flag another dimension of motivation that gets too little attention.
Even

groups that want to and
possibly can execute nuclear attacks may decide against them
. Why?
Because many of the most dangerous terrorist groups hate to fail
. Brian Jenkins wrote recently that for jihadists, “failure signals
God’s disapproval
.” That’s a lot of pressure to succeed. This inevitably pushes the odds of nuclear terrorism down. When we look at our defenses against nuclear terrorism, we prudently notice the holes. When terrorists look at those same defenses, they may be fixating on whatever barriers, however limited, exist. If that’s what’s happening, nuclear terrorism may be much less likely than many expect.

1nr

– U Maryland School of Public Affairs Institute for Philosophy and Public policy Senior
Research Scholar, Mark, “INSTITUTE OF BILL OF RIGHTS LAW SYMPOSIUM DEFINING TAKINGS: PRIVATE
PROPERTY AND THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION: MUDDLE OR MUDDLE THROUGH?
TAKINGS JURISPRUDENCE MEETS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT”, 38 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 825, Lexis
Somewhat fewer than 1,000 domestic species are listed as endangered, and roughly one third that number or more are considered threatened or in jeopardy.
n335 In biodiversityrich California, the problem is particularly troubling. About one third of the species in jeopardy in the United States reside in California, and of these approximately 125 are listed as endangered. n336 Although these grim statistics should appall us for ethical reasons, we may wonder if the extinction of hundreds of species in California and thousands nationwide will cause any harm to human welfare. If any of these extinct species had a known economic use, for example, as crops, we would be able to judge the value of the species in terms of its market price. As a rule, creatures that have a direct economic use, such as crops, have habitats created for them (e.g., farms) rather than taken from them. The economic benefits, if any, that flow from endangered species are indirect and not likely to fetch a market price.
To estimate the economic value of such an endangered species we must determine its worth "at the margin," in other words, in relation to the cost of obtaining the least expensive substitute species that performs the same function or service. Suppose, for example, that the American burying beetle, a marvelous but endangered creature, n337 functions in the ecosystem by decomposing the corpses of small animals. We would ask to what expense we must go to find a different kind of beetle or some other animal ready, willing, and able to do the same work of decomposing [*904] small corpses. Nothing can be assessed economically except at the margin, that is, in relation to the price of substitutes.
"Healthy ecosystems carry out a diverse array of processes that provide both goods and services to humanity,"
observed the Ecological Society of
America in a recent report. n338 Ecosystem services, according to the report, include: "Maintaining hydrological cycles[;] [r]egulating climate;
[c]leansing water and air; [m]aintaining the gaseous composition of the atmosphere; [p]ollinating crops and other important plants[;] [g]enerating and maintaining soils[;] [s]toring and cycling essential nutrients; [a]bsorbing and detoxifying pollutants[;] [and] [p]roviding beauty, inspiration, and research[.]" n339 For one reason or another, no extinction of any species in the United States seems thus far to have altered the capacity of the ecosystems to provide these services
. The reason may be that for any species that is lost, tens, hundreds, or thousands of others are ready, willing, and able to perform the same functions and services valuable to human beings
. Perhaps twenty species of birds have vanished in the United States since 1492; of those, fifteen have vanished in
Hawaii. n340 What specific losses in ecosystem services, such as those listed above, have occurred as a result? Mammals that have become extinct include Goof's pocket gopher, Shaman's pocket gopher, and the Tacoma pocket gopher-all of which disappeared this century. "
The loss of a species from a particular area may have little or no net effect on the ability of the ecosystem to perform its ecological processes if competitors take the species' place."
n341 Has any ecosystem service diminished owing to the loss of these gophers? Or have other species, including many other kinds of gophers, simply taken their place? [*905] To be sure, if extinctions continue at present rates indefinitely, at some point there may be too few viable species ready, willing, and able to substitute for those that have been lost. How much of a "buffer" exists?
How many "extra" rivets are in the wings?
Many ecologists follow Paul Ehrlich, Peter Raven, and others in declaring that with every extinction we run the risk of calamitous damage to the environment. n342
Although one may agree with ecologists such as
Ehrlich and Raven that the earth stands on the brink of an episode of massive extinction, it may not follow from this grim fact that human beings will suffer as a result.
On the contrary, skeptics such as science writer Colin Tudge have challenged biologists to explain why we need more than a tenth of the 10 to 100 million species

that grace the earth. Noting that "cultivated systems often out-produce wild systems by 100-fold or more,"
Tudge declared that "the argument that humans need the variety of other species is, when you think about it, a theological one." n343 Tudge observed that
"the elimination of all but a tiny minority of our fellow creatures does not affect the material well-being of humans one iota."
n344 This skeptic challenged ecologists to list more than 10,000 species (other than unthreatened microbes) that are essential to ecosystem productivity or functioning. n345 "
The human species could survive just as well if 99.9% of our fellow creatures went extinct, provided only that we retained the appropriate 0.1% that we need." n346
– Env Scholar @ U of St Francis, Don, “What’s So Good About Biodiversity?”, Paper presented to the 6th Annual Joint International Society for Environmental Philosophy/ISEE
Conferencehttp://www.environmentalphilosophy.org/ISEEIAEPpapers/2009/Maier.pdf
Once again, there is suspicion of confusion.
Some particular species are good for people to eat.
Because people need to eat in order to survive, those species might qualify as critically important.
Other species have been found to have value for their production of chemicals of pharmacological value. Particular species have yielded these benefits, not biodiversity
, not species diversity. Let us overlook this confusion and presume that the position involves something more like the claim that a great diversity of organisms increases the odds that at least some few of them are or will be around that are good to eat, that some few others of them do or will provide good medicines, and that some few others do or will provide good building materials. There remains an apparent assumption that the resource-providing creatures are a random sample of all creatures. This is almost certainly untrue and we return to this matter of fact just below. But putting this objection aside (and alongside the previously noted confusion), this is still a singularly unconvincing defense of the value of species diversity. The fact is that an extraordinarily tiny minority of creatures has benefited humanity as resource, now or previously.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that this circumstance will change in the future. These facts combine with the other that any economic resource competes with other economic demands.
As a consequence, from an economic point of view
(which includes both resource and "service" value, the topic of Section 5.3 on "Biodiversity as service provider"), there is scarcely ever justification for not letting a species go extinct – even if the effort required is minimal.
Certainly, many, if not most of the symbolic creatures – such as Ursus maritimus (polar bear) and Eubalaena spp. (right whales) – fall into this category. When, as in the case of both these creatures, there is, in fact, a significant economic cost to saving them – for polar bears, reversing climate warming, 124 for right whales, slowing down the ships that traverse their thoroughfares – then the mere possibility of a future benefit from their incremental contribution to species diversity is an essentially nil "expected net present value" (to use the standard economic jargon) by comparison. Faith is one among a group of conservation biologists who fails to understand this when pressing for the "option value" of biodiversity as a resource. 125 There is another objection to the resource rationale. Insofar as conserving biodiversity
preserves the likelihood of conserving one or more valuable resources in the future, it also preserves the likelihood of conserving creatures that are destructive of resources or otherwise harmful. Disease organisms, "pests", and parasites contribute to biodiversity or at least species diversity at least as much (and possibly much more) than (for example) the trees that provide good building materials.
In fact, because parasitism might be the predominant "lifestyle" on the planet (by some estimates, outnumbering free-living species by a factor of four), conserving biodiversity is far more likely to ensure that parasitic creatures continue to be in good supply.
126 Parasites even come with a diversity bonus – namely, the species on which they are parasitic (their hosts). Polyphagous parasites deliver multiple bonuses. 127
Finally, contrary to the random sample assumption, food for people – the most essential of resources for humans – is actually supplied by organisms in a set that is vanishingly small in the total (species) diversity picture, and that for the most part are carefully maintained and managed by humans on farms. The best recent estimates are that there are

around 7,000 cultivated crop species of plants.
128
That is only about 2% of the estimated 320,000 kinds of plants on earth.
129 But that percentage is enormous in comparison to the number of livestock species
. There are
an estimated 7,600 breeds (in the 2006 Global Databank for Farm Animal Genetic Resources of the
FAO – the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) of perhaps
40 species.
130
That is a barely noticeable diversity in the context of over 9 million other animal species.
This news should relieve those who worry about the loss of resources from the loss of biodiversity. Apparently, great diversity of species, at least, is not of any great benefit, considered as either actual or potential resource
– Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, Thomas, Climate of Fear, 98-9
Nevertheless, the loss of a class of living beings does not typically threaten other species.
Most animals and plants can derive their nutrients or receive the other benefits provided by a particular species from more than a single source. If it were true that the extinction of a single species would produce a cascade of losses, then the massive extinctions of the past should have wiped out all life. Evolution forces various life forms to adjust to change.
A few may not make the adaptation but others will mutate to meet the new conditions. Although a particular chain of DNA may be eliminated through the loss of a species, other animals or plants adapting to the same environment often produce similar genetic solutions with like proteins
. It is almost impossible to imagine a single species that, if eliminated, would threaten us humans. Perhaps if the E. coli that are necessary for digestion became extinct, we could no longer exist. But those bacteria live in a symbiotic relationship with man and, as long as humans survive, so will they. Thus any animal that hosts a symbiotic species need not fear the loss of its partner. As long as the host remains, so will parasites and symbiotic species.

/13 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/01/10/crunch-time-for-the-tpp/
Crunch time for the TPP
During President Obama’s recent trip to Asia, TPP nations set a deadline of October 2013 to conclude the negotiations. TPP members have blown past a previous deadline of November 2011: should they fail again at the end of 2013 there is the real danger that the talks will unravel, and East Asian nations will turn to alternatives, pushed strongly by China. On 18 November, as President Obama embarked on the highly symbolic trip to Asia, his top security and economic adviser
, Thomas
Donilon, asserted that the TPP agreement is ‘the most significant negotiation currently underway in the international trading system’. It is also the
central lynchpin of the Obama administration’s much touted
diplomatic and security ‘pivot’ to Asia.
Thus, should the negotiations falter or fail, the result would be not only a severe economic setback, but also a dramatic symbolic defeat for US leadership in the region
.
Positively, in an era in which the United
States is deeply divided over globalisation and free trade initiatives, the TPP enjoys unusual bipartisan support.
Launched under the Bush administration, the agreement has been taken up as a signature accomplishment for President Obama’s second term. During the 2012 presidential campaign, however, Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney also voiced strong support for the pact. Since the election, Texan Republican Kevin Brady, who heads the all-important House trade subcommittee, has urged the president to ‘go big’ on trade during his second term, and complete the TPP in 2013. Just what is the TPP and why is it so significant? The current negotiations grew out of a four-nation agreement concluded in 2006 by Chile, New Zealand, Brunei and Singapore. Subsequently, Australia, Peru, Vietnam and the United States signed on, followed in 2010 by Malaysia, and most recently by Mexico and Canada. Detailed negotiations began in early
2010, and since then there have been 15 formal sessions.
The ultimate goal of the TPP is to include all of the nations in the APEC forum
. At the present time, should the 11-nation negotiation be successful, the TPP would encompass a free trade area covering some 658 million people
, and almost US$21 trillion in economic activity.
If
South Korea and Japan join the negotiations, as many expect in 2013–14, the free market territory would expand to a combined GDP of US$26 trillion, constituting 30 per cent of world exports.
The TPP has been called the first ‘21st-Century Agreement’. If successful, it will put in place international trade rules to lower or eliminate behind-the-border domestic barriers to foreign competition. Among the 29 chapters under negotiation will be rules to open government procurement contracts to foreign competitors; rules to liberalise service sectors, such as telecommunications, banking and accounting; non-discriminatory health and safety regulations; fair competition with state-owned enterprises; and a level playing field for foreign investment. Despite the emphasis on 21stcentury regulatory reform, there are also longstanding 20th-century trade issues that will prove difficult to resolve. For the United States, the greatest challenges stem from sugar, dairy and cotton protection and subsidies; textile and so-called rules of origin that hamper clothing supply chains; and, finally, union demands for interference with the labour laws of TPP trading partners. In the end, the key to success will come down to trade-offs between 21st-century liberalisation and old-fashioned 20th-century protectionism.
The urgency to successfully conclude TPP negotiations is heightened by the appearance of an alternative path for Asian regionalism that does not include the United States
. At the November 2012 East Asia Summit, ASEAN leaders, as well as Australia, China,
India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, formally announced that they would begin negotiations in 2013 for a Regional Comprehensive
Economic Partnership (RCEP), with the goal of concluding the pact by 2015.
Much of the impetus for this launch came from
China, which has long pressed for an exclusive, intra-Asian regional economic architecture.
Given the diversity of the membership
(including still-closed economies, such as India and Indonesia, and less-developed economies, such as Laos and Cambodia) and an uncertain timetable, RCEP is not an immediate challenge to the TPP. But should the US-led pact dissolve into contentious, even intractable, conflicts that defy resolution, China’s preferred option of the
RCEP will provide a hard-to-resist alternative.
Thus, much is riding on the ability of the Obama administration to advance TPP

liberalisation goals, while crafting compromises that are acceptable both to other TPP partners and to the US Congress and business community.
Japan Times 1/24/2010 [Japan's chance to exploit Russian suspicion of China, January issue of
Sentaku, a monthly magazine covering Japanese political, economic and social issues. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110124a2.html
]
Military policy and maneuvers undertaken by Russia in recent months appear to indicate that Moscow has
begun to feel threatened by China's growing military strength, according to experts on Russian affairs. Last July, for example,
Russia conducted the most extensive military exercises in its history in the Far Eastern region
. Moscow is also said to be contemplating deployment of the French-built amphibious assault ship Mistral in the Far East. Russia's official explanation remains that these actions are meant to counter the Japan-U.S. alliance in connection with the territorial dispute between Russia and Japan over the four northern islands that were occupied by the former Soviet Union immediately after the Pacific War as well as with the mounting tensions in and around the Korean
Peninsula. In the views of an expert, however,
Russia's buildup in the Far East is also intended to counter the rapidly expanding military might of China. Indeed, Russian officials responsible for security and military affairs do not hide their perception that Beijing has become a serious threat
, the expert said. Officially, Moscow denies that China is a potential threat, and endeavors to play the political game of promoting friendship with Beijing. As a result, any suspicion of China is excluded from Moscow's public discussions on security and military strategies. But the truth is that cracks have started to emerge in the seemingly solid ties between the two powers since around 2009
, leading Russia to regard China as a "hypothetical enemy." It is no longer possible to fully comprehend Russia's military strategy, including nuclear strategy, without taking into account various factors related to China. Its new national security strategy adopted in 2009, for instance, shows that the Kremlin has serious concerns about the increasingly influential roles being played by China in the multipolar world. Furthermore, the military doctrine, revised last year for the first time in a decade, reflects Russia's perception that while the chances of Russia entering a full-scale war with the
West have lessened, the dangers of regional disputes along its borders have mounted
. It is commonly accepted among experts in Russian affairs that the " borders" referred to
are not the one with Georgia but rather the long boundary with
China.
Last December, Russia integrated its Far East military district and part of its Siberia military district into the Vostok (eastern) military district, which covers Russia's entire border with China. In addition, the headquarters for the new military district was shifted from Vladivostok on the Japan Sea coast, where the Pacific Fleet is based, to Khabarovsk further inland.
The only possible explanation for these changes is that Russia has considered the potential of border conflict with China.
An expert on Russia's security affairs says the expansion of China has become a serious threat to the Russia's sparsely populated Far East
.
Russia's defense budget for 2011 is about 20 percent larger than 2010's, with further increases expected in the years ahead. As detente with the
U.S. and European countries progresses, what else would prompt Moscow to pursue arms expansion than threats it fears from China? That
Russia is distancing itself from China is also reflected in its policy toward North Korea. When North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun visited
Moscow in December, his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, said in an angry tone that the North's bombardment of a South Korean island and killing of civilians "deserve condemnation." He was referring to the shelling in November by North Korea of Yeonpyeong Island, which killed two
South Korean marines and two civilians and injured 15 others. This is said to have been the first time that Russia has publicly reproached North
Korea. A Russian diplomatic source said it represented Moscow's de facto ultimatum to Pyongyang. This shift of Russian policy with regard to
North Korea has two aspects: One is the increasingly close relations between Russia and South Korea, especially in the joint development of natural resources.
The other is the weakening relationship between Russia and China. As its relations with the
U.S. and Europe improve, especially with the U.S., Russia no longer sees the need to strengthen cooperation with China
. Conversely,
Moscow feels threatened by what it considers Chinese
"overconfidence," as exemplified by China's stepping up its naval actions lately in international waters
. To counter such moves, perhaps Russian leaders believe it makes more sense to work closely with the United
States, Japan and South Korea
. Relations between Japan and Russia have been at a low point since Nov. 1, when President Dmitry
Medvedev defied Japan and became the first top Russian leader to visit one of the four northern islands claimed by Japan but held by Russia.
Japan should realize it has a good opportunity to mend ties with Moscow by taking advantage of the growing rift between Russia and China
. Japan should explain to Russia the importance of strategically working together. Such a tactic is rarely used by Japan. South Korea, though, scored a big diplomatic victory by approaching the Kremlin in earnest and winning a major shift in the Kremlin's attitude concerning North Korea.
Unfortunately, not many in Japan's

political and diplomatic circles think in this way. Indeed, the Japanese government is so preoccupied with one issue — the return of the northern islands to Japan — that Tokyo does not appear to recognize such an opportunity.
Russia is triggering a major shift in East Asian regional relations with potentially big repercussions. If Tokyo fails to take advantage of this, Japan could once again be left out of a global development
.
Sharavin 1 Head of the Institute for Political and military analysis 2001, (Alexander Sharavin, head of the institute for political and military analysis, 10/1/2001 The Third Threat http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5470.html
)
Russia may face the "wonderful" prospect of combating the Chinese army, which, if full mobilization is called, is comparable in size with Russia's entire population, which also has nuclear weapons (even tactical weapons become strategic if states have common borders) and would be absolutely insensitive to losses (even a loss of a few million of the servicemen would be acceptable for China). Such a war would be more horrible than the World War II. It would require from our state maximal tension, universal mobilization and complete accumulation of the army military hardware, up to the last tank or a plane, in a single direction (we would have to forget such "trifles" like Talebs and Basaev, but this does not guarantee success either). Massive nuclear strikes on basic military forces and cities of China would finally be the only way out, what would exhaust Russia's armament completely. We have not got another set of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-based missiles, whereas the general forces would be extremely exhausted in the border combats. In the long run, even if the aggression would be stopped after the majority of the Chinese are killed, our country would be absolutely unprotected against the
"Chechen" and the "Balkan" variants both, and even against the first frost of a possible nuclear winter.

9/21/
http://www.theledger.com/article/20080921/NEWS/809210332
There will be critics who claim that the nation's lawmakers should work through their scheduled fall
recess and pass laws to address the economy
. It's easy to point fingers and say Congress is avoiding its responsibility. DANGER
IN REACTING TOO QUICKLY But if the House and Senate stayed in session, they would feel unavoidable pressure to do something - not to do the right thing, but just to do something. Congress consistently feels the need to pass reflex legislation. And in regard to problems as complex as this, quick reflex legislation is likely to cause more harm than good. That often happens. After accounting scandals in the first half of this decade, Congress reacted by passing the Sarbanes-Oxley law, intended to make corporate officials more accountable for the financial health of their companies. But the law has undermined some of the nation's financial markets, putting them at a competitive disadvantage with financial centers overseas.
While the national legislature is in recess, committees can continue to work and their staffs can conduct research.
Aviation leaders urge Congress to act on energy policy – now http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2008/0730/p02s05-usec.html
Contending that the nation is now in a "full-blown and deepening energy crisis
which is causing irreparable harm," some leaders in the aviation industry are urging
President
Bush to call a special session of Congress
next month.
The goal would be to debate energy alternatives and establish policies that would lead to a coherent national energy policy
. The idea is to move away from a piecemeal attack on $100-plus--a-barrel oil by just attempting to rein in speculators, who are blamed for the high prices. Instead, the idea is to attack the underlying psychology, which is that there will not be enough oil in the world to address growing demand. "Our problem is that our national confidence has been eroded by the perception that the most powerful country in the world ... lacks the political will to address the energy crisis," says Robert Crandall, former CEO of American
Airlines. "A coherent, long-term national energy policy encompassing a full range of options would reverse the perception that America can no longer deal with her problems." Other aviation analysts agree that the nation needs a comprehensive energy policy. But they argue that the aviation industry's problems are more complex than just high oil prices. The airline industry is by nature cyclical, they note, and its current economic troubles are typical of the downside of an economic cycle. The larger problem, as they see it, is that during good times of the economic cycle, the airlines didn't make enough money to weather the inevitable downtown. That has been compounded by the run-up in fuel prices. These analysts argue that current oil prices are tied to economic and foreign policy as well as a national energy policy. "We've needed a comprehensive energy and transportation policy for 30 years. That's nothing new," says Robert Mann, president of R.W. Mann & Co. in Port
Washington, N.Y. "[This current crisis] is tied to a very broad set of problems that are related to a whole series of decisions – some of which were made 30 years ago, some of which were made seven years ago – as well as a series of disastrous economic and foreign-policy decisions."
Some political analysts aren't optimistic about the chances for a special session of Congress, primarily because this is an election year and both
Mr. Bush and Congress currently have low popularity ratings. "Bush is as lame a lame duck as we've ever had in history, and Congress is even less popular. It's just not going to happen," says Larry Sabato, a political analyst at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "The next opportunity to develop [a comprehensive energy policy] is with a new president and a new Congress." Such a session of Congress would be highly unusual, acknowledges Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition, which represents corporate travel managers. But Mr.

Mitchell, coauthor of a letter to Bush about the matter, adds that if the president and Congress " really
care about the country ," they might want to consider it.
"What we have to do is attack is the psychology. We have to come up with some solutions that will be viewed as credible as a short-term energy policy by the market," he says. Oil prices wouldn't be going up the way they are, he adds, "were it not for the fact that investors perceive that we're not capable of solving our own problems – whether it's the lack of the right monetary policy or the right energy policy."

(Jesse, “Ebola cracks list of Americans' top concerns,” http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/221358-gallup-ebola-isis-among-top-concerns, accessed 10-23-14, CMM)
Ebola has broken into the top 10 issues concerning Americans, tying worries over the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and surpassing those over terrorism in general, according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday. Among top problems facing the nation,
Ebola and ISIS are the main concern for 5 percent of Americans
, respectively
, in the October poll,
similar to concern for issues such as federal debt and education, and above concern over terrorism (3 percent).
Both continue to rank behind the economy (17 percent), disapproval for the government (16 percent), jobs and unemployment (10 percent),
and healthcare (8 percent).
Immigration, the primary concern for 7 percent of Americans, has dropped from a peak 17 percent in July.
President Obama has said he will take executive action on immigration after the Nov. 4 election.

st
(Boer, 4-29-14 “Even Young Voters Are Turning Away from Democrats in 2014,” http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/29/young_voters_are_disillusioned_with_politics_and_w on_t_be_voting_in_the.html, accessed 8-16-14, CMM)
A new poll from the Institute of Politics at Harvard released today offers more bad news for
Democrats in 2014
.
Only 23 percent of 18 to 29 year olds surveyed said they will definitely vote in this year’s midterm elections
, and more of them identified as conservatives
(32 percent) than liberals
(22 percent).
The pollsters found that 44 percent of young people who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 said they would vote this year. Just 35 percent of those who voted for Obama said the same.
In recent years, youth turnout in elections has been low compared to older voters, even during presidential election years
. A report from the U.S. Census Bureau this month points out that only
38 percent of eligible 18 to 24 year-olds bothered in 2012 (in 1964, it was 51 percent), while nearly 70 percent of those above retirement age voted (The Census Bureau does not look at 25 to 29 year olds alone, or group them with the younger cohort.)
Disengagement among young voters is even worse in midterm years
. A college student or young professional may not even be in the same state in four years’ time, so why should she care who its senator will be?
But young voters
, despite casting ballots in limited numbers, can make a difference in tight races . In 2012, they showed up to vote in key swing states;
turnout for 18 to 29 year-olds in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Colorado
were above 50 percent, helping to tip them for Obama
. Last year in Virginia, then candidate, now Gov. Terry McAuliffe did his share of college campus stops and beer drinking with students to plug his education and jobs platform. It worked: 26 percent of them showed up to the polls (and this was an off-off year state election!), with a plurality voting for him. (Stumping by his friend, Bill Clinton, a surprising millennial favorite, might have helped a little bit, too). Compare that to the
2009 state gubernatorial election, where only 17 percent of young people cast votes (mostly for Republican Bob McDonnell).
Tight races abound this year
, especially in the Senate
, where Democrats have more seats to lose.
History says that the president’s party is set for a drubbing during a midterm year. So it is worrying for Democrats that fewer of their young supporters seem to care
. In fact, they are disillusioned with politics all together.
The Harvard poll found that trust in political institutions has fallen to a historic low of 31 percent.
Young people, no matter their political philosophy, are cynical about American democracy today:
62 percent think elected officials enter politics for a “selfish reason,” and few would run for office themselves. They can be hardly expected to canvass for votes, if that’s the case.
(“Why the Democrats will probably lose,” http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/09/senate-midterms, accessed 9-11-14,
CMM) *Modified ableist language
NOT all the major polling models give Republicans a clear edge to capture the Senate this autumn, but most do. The New York Times’ “The
Upshot” puts the chances at 65%, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight most recently called it “in the neighborhood of 60-40” and the Washington
Post’s “Election Lab” gives the GOP a 51% shot. Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium is the outlier, giving the Democrats a 70% chance of holding the majority.
The obvious reasons for the GOP’s advantage are technical, as we wrote earlier this month.
More vulnerable Democrats are up for re-election this year than vulnerable Republicans. The
GOP needs to take away six seats from the Democrats, and is already nearly assured of winning three; of the six or seven competitive races
(depending on who’s counting),
Republicans must win just three to gain a majority. Add in
Barack
Obama’s low approval ratings and the fact that the out-of-power party generally does better in midterm elections, and you have a nice bloodless political-science description of the
Republican advantage.
Yet the technical factors don't quite explain why Democrats feel so listless this autumn. Democratic spin doctors trying to get upbeat media coverage are resorting to state-by-state

descriptions of specifics that play in their favour
. It is true that things look better for Democrats at a granular level, which is why Mr Wang thinks they will hold the Senate. And the Democrats’ technology-driven ground game, which added a percentage point or so to
Barack Obama’s vote total in 2012, may do so again this year. But when Democratic flacks promote these sorts of insidebaseball stories, it only highlights their lack of a persuasive overarching political narrative . This autumn, it is simply not clear what the Democrats want, or what they are promising to do for the people they want to vote for them
.
It is not that people do not know
, in general, what Republicans and
Democrats stand for
.
Americans
know that Republicans believe in lower taxes, less regulation of business, fewer government benefits and tighter immigration rules, and that they want to repeal Obamacare and oppose action on climate change. They know
Democrats believe in more generous public benefits, action on climate change and the environment, looser immigration rules, and preserving or expanding Obamacare and raising taxes on the rich.
Voters identify Democrats with minority and women’s concerns
, and Republicans with the concerns of whites and men.
But Democrats aren’t running strong campaigns that tie in coherently to any of those themes
.
There is no clear national vision of what Democrats would actually do if they manage to hold the
Senate. In Iowa
, for example, Bruce
Braley, a Democratic congressman, is locked in a dead heat with the
Republican candidate,
Joni
Ernst, a state senator
. Mr
Braley is generally described as the most left-wing of the new Democratic Senate candidates this year. Yet his chief campaign issue is only modestly liberal: preserving the government’s system of subsidised student aid for college.
Mr
Braley notes that
Ms
Ernst supports privatising the federal government’s low-interest Direct Loan programme, and calls this a “reckless, Tea Party plan
”. Ms Ernst’s campaign responds that privatisation could be “backstopped” by the federal government, sparing students any increase in interest rates. Mr Braley’s selection of this issue seems reasonably smart, and was clearly guided by the fact that Ms Ernst herself received federal aid to get through college. It allows him to tie her to the increasingly unpopular Tea Party movement, and plays to the established perception that Democrats are more likely to defend public benefits for the poor and middle class. But this is a small-bore issue, and the pitch is defensive: Mr
Braley is warning that the Republican candidate will eliminate existing programmes, rather than promising any new ones
.
It isn’t surprising that Democrats aren’t promising much, since they lack the capacity to deliver anything . Whether or not the Democrats retain the Senate, the past two years have demonstrated that legislation on any major issue will die in the Republican-controlled House
. Pragmatic Republicans have been entirely stymied by their party’s Tea Party wing, which will not countenance any compromise with Democrats.
Democrats’ hopes for progress on key issues such as immigration and climate change have come to rest on executive action by the president, but that prospect is so politically risky that
Mr
Obama may decide to delay any major initiatives until after the elections. The pivotal condition here is the impossibility of getting Tea-party Republicans to vote for any new legislation that has been approved by Democrats, and the inability of more pragmatic Republicans to bypass the extremists.
In the 2012 elections, the Obama administration had a theory of change: what was needed was to “break the
Republican fever” over taxes. The Republicans’ rigid opposition to raising any form of taxes, ever, was what made any form of new government programme impossible, went the theory; using the expiration of the Bush tax cuts to force them to abandon that pledge would open the possibility of negotiation and compromise on other issues. This theory turned out to be wrong.
The tea-party Republicans’ resistance to compromise has rendered the House incapable of passing even legislation to address an urgent humanitarian border crisis
, with tens of thousands of children trapped in immigration limbo.
In the face of the far right’s effective veto over the congressional GOP, Democrats have given up on passing any significant legislation either until they regain control of the House, an impossibly remote prospect, or until the
Tea Party somehow withers away, which shows no signs of happening. The Democrats’ acceptance of their inability to accomplish anything significant has left them unable to campaign on big themes .
The party feels exhausted
, still convinced of the need for
immigration reform
, climate change legislation and expanded benefits for the middle class, but unable to imagine a political pathway to get there
.
If the Democrats lose the Senate this fall , it may be technically due to an unlucky roster of elections and the traditional midterm setback for the party

in power. But
it will
also be a verdict on the party’s inability to conjure a sense of élan or vision in the face of the political paralysis [ gridlock
]
tea-party Republicans have induced.

nd
(Josh, 3-4-14, “Let’s Weed Out
Republicans in 2014,” http://suffolkresolves.com/2014/03/04/lets-weed-out-republicans-in-2014/, accessed 8-29-14, CMM)
So how can Democrats win big in 2014? It’s simple: run on pot.
IT’S ALL ABOUT TURNOUT A recent CNN poll showed that a majority of Americans (55%) support legalizing marijuana,
which is a staggering number when you consider that just 34% supported it in 2002. However, when you look deeper into the numbers, it tells a different story. Just 39% of people age 65+ support legalization, and among people age 50-64 the approval rises only slightly to 50%. However, among 18-34 year olds, it’s wildly popular: over 66% support full legalization
.
This is great news for the Democratic Party, which has struggled in recent years to turn out voters during Midterm Elections
, and continued this trend in 2010. In 2008, voters age 18-29 made up 18% of the electorate. In the 2010 midterms, young people accounted for a paltry 11% of the vote.
In 2014, much of the debate will be centered on Obamacare. Unfortunately for Democrats, this isn’t a motivating factor for young people to head to the polls. It doesn’t excite them
. They feel invincible and don’t think they need health insurance. It’s too abstract.
Marijuana is different. It’s beloved by young people: a symbol of equal parts independence and rebellion.
Unlike health care, which can feel overwhelming and complicated, marijuana is a tangible issue that young people can relate to. It’s simple and straightforward. By pushing legalized marijuana nationally, Democrats can provide much-needed motivation for young people to turn out and vote for them.
Simply put, paying $100 per month for Health Care that you may not even need doesn’t excite young voters, but being able to walk down the street to a pot shop and pay $40 for an 8th of legal marijuana does. Best of all, this isn’t just a theory — the numbers back it up. Election data from the pro-marijuana group Just Say Now showed that in
2008 the youth vote
(18-29) stood at 14% in the state of Colorado. In 2012, when a marijuana initiative was on the ballot, that number rose to 20%.
In the state of Washington the increase was even more pronounced
. In 2008, the youth vote was 10%. With pot on the ballot in 2012 it soared to 22%.
(Harry, “Senate Update: Georgia On My Mind,” http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/senate-forecast-georgia-on-my-mind/, accessed 10-19-14, CMM)
Something funny happened in FiveThirtyEight’s Senate forecast over the last two days. The overall odds haven’t moved much — Republicans have a 61 percent chance of winning a Senate majority — but the second-most competitive race is now in a state that hasn’t been paramount in the minds of most political analysts:
Georgia. The model now gives Republican David Perdue a 66 percent chance of winning in the Peach State and a tiny 1.4 point lead over Democrat Michelle Nunn.
We project Perdue to fall just short of a majority in November, which would trigger a runoff in
January.
To those that follow these updates regularly, the movement in Georgia shouldn’t come as a surprise.
Nunn has always been close
(just not this close). Three weeks ago, I wrote an article headlined “A January Runoff In Georgia Is Getting More Likely.” Nunn was down by 3.2 percentage points then. The thing that moved our forecast the most was a SurveyUSA poll released this week showing Nunn ahead 48 percent to 45 percent. It was the first time SurveyUSA, which ranks as one of the best polling firms in our pollster ratings, showed anything other than a Perdue lead. Other Georgia polls from Landmark and GaPundit.com have shown Nunn ahead at times, but neither has as good of a record as SurveyUSA. The movement in SurveyUSA’s polls appears to be real, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee and
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are both pouring more money into Georgia.
There’s still a lot we don’t know about

the race. We haven’t had a gold-standard poll there since the beginning of September. Back then, Abt
SRBI (polling for the Atlanta Journal Constitution) found Perdue ahead by 4 percentage points
The battle for funds also appears to be shifting. Perdue edged out Nunn in fundraising in the third quarter. Nunn had been substantially out-raising
Perdue.
What’s becoming increasingly clear
, however, is the importance of Libertarian Amanda Swafford’s campaign.
In the last two SurveyUSA polls
she has earned 3 percent of the vote
. That has shrunk slightly from earlier surveys; it’s not uncommon for a third-party candidate to fade down the stretch.
But if Swafford’s vote percentage holds, either Perdue or Nunn would need to beat the other by at least 3 percentage points to avoid a runoff. Perdue’s current lead wouldn’t cut it. Who would have the advantage in a runoff?
Unfortunately, very little polling has been done testing Perdue vs. Nunn without Swafford. A P ublic
P olicy P olling survey from earlier this month found that Perdue’s 2-point lead on Nunn with
Swafford expanded to 3 points without her.
PPP
also found white voters would be more likely to vote in
January than black voters, possibly benefiting Perdue
. Again, though, it’s only one survey. Recent history doesn’t offer much guidance either. One possible precedent is the 2008 Senate election in Georgia. Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss initially finished with
49.8 percent of the vote to Democrat Jim Martin’s 46.8 percent, triggering a runoff. Chambliss won that contest 57.4 percent to 42.6 percent, as the share of black voters dropped off. But that race took place in a presidential year, after a general election featuring the first black presidential nominee on a major-party ticket. It probably isn’t the best comparison for this year. In Louisiana’s 2002 Senate election, African-
Americans made up a larger share of runoff voters than they did in the initial election. As our forecast indicates,
Perdue is favored to get more votes in a one-on-one runoff matchup against Nunn
And that runoff could
, depending on how other states vote, determine control of the Senate.
(Matt, “Georgia Politicians Call for Legalizing Marijuana,” http://patch.com/georgia/dunwoody/georgia-politicians-call-legalizing-marijuana#.VEP-ThZXtuk, accessed 10-19-14, CMM)
Georgia is joining the national conversation on marijuana legalization with its call to let Peach State residents vote on the substance’s legal use
, which would be a first for the South if the effort gains traction.
Georgia is ahead of other states in the push for legalizing marijuana in all forms as the argument for medical use gains traction in the South
. Other Southern states, such as Alabama and Louisiana, have begun to consider regulated cannabis use for medical conditions. Cannabidiol, a form of marijuana that can be administered orally in a liquid form, has been shown as an effective treatment to children who suffer upwards of 100 seizures a day, The New York Times reports. “
Georgia voters should be allowed to vote on the issue,” said Doug Craig, the chairman of the Libertarian Party of
Georgia
, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “
If the voters were allowed to vote, we believe they would vote to legalize.
The party emphasized its view of legalizing marijuana in a press release Wednesday
.
Unlike the laws some states already have that allow the drug’s medical use, the Libertarian Party of Georgia is advocating for its legal use in all form
The movement comes months after Colorado and Washington state legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Additionally
Craig said the socially liberal, fiscally conservative party decided to voice its opinion after the New York Times’ recently endorsed legalizing the substance.
Gov. Nathan Deal supported conducting clinical trials for medical marijuana in early July, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. State Rep. Allen Peake has voiced support for the trials. The conversation is not new to Georgia, although the state’s legislature has not called for a vote. Advocates for legalization cite wasted federal money on drug-prevention programs and enforcement that have done little to counter the crime rate as reasons to allow and regulate usage. The issue has caught traction in the Capitol, where a legislative study committee on medical marijuana will meet on Aug. 27.
Libertarian Party of Georgia members
Andrew Hunt and former Flowery Branch City Councilwoman Amanda
Swafford are running for
governor and the U.S. Senate this year
, respectively.

(Brandon, “Nunn confirms she voted for Obama,” http://georgiatipsheet.com/2014/10/17/nunn-confirms-voted-obama/, accessed 10-19-14, CMM)
Two days after declining to acknowledge a question on whether or not she cast a ballot for President
Obama in 2008 or 2012, Michelle Nunn has now admitted doing so. The report comes via Twitter, from
The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe: That Nunn went ahead and stated what is largely the obvious will likely spare her the heartburn that’s befallen Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes in the last week. She refused to say who she voted for in an editorial board interview, then doubled down in a debate with Senator Mitch McConnell, sparking national derision and poll numbers that appear to be falling. Still, though, it underscores the party tightrope that’s dogged Nunn since she launched her campaign last year. Obama’s approval rating is underwater in 43 states, and recent data pegs it at just
39 percent in the Peach State. His disapproval? 58 percent. Ads from both Perdue and pro-Republican
forces have repeatedly sought to cast Nunn as another national Democrat in tune with the Obama agenda, and that appears to be manifesting itself as an issue as Election Day draws near.
th
(Jim, “Georgia seat – and U.S. Senate control – might require runoff,” http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/12/243032/georgia-seat-and-us-senatecontrol.html, accessed 10-19-14, CMM)
Yet neither Michelle Nunn nor David Perdue has been able to lock up the race for the state’s open U.S.
Senate seat. And with a Libertarian candidate drawing a small but steady sliver of the vote, the contest for closely divided Georgia – and perhaps control of the entire Senate
may not be decided until a runoff in January
“It may not be over in November
It may last until the next Congress is actually sworn in,” said Charles Bullock, a political scientist at the University of Georgia. It’s a potentially crucial race as they seek to replace Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Republican, who isn’t running for re-election.
Republicans are expected to win several seats from Democrats nationwide, perhaps gaining control of the Senate
. But
Georgia is one of the few states where the Republicans are at risk of losing a seat, which could complicate their march to power in Washington. Perdue has the edge. “I still think it’s probably Republicans’ to lose
,” said Bullock.
Republicans have been gaining in Georgia for the last decade: Since Sonny Perdue won the governor’s office, they’ve taken the Legislature and both U.S. Senate seats.
But the state isn’t a slam dunk
Perdue doesn’t have majority support in the polls – necessary on Election Day to win outright and avoid a runoff
. Chambliss himself had to win re-election in 2008 in a runoff. And while
President Barack
Obama isn’t popular in the state, his numbers aren’t as bad here as they are in much of the rest of the South
instead reflecting the national
.