Afghan Instability Good
advertisement
Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 1/212 TAMPA PREP 2009-2010 IMPACTS AND TURNS FILE Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Impacts and Turns File ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Accidental Launch Bad (Nuclear War) ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Afghan Instability Bad – Central Asian War ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Afghan Instability Bad – Iran..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Afghan Instability Bad – Sunni-Shia War ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Afghan Instability Bad – Terrorism ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Afghan Instability Good – Chechen Terrorists ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Afghan Instability Good – Chinese Stability ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Afghan Instability Good – Russian Economy .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Air Pollution Bad (Extinction) ................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Air Pollution Bad (Honeybees) ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Air Pollution Good (Warming) ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Asian Instability Bad (Nuclear War) ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 Biodiversity Bad – Ecosystems................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Biodiversity Bad (Evolution) ................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Biodiversity Bad (Opop) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Biodiversity Bad – War ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Biodiversity Good (Disease) .................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Biodiversity Good (War/Economy) ......................................................................................................................................................... 22 Biodiversity Good (Agriculture) .............................................................................................................................................................. 23 Biotech Bad (Bioterror) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Biotech Good (AIDS) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 25 Biotech Good (Bioterror) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Biotech Good (Swine Flu) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 27 CCP Collapse Bad – China Russia War ................................................................................................................................................... 28 CCP Collapse Bad (Nuclear War) ........................................................................................................................................................... 29 CCP Collapse Good (Nuclear War) ......................................................................................................................................................... 30 China-Taiwan War Good (CCP Collapse) ............................................................................................................................................... 31 Chinese Modernization Bad – ASATs ..................................................................................................................................................... 32 Chinese Modernization Bad – CCP Collapse .......................................................................................................................................... 34 Chinese Modernization Bad – Indo-Pak War .......................................................................................................................................... 35 Chinese Modernization Bad – Japanese Rearm ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Chinese Modernization Bad – Missile Testing ........................................................................................................................................ 37 Chinese Modernization Bad – Terrorism ................................................................................................................................................. 38 Chinese Modernization Bad – Prolif ........................................................................................................................................................ 39 Chinese Modernization Good (Russian Nukes) 1/2 ................................................................................................................................. 40 Chinese Modernization Good (Russian Nukes) 2/2 ................................................................................................................................. 41 Competitiveness Bad (Trade Wars and Economy) .................................................................................................................................. 42 Competitiveness Bad (Unemployment) ................................................................................................................................................... 43 Competitiveness Bad (Singapore 1/2)...................................................................................................................................................... 44 Competitiveness Bad (Singapore 2/2) ...................................................................................................................................................... 45 Ext – Singapore Competitive ................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Ext – Competition Zero Sum ................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Ext – Singapore Solves Wars ................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Competitiveness Good (Economy) .......................................................................................................................................................... 49 Competitiveness Good (Heg) ................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Deforestation Bad (Biodiversity) ............................................................................................................................................................. 51 Deforestation Bad – Diseases .................................................................................................................................................................. 52 Deforestation Bad (Poverty) .................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Deforestation Bad – Warming ................................................................................................................................................................. 54 Deforestation Good (Warming) ............................................................................................................................................................... 55 Eugenics Good (Disease) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 56 Eugenics Good (U.S. China War) ............................................................................................................................................................ 58 Famine Good – Civil Wars ...................................................................................................................................................................... 59 High Food Prices Bad (Chinese Economy) ............................................................................................................................................. 60 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Things Go Boom! Gonzo and Lison 2/212 High Food Prices Bad (Food Shortages) .................................................................................................................................................. 61 High Food Prices Bad (GMO’s) .............................................................................................................................................................. 62 High Food Prices Bad (Kills Half The Planet) ......................................................................................................................................... 63 High Food Prices Good (African Economy) ............................................................................................................................................ 64 High Food Prices Good (Agriculture) ...................................................................................................................................................... 65 High Oil Prices Bad (Biofuels) 1/2 .......................................................................................................................................................... 66 High Oil Prices Bad (Biofuels) 2/2 .......................................................................................................................................................... 67 High Oil Prices Bad (Econ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 68 High Oil Prices Bad (Food Prices) ........................................................................................................................................................... 69 High Oil Prices Bad (Heg) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 70 High Oil Prices Bad (Russia) 1/2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 71 High Oil Prices Bad (Russia) 2/2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 72 High Oil Prices Bad (Tar Sands) 1/2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 73 High Oil Prices Bad (Tar Sands) 2/2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 74 High Oil Prices Bad (Terrorism) .............................................................................................................................................................. 75 High Oil Prices Good (Econ) ................................................................................................................................................................... 76 High Oil Prices Good (Russia)................................................................................................................................................................. 77 High Oil Prices Good (Russian Economy) .............................................................................................................................................. 78 High Oil Prices Good (Warming) ............................................................................................................................................................ 79 Human Rights Bad (US China Relations) ................................................................................................................................................ 80 Ext – Kills Relations ................................................................................................................................................................................ 81 Human Rights Bad (War) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 82 Human Rights Good (Iran Prolif) ............................................................................................................................................................ 83 Human Rights Good (Terrorism) ............................................................................................................................................................. 84 Human Rights Good (Heg) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 85 Iran Strikes Bad (Extinction) ................................................................................................................................................................... 86 Iran Strikes Bad (Turkish Relations) ....................................................................................................................................................... 87 Iran Strikes Bad (Terror) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 88 Iran Strikes Bad – China .......................................................................................................................................................................... 89 Iran Strikes Good (Economy) .................................................................................................................................................................. 90 Iran Srikes Good (Mid East Prolif) .......................................................................................................................................................... 91 Iraqi Civil War Good – Iranian Prolif ...................................................................................................................................................... 92 Iraqi Civil War Good – Terrorism ........................................................................................................................................................... 93 Middle East War Bad (Econ) ................................................................................................................................................................... 94 Middle East War Bad (Terror and Democracy) ....................................................................................................................................... 95 Middle East War Bad (Nuclear War) ....................................................................................................................................................... 96 Middle East War Bad – Nuclear War ...................................................................................................................................................... 97 Middle East War Good – Chechen War ................................................................................................................................................... 98 Middle East War Good – Chinese De-Dev .............................................................................................................................................. 99 Middle East War Good – Israeli Security .............................................................................................................................................. 100 Middle East War Good (Nuclear Power) 1/2 ......................................................................................................................................... 101 Middle East War Good (Nuclear Power) 2/2 ......................................................................................................................................... 102 Middle East War Good (Russian Economy) .......................................................................................................................................... 103 Middle East War Good (Terrorism) ....................................................................................................................................................... 104 Middle East War Good (Warming) ........................................................................................................................................................ 105 Nanotech Bad – Arms Race ................................................................................................................................................................... 106 Nanotech Bad (Economy) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 107 Nanotech Bad (Grey Goo) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 108 Nanotech Bad (Prolif) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 109 Nanotech Good (Arms Races) ............................................................................................................................................................... 110 Nanotech Good (Diseases) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Nanotech Good (Economy) ................................................................................................................................................................... 112 NATO Bad (Terror) ............................................................................................................................................................................... 113 NATO Bad (US Russian War) ............................................................................................................................................................... 114 NATO Credibility Good – War ............................................................................................................................................................. 115 Neoliberalism Good (Democracy) ......................................................................................................................................................... 116 Neoliberalism Good (Environment) ....................................................................................................................................................... 117 Neoliberalism Good (Genocide) ............................................................................................................................................................ 118 Neoliberalism Good (Human Rights) .................................................................................................................................................... 119 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Things Go Boom! Gonzo and Lison 3/212 Neoliberalism Good (Poverty) ............................................................................................................................................................... 120 Neoliberalism Good (Terror) ................................................................................................................................................................. 121 Neoliberalism Good (U.S. EU Relations) .............................................................................................................................................. 122 Neoliberalism Good (War) .................................................................................................................................................................... 123 NMD Bad (Space) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 124 NMD Bad (INF)..................................................................................................................................................................................... 125 NMD Good (Deterence) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 126 NMD Good (Heg) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 127 North Korean Conflict Bad (Nuclear War) ............................................................................................................................................ 128 NPT Bad – Prolif/Nuke Terror............................................................................................................................................................... 129 Nuclear Testing Good (Extinction) ........................................................................................................................................................ 130 Nuclear War Bad – Extinction ............................................................................................................................................................... 131 Nuclear War Bad – Ecosystems ............................................................................................................................................................. 132 Nuclear War Good (Environment) ......................................................................................................................................................... 133 Oil Dependence Bad (Heg) .................................................................................................................................................................... 134 Oil Dependence Bad (Mid East Instability) ........................................................................................................................................... 135 Oil Dependence Bad (Terror) ................................................................................................................................................................ 136 Oil Dependence Good (Heg).................................................................................................................................................................. 137 Oil Dependence Good (Iraq Stability) ................................................................................................................................................... 138 Overpopulation Bad (Extinction) ........................................................................................................................................................... 139 Overpopulation Bad (Forests) ................................................................................................................................................................ 140 Overpopulation Bad (Nuclear War) ....................................................................................................................................................... 141 Overpopulation Good (Environment) .................................................................................................................................................... 142 Overpopulation Good (Human Rights) .................................................................................................................................................. 143 Overstretch Good – Middle East Wars .................................................................................................................................................. 144 Poverty Bad............................................................................................................................................................................................ 145 Poverty Good (Military Recruitment) .................................................................................................................................................... 146 Poverty Good (Pork) 1/2 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 147 Poverty Good (Pork) 2/2 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 148 Uniqueness Ext ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 149 Uniqueness – AT: Alt Cause To Prices.................................................................................................................................................. 150 Link Ext ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 151 I/L – Domestic Demand Key ................................................................................................................................................................. 152 I/L – Key to Economy............................................................................................................................................................................ 153 2NC CCP Stabiliy Impact ...................................................................................................................................................................... 154 2NC North Korea Impact 1/2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 155 2NC North Korea Impact 2/2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 156 Poverty Good (Test Subjects) ................................................................................................................................................................ 157 Ext – Poor People = Test Subjects ......................................................................................................................................................... 158 Prez Powers Bad (Nuclear War) ............................................................................................................................................................ 159 Prez Powers Bad (SOP) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 160 Prez Power Bad (Terror) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 161 Prez Power Bad (Torture) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 162 Prez Power Good (Econ) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 163 Prez Powers Good (Heg) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 164 Prez Power Good (Terror) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 165 RMA Bad (prolif) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 166 RMA Bad (Readiness) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 167 RMA Good (Heg) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 168 RMA Good (Terrorism) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 169 B) Extinction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 169 RMA Good (U.S. China War) ............................................................................................................................................................... 170 Russian Expansionism Bad (Extinction) ................................................................................................................................................ 171 Russian Expansionism Bad (Resource Wars) ........................................................................................................................................ 172 Russian Expansionism Good (NATO) ................................................................................................................................................... 173 Russian Expansionism Good (Russian Econ) ........................................................................................................................................ 174 Russian Expansianism Good (Oil Shocks) ............................................................................................................................................ 175 Space Colonization Bad (Militarization) ............................................................................................................................................... 176 Space Colonization Bad (Space War) .................................................................................................................................................... 177 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Things Go Boom! Gonzo and Lison 4/212 Space Colonization Good (Asteroids) .................................................................................................................................................... 178 Space Colonization Good (Extinction) .................................................................................................................................................. 179 Space Colonization Good (Heg) ............................................................................................................................................................ 180 Space Militarization Bad (Arms Races) ................................................................................................................................................. 181 Space Militarization Bad (Indo-Pak War) 1/2 ....................................................................................................................................... 182 Space Militarization Bad (Indo-Pak War) 2/2 ....................................................................................................................................... 183 Space Militarization Bad (Laundry List) ............................................................................................................................................... 184 Space Militarization Bad (Nuclear War)................................................................................................................................................ 185 Space militarization Bad (Space Debris) ............................................................................................................................................... 186 Space Militarization Bad (U.S. China War) ........................................................................................................................................... 187 Space Militarization Good (Diplomacy) ................................................................................................................................................ 188 Space Militarization Good (Heg) ........................................................................................................................................................... 189 Space Militarization Good (Prolif) ........................................................................................................................................................ 190 Terrorism Bad (Extinction) .................................................................................................................................................................... 191 Terrorism Bad (Economy) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 192 Terrorism Bad (Lashout) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 193 Terrorism Bad – Heg ............................................................................................................................................................................. 194 Terror Good (Central Asian Presence) ................................................................................................................................................... 195 Terror Good (China Bashing) ................................................................................................................................................................ 196 Terror Good (Econ)................................................................................................................................................................................ 197 Terror Good (Free Trade) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 198 Terror Good (Heg) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 199 Terror Good (U.S. Chinese Relations) ................................................................................................................................................... 200 Terror Good (U.S. Russian Relations) ................................................................................................................................................... 201 U.S. China War Bad (CCP Collapse) .................................................................................................................................................... 202 U.S. China War Bad (Evnironment) ...................................................................................................................................................... 203 U.S. China War Bad (Nuclear War) ...................................................................................................................................................... 204 U.S. China War Bad (Russia) ................................................................................................................................................................ 205 U.S. China War Good (War Now Good) ............................................................................................................................................... 206 U.S. China War Good (Superweapons) ................................................................................................................................................. 207 U.S. China War Good (Chinese Nanotech R&D) .................................................................................................................................. 208 U.S. Russia War Bad (Doomsday Machine) .......................................................................................................................................... 209 U.S. Russia War Good (Heg) ................................................................................................................................................................. 210 U.S. Russia War Good (Modernization) 1/2 .......................................................................................................................................... 211 U.S. Russia War Good (Modernization) 2/2 .......................................................................................................................................... 212 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 5/212 ACCIDENTAL LAUNCH BAD (NUCLEAR WAR) An accidental launch would lead to retaliatory strikes and extinction within half an hour The American Prospect, 2/26/01 The bitter disputes over national missile defense (NMD) have obscured a related but dramatically more urgent issue of national security: the 4,800 nuclear warheads -- weapons with a combined destructive power nearly 100,000 times greater than the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima -currently on "hair-trigger" alert. Hair-trigger alert means this: The missiles carrying those warheads are armed and fueled at all times. Two thousand or so of these warheads are on the intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) targeted by Russia at the United States; 1,800 are on the ICBMs targeted by the U nited States at Russia; and approximately 1,000 are on the submarine-based missiles targeted by the two nations at each other. These missiles would launch on receipt of three computer-delivered messages. Launch crews -- on duty every second of every day -- are under orders to send the messages on receipt of a single computer-delivered command. In no more than two minutes, if all went according to plan, Russia or the United States could launch missiles at predetermined targets: Washington or New York; Moscow or St. Petersburg. The early-warning systems on which the launch crews rely would detect the other side's missiles within tens of seconds, causing the intended -- or accidental -- enemy to mount retaliatory strikes. "Within a half-hour, there could be a nuclear war that would extinguish all of us," explains Bruce Blair. "It would be, basically, a nuclear war by checklist, by rote." For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 6/212 AFGHAN INSTABILITY BAD – CENTRAL ASIAN WAR Only a stable Afghanistan facilitates regional geopolitical stability Cristiani 7 (Dario, former political analyst with the Power and Interest News Report (PINR), freelance political analyst, ''Afghanistan's Role in Iranian Foreign Policy',' PINR, project of Council on Foreign Relations published on E-Ariana, 4/26/2007, http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allDocs/AC812FAF99FA3DAF872572C9003E0A3B?OpenDocument) Iran's Strategic Imperatives and Diversified Goals Iran and Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan, are bound in a sort of "strategic geography" in which their security, economic and social well-beings are deeply interdependent and their geopolitical fates are strongly linked. Therefore, Tehran has an interest in a strong and stable Afghanistan. This is for several reasons. An unstable Afghanistan could threaten the stability of Iran, above all in those provinces bordering the Afghan western regions. Such instability could spill over the boundaries and affect Iranian security. This instability could also lead to future waves of refugees in Iran, and Tehran perceives it as a key threat for its social stability and economic tenure. Moreover, Tehran wants a stable Afghanistan in order to combat drug trafficking. Tehran hopes for an authoritative government in Kabul because it could be impermeable and more autonomous from external influences. Such a development is an important concern for Tehran. Afghanistan is a fundamental wedge for the geopolitical struggle in the Greater Middle East. Tehran, for example, perceives as a danger the renewed influence of Pakistan, and it is afraid of Saudi activism based on the export of radical Sunni Salafi/Wahhabi ideology, which has been a fundamental tool of influence for Riyadh. Tehran wants to use the current strained relations between Kabul and Islamabad in order to gain leverage over Afghanistan. Such a situation brings Kabul in search of an alternative course to the southern route of its exports. Iran wants to take advantage of this situation by becoming a significant open door to the world for Afghanistan and a privileged transit country for its products and exports. Indeed, it wants to use these Afghan strategic needs to make its geopolitical role essential for Kabul. Afghanistan civil war causes central Asian instability that goes nuclear Starr, 1 (December 13, Chair of Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at John Hopkins University, “The War Against Terrorism and U.S. Bilateral Relations with the Nations of Central Asia,” Testimony before Senate Subcommittee on Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus) All of the Central Asian states have identified these issues as their main security threat, and Afghanistan as the locus of that threat. So has Russia, which has used the issue to justify the stationing of troops in four of the five countries of the region. [Continued…] The Central Asians face a similar danger with respect to our efforts in Afghanistan. Some Americans hold that we should destroy Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the Taliban and then leave the post-war stabilization and reconstruction to others. Such a course runs the danger of condemning all Central Asia to further waves of instability from the South. But in the next round it will not only be Russia that is tempted to throw its weight around in the region but possibly China, or even Iran or India. All have as much right to claim Central Asia as their “backyard” as Russia has had until now. Central Asia may be a distant region but when these nuclear powers begin bumping heads there it will create terrifying threats to world peace that the U.S. cannot ignore. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 7/212 AFGHAN INSTABILITY BAD – IRAN Afghan instability spills over into Iran Gavrilis 9 (George, International Affairs Fellow at CFR, “Harnessing Iran's Role in Afghanistan,” Council on Foreign Relations, 6/5/09, http://www.cfr.org/publication/19562/harnessing_irans_role_in_afghanistan.html) Coping with the Neighborhood The lack of a stable, central authority in Afghanistan fuels the growth of warlords, insurgents, and traffickers whose activities usually spill over international borders. Iranian provinces abutting Afghanistan suffer from Sunni extremism, Baluchi separatism, opium trafficking, and even banditry. Bombings at Shiite mosques in Iran's border areas may be linked to cross-border Sunni extremists. Iranian border guards have been kidnapped by armed groups operating along the frontier. Shootouts with narco-traffickers along the border are common. Iran has devoted considerable resources to prevent the spillover of instability from Afghanistan - an estimated $600 million annually on counter-narcotics efforts alone. Nearly 10 percent of Iran's conscript army patrols the Afghan border, and walls and ditches dot remote stretches of border. Iranian drug control officials take part in initiatives with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to interdict the heroin trade. Regional sinkhole Nasr 8 (Vali, Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University, “ Chapter V: The implications of military confrontation with Iran,” Center for a New American Security, 9/08, http://www.cfr.org/publication/17305/center_for_a_new_american_security.html) As problematic as the Iranian regime and its behavior are for the United States, Iran is still, ironically, the only stable country in its neighborhood. An unstable Iran — and worse, a failed state in Iran — will create a sinkhole of instability in a wide arc stretching from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Across this region, the combination of poverty, political instability, drug trade, radical ideologies, militias, and al Qaeda sustains conflicts, insurgencies, and endemic violence. The collapse of a country of seventy million people will only aggravate these problems. Nuclear material, armed gangs, and militias will come out of the belly of a fallen Iranian military force. Iran’s collapse will only worsen the very problems that the United States is seeking to address in the Middle East. Middle East conflict causes global nuclear war Steinbach 2002 – Analyst, Center for Research on Globalisation http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44) For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 8/212 AFGHAN INSTABILITY BAD – SUNNI-SHIA WAR Afghanistan collapses causes Sunni-Shia war Guardian, ‘7. “Failure in Afghanistan risks rise in terror, say generals,” July 15, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/15/world.afghanistan 'The situation in Afghanistan is much worse than many people recognise,' Inge told peers. 'We need to face up to that issue, the consequence of strategic failure in Afghanistan and what that would mean for Nato... We need to recognise that the situation - in my view, and I have recently been in Afghanistan - is much, much more serious than people want to recognise.' Inge's remarks reflect the fears of serving generals that the government is so overwhelmed by Iraq that it is in danger of losing sight of the threat of failure in Afghanistan. One source, who is familiar with the fears of the senior officers, told The Observer: 'If you talk privately to the generals they are very very worried. You heard it in Inge's speech. Inge said we are failing and remember Inge speaks for the generals.' Inge made a point in the Lords of endorsing a speech by Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, who painted a bleak picture during the debate. Ashdown told The Observer that Afghanistan presented a graver threat than Iraq. 'The consequences of failure in Afghanistan are far greater than in Iraq,' he said. 'If we fail in Afghanistan then Pakistan goes down. The security problems for Britain would be massively multiplied. I think you could not then stop a widening regional war that would start off in warlordism but it would become essentially a war in the end between Sunni and Shia right across the Middle East.' Sunni-Shia war escalates to doomsday proportions CNN, ‘7. January 24, 2007 - 14:01 ET ("Opposing the 'Surge'; Energy Challenge; Second Air Strike Against Suspected al Qaeda Targets in Somalia") RAMAN: For years, Sunnis, given their reach, have dominated Middle Eastern affairs. Shia, based mainly in Iran, claimed little clout. But when Saddam Hussein's regime fell amid the instability that followed, an opportunity emerged for Iran to change the landscape. And that it did, ramping up influence in Baghdad through Shia militias, in Lebanon through Shia Hezbollah, and in the Palestinian areas through Hamas. All while pursuing a nuclear program in open defiance of the world. It's a strategy that, in short, has worked. In the course of a year, Iran has become the dominant player in the Middle East, forcing Sunni states, especially U.S. allies like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, to confront a whole new level of regional uncertainty, one that could drag them all into the fight. KASSEM: It could end up as like the big confrontation, the big Sunni- Shia confrontation. RAMAN: The signs are there. One example, responding to Iran's several Sunni states are now planning nuclear programs of their own. (on camera): It is a dauntsing question. What comes next for the Middle East? On the Arab street there are as many opinions as there are people willing to voice them. (voice over): For decades, those that sat here witnessed change of all kinds. But those that sit today seem more concerned than ever before. "I am afraid," says Mohammed, "the fight between Shia and Sunnis in Iraq will spread, perhaps to Lebanon and Syria. And it could then have a bad effect on all Arab countries." UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Iran, in case of having (INAUDIBLE) will try to take control. RAMAN: It is a doomsday scenario, a centuries-old Shia-Sunni divide spreading to all Arab streets. But unthinkable as it may seem, people here are bracing for anything. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 9/212 AFGHAN INSTABILITY BAD – TERRORISM Lack of stable local government causes people to side with the Taliban Frogh 10 (Wazhma Frogh, a writer for Foreign Policty and a Chevening Scholar, “Afghanistan's politics should be local”, Foreign Policy, July 14, 2010, http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/14/afghanistans_politics_should_be_local) For the last three decades, Afghans have not had a government that has enabled them to live conflict-free, and therefore have become accustomed to siding with anyone -- the Taliban, international forces, local warlords -- with whom they find temporary support. That support includes protection from other criminal gangs or quick services like dispute resolution mechanisms. In my January trip to one of the most far-flung districts of Wardak province, I met a family who travelled for three days around Ghazni to find one of the Taliban commanders from their area, looking for a resolution of an ongoing land dispute between two families. In half a day the commander was able to resolve a dispute that had lasted years, and the ‘winning' family was able to grow crops on their fields again. In early July, one female MP from the southern region of Afghanistan told me, " we do not want our people to beheaded and their hands chopped off by the cruel militants, but the people are silent because they don't have any alternative. The government that should protect them rather leaves them behind and runs away. Even some of the former Taliban commanders laugh at me, because I am a people's representative in a government which is not present even in my own district." However, it is not only the absence of government that is problematic -- appointed and elected representatives misuse their power and swim in an ocean of corruption. For Afghans to have a stake in their local governments there must be a basic level of trust between the two. This trust requires strong local governing structures that take Afghanistan's ethnic and tribal diversity into account. One of the members of the provincial council from Ghazni told me this month that Ghazni's security worsened during the times when governors came from other provinces to serve there, even though viable candidates from the province existed. The outside governors could not work within the dynamics of the ruling tribes in Ghazni and the people could not trust them. He said the governors "came today and will go tomorrow, but it's us dealing with the same elders and tribes forever, so who would we be faithful to?" Terrorism ensures extinction Dennis Ray Morgan 9, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin Campus - South Korea, Futures, Volume 41, Issue 10, December 2009, Pages 683-693 Years later, in 1982, at the height of the Cold War, Jonathon Schell, in a very stark and horrific portrait, depicted sweeping, bleak global scenarios of total nuclear destruction. Schell’s work, The Fate of the Earth [8] represents one of the gravest warnings to humankind ever given. The possibility of complete annihilation of humankind is not out of the question as long as these death bombs exist as symbols of national power. As Schell relates, the power of destruction is now not just thousands of times as that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; now it stands at more than one and a half million times as powerful, more than fifty times enough to wipe out all of human civilization and much of the rest of life along with it [8]. In Crucial Questions about the Future, Allen Tough cites that Schell’s monumental work, which ‘‘eradicated the ignorance and denial in many of us,’’ was confirmed by ‘‘subsequent scientific work on nuclear winter and other possible effects: humans really could be completely devastated. Our human species really could become extinct.’’ [9]. Tough estimated the chance of human selfdestruction due to nuclear war as one in ten. He comments that few daredevils or high rollers would take such a risk with so much at stake, and yet ‘‘human civilization is remarkably casual about its high risk of dying out completely if it continues on its present path for another 40 years’’ [9]. What a precarious foundation of power the world rests upon. The basis of much of the military power in the developed world is nuclear. It is the reigning symbol of global power, the basis, – albeit, unspoken or else barely whispered – by which powerful countries subtly assert aggressive intentions and ambitions for hegemony, though masked by ‘‘diplomacy’’ and ‘‘negotiations,’’ and yet this basis is not as stable as most believe it to be. In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ‘‘Is Nuclear War Inevitable??’’ [10].4 In Section 1, Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, they’ve figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian ‘‘dead hand’’ system, ‘‘where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed,’’ it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States’’ [10]. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal ‘‘Samson option’’ against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even ‘‘anti-Semitic’’ European cities [10]. In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any accident, mistaken communication, false signal or ‘‘lone wolf’ act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each country would act under the ‘‘use them or lose them’’ strategy and psychology; restraint by one power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity to ‘‘win’’ the war. In otherwords, once Pandora’s Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, ‘‘everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to satisfy elites’ needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek selfdetermination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors’’ [10]. In other words, as long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used, it is very likely thatmany, if not all, will be used , leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 10/212 AFGHAN INSTABILITY GOOD – CHECHEN TERRORISTS Afghanistan stability causes Russia-Iran conflict. Jalali 2 – Ali Ahmad Jalali is the chief of the Farsi Service of the Voice of America, in Washington, D.C. He is a former colonel in the Afghan army and served as a top military planner with the Afghan resistance following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He attended higher command and staff colleges in Afghanistan, the United States, Britain, and Russia, and he has lectured widely. Mr. Jalali is the author of several books, including a three-volume military history of Afghanistan, “The Strategic Partnership of Russia and Iran”, Parameters, Winter, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/01winter/jalali.htm Geopolitical shifts in the region, especially those connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, could influence the Russian-Iranian partnership. Iran's opposition to the US-backed Middle East peace process is both the cause and consequence of its hostility with the United States. Iran also exploits the anti-Israeli sentiments and unpopularity of the US support of the Jewish state to polish its credential for Islamic leadership in the region. Its "spoiler" stance is inspired by both opportunistic and ideological reasons. A breakthrough in the peace process, or domestic pressure forcing the regime to moderate its position, could lead to changes in Iran's relationship with Washington and Moscow. Restoration of peace and stability in Afghanistan also could lead to changes in the TehranMoscow strategic cooperation. As security threats emanating from Afghanistan to the neighboring countries dissipate, latent RussianIranian conflict of interests could lead to political and economic competition between them. That causes Iranian support for Chechen terrorists. Berman 6 –Vice President for Policy at the American Foreign Policy Council, and Editor of The Journal of International Security Affairs, Ilan, “Tackling the Moscow-Tehran Connection”, The Journal of International Security Affairs, http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2006/10/berman.php Worries over the possibility of Iranian support for radical separatism in Russia’s turbulent “Southern Rim” were at the core of Russian-Iranian contacts a decade ago. Back then, Moscow moved quickly—and successfully—to secure Tehran’s good behavior in exchange for arms and nuclear assistance. But the Russo-Iranian understanding over the “post-Soviet space” could soon become a thing of the past. For one thing, telltale signs indicate that Iran is expanding its involvement in the spread of radical Islam in the region. In the first part of 2002, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) uncovered new intelligence indicating that elements of Iran’s clerical army, the Pasdaran, were secretly providing training and logistical support for insurgents from the radical alQaeda-affiliated Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU).10 Iran is likewise suspected of sponsoring the rise of radical religious and separatist movements in neighboring Azerbaijan over the past several years, and of using them as a means to destabilize and pressure the Aliyev dynasty in Baku.11 This troublemaking has led Russian media outlets to openly question the prudence of continued strategic alignment with Iran.12 For another, Iran remains a serious potential threat to stability in the Caucasus. Officials in Moscow understand full well that, despite Iran’s historic abstention from sponsoring separatism in the “post-Soviet space,” Tehran in the future could use support for Chechen insurgents (or other regional radicals) as a blackmail tool against Moscow if it feels threatened by Russia’s strides toward the West, or as a means to blunt international pressure over its nuclear program. Indeed, signs of such activity are already becoming visible; in a November 2005 exposé, London’s influential Sunday Telegraph reported that the Pasdaran has begun “secretly training Chechen rebels in sophisticated terror techniques to enable them to carry out more effective attacks against Russian forces.”13 Chechen terrorism goes nuclear and causes US-Russia war. Dunlop and Smith 6 (William, scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories and Harold, distinguished visiting scholar and professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley, “Who did it? Using international forensics to detect and deter nuclear terrorism,” Arms Control Today, October 1, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_10/CVRForensics Accordingly, if a terrorist organization does get its hands on a fission device , it is likely that it will do so on foreign territory. At that point, the terrorists will have an enormously valuable political weapon in their hands and will be loath to risk losing that asset . Given the risks associated with getting the device into the United States, the rational choice would be to deploy the device abroad against much softer targets. For Islamist terrorists, a major “Christian” capital such as London, Rome, or Moscow might offer a more suitable target. Among these, Moscow perhaps presents the most compelling case for international cooperation on post-detonation nuclear forensics. Russia has the largest stockpile of poorly secured nuclear devices in the world. It also has porous borders and poor internal security, and it continues to be a potential source of contraband nuclear material and weapons, despite the best efforts of the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. If terrorists obtained the nuclear material in Russia and set Moscow as their target, they would not have to risk transporting the weapon, stolen or makeshift, across international borders. Attacks by Chechen terrorists in Beslan and at the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow offer ample proof that a willingness to commit mass murder for fanatical reasons rests within Russian borders, and a foreign source of operatives, particularly from the neighboring Islamic states to the south, is by no means inconceivable .[2] Moscow is also a predominately Christian city where local authorities routinely discriminate against Muslim minorities. Furthermore, extremists might conclude that a nuclear blast in Moscow could inflict damage well beyond that directly stemming from the attack. The Soviet generation that came to power during the Cold War retained a memory of the United States as an ally in the Great Patriotic War. The present Russian generation has no such remembrance but seems to have retained the animosities and suspicions that were a part of the nuclear standoff. Hence, nuclear terrorists may well believe that they could cause another East-West cold war or even encourage Russia to retaliate against the United States. After all, the sinking of the Kursk was believed by some influential Russians to be the result of U.S. action.[3] How much more likely would be such a view if the Kremlin were destroyed? As long as the world is filled with suspicion and conflict, such reactions are to be expected and, more importantly, anticipated.[4] One has only to remember the early reactions and suspicions in the United States following the 1996 TWA Flight 800 airline disaster.[5] For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 11/212 AFGHAN INSTABILITY GOOD – CHINESE STABILITY Afghan stability will come on the back of reconciliation with the Taliban—causes Uighur uprising. Bhadrakumar 10 – Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service, “The winner takes all in Afghanistan “, 2/13, Asia Times, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LB13Df02.html There is an ominous overtone to Western reports. Al-Qaeda was used after all as justification for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003. This is where the US's idea of reconciliation with the Taliban merits scrutiny. The idea is indeed eminently sensible at a time when Muslim anger is rising, there is growing disillusionment about Obama, and when the US is dangerously close to confronting Iran and a need arises to "split" Muslim opinion. At the same time, the Taliban's reconciliation also makes realpolitik. The Afghan war costs a lot of money, it costs Western lives and it cannot be won. The Taliban's reconciliation is arguably the only option available to keep open-ended NATO's military presence in Central Asia without having to fight a futile war. The ascendancy of malleable Islamist forces also has its uses for the US's containment strategy towards China (and Russia). Islamists lend themselves as a foreign policy instrument. The rise of Islamism in Afghanistan cannot but radicalize hot spots such as the North Caucasus, Kashmir and the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region in China. China has the maximum to lose if a Taliban regime re-emerges. That explains the length to which Beijing went at the London conference on Afghanistan on January 28 and at the Istanbul regional conference immediately preceding it to assert that Afghanistan is far too critical an issue for regional security and stability to be left to Washington. Causes Chinese instability. Newmyer 7 – Jaquelin, “Domestic Instability and Chinese Foreign Policy”, RealClearPolitics, 4/4, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/domestic_instability_and_chine.html Second on China's list of domestic threats are challenges from ethnic minority populations - "split-ists" or "separatists" - including Tibetans and Uighur Muslims. In the wake of 9/11, Beijing appealed to Washington for license to squash potential Islamists within the PRC. Since then, Beijing has not only enjoyed a free hand to crack down on local "terrorists" but also proceeded aggressively with initiatives to flood minority regions with Han residents. China's efforts in Tibet appear to have extinguished residual flames of nationalism. Nonetheless, pro-Tibet activists in India, the U.S., and Europe, and Uighur links to Central Asia and the Middle East give Beijing cause to suspect outside powers of abetting internal troublemakers. Extinction. Rexing, 05 (San, Staff – Epoch Times, The CCP’s Last Ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War, 8-5, http://english.epochtimes.com/ news/5-8-5/30975.html) Since the Party’s life is “above all else,” it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches. This theme is murderous and utterly evil. In China we have seen beggars who coerced people to give them money by threatening to stab themselves with knives or pierce their throats with long nails. But we have never, until now, seen such a gangster who would use biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons to threaten the world, that all will die together with him. This bloody confession has confirmed the CCP’s nature: that of a monstrous murderer who has killed 80 million Chinese people and who now plans to hold one billion people hostage and gamble with their lives. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 12/212 AFGHAN INSTABILITY GOOD – RUSSIAN ECONOMY Afghanistan stability causes regional energy co-operation that tanks Russia’s economy. Safranchuk 9 – Editor-in-Chief of the Bolshaya Igra (The Great Game) magazine dealing with politics, business and security in Central Asia. He holds a Doctorate in Political Science, Ivan Safranchuk, “The Afghan Problem in the Regional Context”, Russia in Global Affairs, Feb, http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/n_13594 But let us assume that there is a possibility for a decisive victory of the Western coalition and stabilization in Afghanistan. This would remove the main obstacle to the implementation of infrastructure and transport projects that would help integrate Central and South Asia within the framework of so-called “Greater Central Asia.” The term has been rarely used recently, but the idea lives on. These plans aim to link Central and South Asia by a common energy and transport infrastructure, which would give former Soviet Central Asian republics access to the Indian Ocean. But without a stable Afghanistan (and now we should also add “without a stable Pakistan”) that would be impossible. Yet, something is being done even now – border-crossing points are being modernized, and new roads are being built. Therefore, Russia by no means is interested in a defeat of the international forces in Afghanistan, as it would create new security problems. But Moscow does not see prospects for a military victory. And if these prospects appeared, they would give a green light to “Greater Central Asia” infrastructure projects that would be economically disadvantageous for Russia. Nuclear war Steven David, Prof. of political science at Johns Hopkins, 1999, Foreign Affairs If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause . From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe . A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that responds with force, civil war is likely. would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 13/212 AIR POLLUTION BAD (EXTINCTION) Air pollution causes terminal extinction Salvador, 2007. (Lourdes Salvador, Writer and Social Advocate for American Chronicle. "Human Extinction,") http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/24238 The most common pattern of macroevolutionary trends is extinction. In short “when a species is no longer adapted to a changed environment, it may die. Extinction seems, in fact, to be the ultimate fate of all species” (Relethford, 2005). One has to wonder the fate of the human race as the world becomes more and more toxic and people become more ill. Are 60% (Ray & Oakley, 2003) of Americans taking psychiatric medications because they are really mentally ill or is it our society that is sick and we the victims of trying to adapt to a bad environment? How can we justify that 60% is a MAJORITY of the population that is labeled as mentally ill? How long can we deny the damage of modern pollution to the human body before we take action? How long can we sustain reproductive damage before we can no longer reproduce and have children to share our tales of an earlier generation with? Occasionally I have heard statements such as “we will evolve to tolerate air pollution.” Such statements are absurdities. Natural selection only operates on variations that are present. If no genetic variation occurs to aid in breathing polluted air, natural selection will not help us. Even in cases where genetic variation is present, the environment may change too quickly for us to respond to natural selection. All we have to do is examine the fossil record to see how inaccurate this misconception is—that 99% of all past species are extinct shows us that natural selection obviously doesn't always work” (Relethford, 2005). For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 14/212 AIR POLLUTION BAD (HONEYBEES) Air Pollution Decimates Honeybee Population – Causes Colony Collapse Disorder Eilperin, 2008 (Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer, “Air Pollution Impedes Bees' Ability to Find Flowers” Washington Post Scientists already knew that scent-bearing hydrocarbon molecules released by flowers can be destroyed when they come into contact with ozone and other pollutants. Environmental sciences professor Jose D. Fuentes at the University of Virginia -- working with graduate students Quinn S. McFrederick and James C. Kathilankal -- used a mathematical model to determine how flowers' scents travel with the wind and how quickly they come into contact with pollutants that can destroy them. They described their results in the March issue of the journal Atmospheric Environment. In the prevailing conditions before the 1800s, the researchers calculated that a flower's scent could travel between 3,280 feet and 4,000 feet, Fuentes said in an interview, but today, that scent might travel 650 feet to 1,000 feet in highly polluted areas such as the District of Columbia, Los Angeles or Houston. "That's where we basically have all the problems," Fuentes said, adding that ozone levels are particularly high during summer. "The impacts of pollution on pollinator activity are pronounced during the summer months." This phenomenon triggers a cycle, the authors noted, in which the pollinators have trouble finding sufficient food, and as a result their populations decline. That, in turn, translates into decreased pollination and keeps flowering plants, including many fruits and vegetables, from proliferating. Fuentes said scientists now have a more sophisticated understanding of the signals for which insects are searching, and that air pollution rapidly eliminates as much as 90 percent of flowers' aroma. "We now know what the pollinators are looking for when they're actually looking for the flowers," he said. Most bees have poor eyesight, which makes scent particularly important, the researchers wrote. Since 2006, honeybee colonies in the United States have been suffering from a widespread phenomenon known as colony collapse disorder (CCD), in which adult worker bees abandon an otherwise-healthy hive. John P. Burand, an associate professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who is studying bee colony collapses, said the effects of air pollution described in the new study are probably not directly related to that phenomenon. But, he added in an e-mail: "There is no doubt that air pollution and air quality is having an effect on bees and other pollinators. It appears there is more than one factor that is contributing to the CCD phenomenon we are seeing with bees, and certainly air pollution in some fashion may be playing a role." The Impact is Extinction – Bees are Key to Our Survival – and Colony Collapse Disorder is the Root Cause Watson, 2007. (Joseph Watson, Prison Planet News. “Ecological Apocalypse: Why Are All the Bees Dying” April/10/2007 The alarming decline in bee populations across the United States and Europe represents a potential ecological apocalypse, an environmental catastrophe that could collapse the food chain and wipe out humanity. Who and what is behind this flagrant abuse of the eco-system? Many people don't realize the vital role bees play in maintaining a balanced eco-system. According to experts, if bees were to become extinct then humanity would perish after just four years. "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man," said Albert Einstein. Others would say four years is alarmist and that man would find other food sources, but the fact remains that the disappearance of bees is potentially devastating to agriculture and most plant life. Reports that bee populations are declining at rates of up to 80% in areas of the U.S. and Europe should set alarm bells ringing and demand immediate action on behalf of environmental organizations. Experts are calling the worrying trend "colony collapse disorder" or CCD. "Bee numbers on parts of the east coast and in Texas have fallen by more than 70 percent, while California has seen colonies drop by 30 to 60 percent," reports AFP . "Approximately 40 percent of my 2,000 colonies are currently dead and this is the greatest winter colony mortality I have ever experienced in my 30 years of beekeeping," apiarist Gene Brandi, from the California State Beekeepers Association, told Congress recently. The article states that U.S. bee colonies have been dropping since 1980 and the number of beekeepers have halved. Scientists are thus far stumped as to what is causing the decline, ruling out parasites but leaning towards some kind of new toxin or chemical used in agriculture as being responsible. "Experts believe that the large-scale use of genetically modified plants in the US could be a factor," reports Germany's Spiegal Online . Bee populations throughout Germany have simultaneously dropped 25% and up to 80% in some areas. Poland, Switzerland and Spain are reporting similar declines. Studies have shown that bees are not dying in the hive, something is causing them to lose their sense of orientation so that they cannot return to the hive. Depleted hives are not being raided for their honey by other insects, which normally happens when bees naturally die in the winter, clearly suggesting some kind of poisonous toxin is driving them away. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 15/212 AIR POLLUTION GOOD (WARMING) Air Pollution prevents warming - aerosols Spotts 05 – Staff writer @ The Christian Science Monitor [Peter N. Spotts, “Downside to Cleaner Air: More warming” December 27, 2005. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1227/p03s01-sten.html/] Kward New measurements of tiny particles in Earth's atmosphere contain a sobering message: All those hard-won efforts to cut air pollution may unwittingly accelerate global warming. The result: The planet is likely to warm more and faster than current projections suggest , according to a team of British and American scientists. The group has produced the most precise estimates yet of how tiny particles, known as aerosols, could affect the world's climate. Aerosols, which include pollutants, have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, and the team's work suggests that the cooling effect is strong - nearly as strong as the top estimates of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Thus, the dwindling presence of aerosols means that global average temperatures could rise faster than previously estimated and reach toward the high end of projections for the end of the century. Those estimates currently range from 2.7 to 7.9 degrees F., depending on how emissions of greenhouse gases and other factors play out in coming years. The results, published in the current edition of Nature, imply "future atmospheric warming greater than is presently predicted, as aerosol emissions continue to decline," suggests the team, led by Nicolas Bellouin at Britain's Meteorological Office in Exeter. Aerosols occur naturally as dust blown from deserts, wind-whipped sea salt, and emission from volcanoes. They also come from burning fossil fuels. But scientists have had a tough time discerning aerosols' precise role in affecting climate.>> Solves planetary extinction. ANI 8 (3/31, New geological age similar to 65 million year old mass extinction event, http://in.news.yahoo.com/ani/20080331/r_t_ani_sc/tsc-new-geological-age-similar-to-65-mil-f32bc39.html, AG) A leading environmental scientist has suggested that an unprecedented climatic change is creating a new geological age, which is similar to the mass extinction event which wiped out the dinosaurs and other species 65 million years ago. "The planet is already amid a "human-induced mass extinction event" which is defining a new geological age known as the Anthropocene," said Professor Will Steffen, director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at Canberra's Australian National University. According to the scientist, in 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment published a report on the changes in species diversity and found the current rate of species loss is higher than the background rate inferred in the fossil record. "Another 10-30 per cent of birds, mammals and amphibians are currently threatened with extinction," said Steffen. "This rapid rate in the loss of species diversity is similar in intensity to the event around 65 million years ago which wiped out the dinosaurs and other species," he added. Another major reason for concern is the fact that by damning nearly all of the world's major rivers, had left 75 per cent of the world's fisheries exploited or depleted. "The human impact has been pronounced in Australia, due to the highly variable climate, unique wildlife and poor soils," news.com.au quoted Steffen as saying. According to Steffen, human history is littered with examples of civilisations that have collapsed because of their inability to adjust to environmental change - such as the Mayans in Meso-America, the Norse colonies in southern Greenland and the Akkadian civilisation, which was located in what is now Syria. "With no one sure what the tipping point was, the best course of action was to mitigate climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible," he said. AND – this was the best possible study Spotts 05 – Staff writer @ The Christian Science Monitor [Peter N. Spotts, “Downside to Cleaner Air: More warming” December 27, 2005. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1227/p03s01-sten.html/] Kward Much of what scientists understand about aerosols' effects on climate has come from computer models. The new study, though, used data from the Terra and Aqua satellites of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, combined with ground-based and aircraft measurements. The satellites give the overall amount of aerosols in the atmosphere, while the other measurements help establish the range of particle sizes and their reflective properties. They also help give estimates over land, where current satellite sensors have difficulty. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 16/212 ASIAN INSTABILITY BAD (NUCLEAR WAR) Asian Instability Risks A Big Nuclear War Paul KENNEDY, Professor, History, Yale University, “21st Century—Dialogues on the Future/Globalization’s Sway in Evolution fo States Put in Focus,” THE DAILY YOMIURI, January 10, 20 00, p. 1. Kennedy: I do not think that we should discuss only positive aspects of globalization. Today, there is an arms race going among many Asian countries. There is also a nationalist passion at work in the region. All this comes with incredible pressure in the form of environmental problems, population growth and ethnic violence. This might well mean that some nuclear weapons could be let off in Asia, while a very big war could occur in the area by 2010 or 2015. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 17/212 BIODIVERSITY BAD – ECOSYSTEMS Biodiversity is bad – it makes ecosystems less stable and more prone to collapse – simple systems are more stable Heath, 99 (Jim Heath - Australian Orchid Council Inc., 1999, Orchids Australia, “WHY SAVE ORCHIDS UNDER THREAT?,” http://www.orchidsaustralia.com/whysave.htm, CM) Some people say we can’t afford to lose any species, no matter what species they are. Everything needs everything else, they say, to make nature balance. If that were right, it might explain why the six orchid species should be saved. Alas, no. We could pour weedkiller on all the orchids in Australia and do no ecological damage to the rest of the continent’s biology. But wouldn’t the natural ecological systems then become less stable, if we start plucking out species - even those orchids? Not necessarily. Natural biological systems are hardly ever stable and balanced anyway. Everything goes along steadily for a time, then boom - the system falls apart and simplifies for no visible reason. Diverse systems are usually more unstable than the less diverse ones . Biologists agree that in some places less diversity is more stable (in the Arctic, for example). Also, monocultures - farms - can be very stable. Not to mention the timeless grass of a salt marsh. In other words, there’s no biological law that says we have to save the orchids because they add diversity, and that added diversity makes the biological world more stable. Biodiversity makes ecosystems less stable and more susceptible to collapse – increased biodiversity prevents resiliency and collapses the system Naeem, 02 (Shahid Naeem - Director of Science at Center for Environmental Research and Conservation (CERC), Professor and Chair of Columbia University Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology, 07 March 2002, Nature Magazine, “Biodiversity: Biodiversity equals instability?,” pg. 23, CM) Pfisterer and Schmid [3] studied biomass production in a combinatorial plant-diversity experiment, which consisted of an array of replicate grassland plots that varied both in their number of plant species (from 1 to 32) and in their combination of species. The authors used their results to test the venerable 'insurance' hypothesis of ecosystem stability. This hypothesis is one of several that have featured in the long-standing ecological debate over the relationship between complexity (diversity) and stability [4]. Over the course of this debate, the prevailing view has see-sawed between the thesis that diversity begets stability, and the antithesis that diversity either leads to instability or is irrelevant. Chief among the 'begets-stability' theories is the insurance hypothesis -- the impeccably logical notion that having a variety of species insures an ecosystem against a range of environmental upsets. For example, suppose an ecosystem faces a drought, then a flood, which in turn is followed by a fire. According to the insurance hypothesis, if that ecosystem is diverse -- if it has some species that can tolerate drought, some that are flood-resistant and some that are fire-tolerant -- then two scenarios are likely. The ecosystem may show resistance, remaining broadly unchanged, because its many species buffer it against damage. Or it may show resilience: if it does get hammered, it may bounce back to its original state quickly because the tolerant species ultimately drive the recovery process and compensate for the temporary loss of their less hardy compatriots. But Pfisterer and Schmid [3] found that, when challenged with an experimentally induced drought, species-poor communities were both more resistant and more resilient (as reflected by their ability to sustain and recover pre-drought biomass production) than plots of higher diversity . The higher-diversity plots were originally more productive, but their resistance and resilience -- that is, their stability -- was low (Fig. 1). This is the opposite of what the insurance hypothesis predicts. It also contrasts with what combinatorial 'microcosm' experiments have found [5, 6] and what theoretical models of biodiversity have claimed [4]. Pfisterer and Schmid's findings [3] appear to support those who claim that diversity does not lead to stability. But there's a twist, and those on each side of the debate run the risk of having their own pet theories turned against them. Pfisterer and Schmid suggest that the observed inverse association between diversity and stability is due to a theoretical mechanism known as niche complementarity . This mechanism, however, is the very same as that touted as the chief cause of the positive biodiversity-productivity relationships found in other combinatorial biodiversity experiments, such as those at Cedar Creek [7] and those run by the BIODEPTH consortium [8]. The central idea of niche complementarity is that a community of species whose niches complement one another is more efficient in its use of resources than an equivalent set of monocultures. For example, a uniform mixture of earlyand late-season plants and shallow- and deep-rooting plants that are spread over 4 m2 will yield more biomass than combined 1-m2 monocultures of each species [7, 9]. So niche complementarity can explain why higher diversity tends to lead to higher productivity, and has also been adopted by those in the 'diversity leads to stability' camp because one would expect that more efficient communities would fare better in the face of stress. Those on the other side, however, feel that existing data better support a mechanism known as sampling, where diverse communities produce more biomass simply because they are more likely to contain productive species [10, 11]. In other words, we can't read too much into experiments in which higher diversity leads to greater productivity. What Pfisterer and Schmid suggest is that complementarity among species in a diverse plot could be its downfall when faced with perturbation. Niche complementarity is disrupted and so the whole community suffers. But this is not a problem for less diverse plots . So those in the 'diversity begets stability' camp risk being hoist on the petard of their own theory of niche complementarity. Meanwhile, although Pfisterer and Schmid's findings support the idea that diversity does not lead to stability, the authors reject a large role for sampling -- the theory generally favoured by the camp that disagrees with the idea that biodiversity leads to stability. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 18/212 BIODIVERSITY BAD (EVOLUTION) A. Environmental stress won’t cause extinction – instead species evolve and adapt – the Galapagos Islands proves Bosselman 01 [Fred, Proffessor in energy and environmental law, 10/04, “What Lawmakers Can Learn From Large-Scale Ecology” http://www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/20012002workshops/lessons.pdf] A better understanding of the rise and fall of the populations of individual species has come about because of the growing interest of ecologists in expanding the geographic scale of their studies, so that the studies include heterogeneous areas with varied habitats. For example, ecologists now believe that the theory of competitive exclusion failed to take into consideration the extent to which competition is disrupted by environmental variation and change over large areas. Today, ecologists recognize that evolution does not operate in a vacuum. Evolution selects optimal phenotypes only in an environment that varies with regularity. “In an unpredictably variable environment, phenotypes will be selected that can survive the various unpredictable environmental circumstances.”As in economic markets, in biological evolution diversity emerges naturally from competition as different species develop varying strategies to adapt to unpredictable environmental change. In addition, by extending the temporal scale of ecological studies, ecologists can observe population patterns over extended time periods, which enables them to more accurately analyze the effects of environmental change. The availability of longer time series of data has made it apparent that evolution in response to environmental change may take place quite rapidly. Jonathan Weiner, in his Pulitzer prize-winning book The Beak of the Finch (1995), called attention to the work of ecologists Peter and Rosemary Grant, whose analysis of the effects of changing environmental conditions on the populations of various species on the Galapagos Islands documented rapid evolution in response to environmental change. B. These adaptations actually improve ecosystem resiliency as a whole by creating complex mosaics of habitats Bosselman 01 [Fred, Proffessor in energy and environmental law, 10/04, “What Lawmakers Can Learn From Large-Scale Ecology” http://www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/20012002workshops/lessons.pdf] Ecologists who study microbes point out that we humans are ourselves heterogeneous habitats. As biological technology increasingly allows more effective study of microorganisms, we have become aware of the variety and complex relationships of the microscopic species within our own bodies; like other animals, we harbor a heterogeneous mix of living creatures, some of which are essential to our survival while others can be harmful. Many biologists have observed a long-range trend toward greater complexity in organisms and heterogeneity in their interrelationships. The same processes that create non-equilibrium time dynamics may also create heterogeneous physical structure; it seems likely that the more that ecological systems change over time, the more these changes will result in complex mosaics of habitat in various stages of change. C. Prefer our turn: this resiliency is beneficial in the long run – empirically proven Gary W. Harding, Research Scientist, Copywrite 01, Insights, “Human Population Growth and the Accelerating Rate of Species Extinction,” http://www.earthportals.com/extinct.html Mass extinctions, in which from 40% to 95% of all plant and animal species died out, have occurred several times in the distant past. One occurred about 225 million years ago which ushered in the age of reptiles. Another, about 65 million years ago, spelled the end of reptile dominance and led to the age of mammals. The cause of these past events is hotly debated, but the proposed explanations all have geologic (volcanoes), cosmic (asteroids), climatic (hot verses cold), and pathogenic (diseases) bases. Following each mass extinction, there was a rapid radiation of new species. Once in existence, most species remained relatively unchanged for millions of years until they, in turn, scummed to extinction. Other species were molded, in a Darwinian sense, by adaptation to minor fluctuations in the ecosystem. Some animals, like the horse, also got much bigger. Extinction does not require that every member of a species disappear within a short period of time. All that is needed is a decline to a level where population maintenance is no longer viable. Such a species may hang on for thousands of years on the road to extinction. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 19/212 BIODIVERSITY BAD (OPOP) Die-off’s are also key to prevent overpopulation, the impact is planetary extinction For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 20/212 BIODIVERSITY BAD – WAR Biodiversity loss prevents war Daniel Deudney, Hewlett Fellow in Science, Technology, and Society at the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Princeton, April 1991, “Environment and Security: Muddled Thinking”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, p. 26-27, google books Even if environmental degradation were to destroy the basic social and economic fabric of a country or region, the impact on international order may not be very great. Among the first casualties in such country would be the capacity to wage war.The poor and wretched of the earth may be able to deny an outside aggressor an easy conquest, but they are themselves a minimal threat to other states.Contemporary offensive military operations require complex organizational skills, specialized industrial products and surplus wealth. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 21/212 BIODIVERSITY GOOD (DISEASE) Environmental collapse threatens health and civilization collapse WHO, 5 (“Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis” http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosys tems/ecosysq1.pdf) In a fundamental sense, ecosystems are the planet's life-support systems - for the human species and all other forms of life (see Figure 1.1). The needs of the human organism for food, water, clean air, shelter and relative climatic constancy are basic and unalterable. That is, ecosystems are essential to human well-being and especially to human health – defined by the World Health Organization as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being. Those who live in materially comfortable, urban environments commonly take for granted ecosystem services to health. They assume that good health derives from prudent consumer choices and behaviours, with access to good health care services. But this ignores the role of the natural environment: of the array of ecosystems that allow people to enjoy good health, social organization, economic activity, a built environment and life itself. Historically, overexploitation of ecosystem services has led to the collapse of some societies (SG3). There is an observable tendency for powerful and wealthy societies eventually to overexploit, damage and even destroy their natural environmental support base. The agricultural-based civilizations of Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, the Mayans, and (on a microscale) Easter Island all provide well documented examples. Industrial societies, although in many cases more distant from the source of the ecosystem services on which they depend, may reach similar limits. Resource consumption in one location can lead to degradation of ecosystem services and associated health effects in other parts of the world (SG3). At its most fundamental level of analysis, the pressure on ecosystems can be conceptualized as a function of population, technology and lifestyle. In turn, these factors depend on many social and cultural elements. For example, fertilizer use in agricultural production increasingly is dependent on resources extracted from other regions and has led to eutrophication of rivers, lakes and coastal ecosystems. Notwithstanding ecosystems' fundamental role as determinants of human health, sociocultural factors play a similarly important role. These include infrastructural assets; income and wealth distribution; technologies used; and level of knowledge. In many industrialized countries, changes in these social factors over the last few centuries have both enhanced some ecosystem services (through more productive agriculture, for instance) and improved health services and education, contributing to increases in life expectancy. The complex multifactorial causation of states of health and disease complicates the attribution of human health impacts to ecosystem changes. A precautionary approach to ecosystem management is appropriate. Environmental destruction causes new diseases WHO, 5 (“Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis” http://www.who.int/globalchange/ecosys tems/ecosysq1.pdf) Disturbance or degradation of ecosystems can have biological effects that are highly relevant to infectious disease transmission (C14). The reasons for the emergence or re-emergence of some diseases are unknown, but the following mechanisms have been proposed: • altered habitat leading to changes in the number of vector breeding sites or reservoir host distribution; • niche invasions or transfer of interspecies hosts; • biodiversity change (including loss of predator species and changes in host population density); • human-induced genetic changes in disease vectors or pathogens (such as mosquito resistance to pesticides or the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria); and • environmental contamination by infectious disease agents (such as faecal contamination of source waters). For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 22/212 BIODIVERSITY GOOD (WAR/ECONOMY) Environmental degradation increases war, instability, and hurts the economy UN, 4 (United Nations News Center, “Environmental destruction during war exacerbates instability” November 5, 2004, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12460&Cr=conflict&Cr1=environment, "These scars, threatening water supplies, the fertility of the land and the cleanliness of the air are recipes for instability between communities and neighbouring countries," he added. Citing a new UNEP report produced in collaboration with the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Mr. Toepfer stressed that environmental degradation could undermine local and international security by "reinforcing and increasing grievances within and between societies." The study finds that a decrepit and declining environment can depress economic activity and diminish the authority of the state in the eyes of its citizens. It also points out that the addressing environmental problems can foster trust among communities and neighbouring countries. "Joint projects to clean up sites, agreements and treaties to better share resources such as rivers and forests, and strengthening cooperation between the different countries' ministries and institutions may hold the key to building trust, understanding and more stable relations," said the UNEP chief. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 23/212 BIODIVERSITY GOOD (AGRICULTURE) Environmental degradation destroys cropland Homer-Dixon, 91 (Thomas- Professor of Political Science and Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Toronto, International Security“ On The Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict” 199, http://www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/thresh/thresh2.htm) Decreased agricultural production is often mentioned as potentially the most worrisome consequence of environmental change,47 and Figure 2 presents some of the causal scenarios frequently proposed by researchers. This illustration is not intended to be exhaustive: the systemic interaction of environmental and agricultural variables is far more complex than the figure suggests.48 Moreover, no one region or country will exhibit all the indicated processes: while some are already clearly evident in certain areas, others are not yet visible anywhere. The Philippines provides a good illustration of deforestation's impact, which can be traced out in the figure. Since the Second World War, logging and the encroachment of farms have reduced the virgin and second-growth forest from about sixteen million hectares to 6.8-7.6 million hectares.49 Across the archipelago, logging and land-clearing have accelerated erosion, changed regional hydrological cycles and precipitation patterns, and decreased the land's ability to retain water during rainy periods. The resulting flash floods have damaged irrigation works while plugging reservoirs and irrigation channels with silt. These factors may seriously affect crop production. For example, when the government of the Philippines and the European Economic Community commissioned an Integrated Environmental Plan for the still relatively unspoiled island of Palawan, the authors of the study found that only about half of the 36,000 hectares of irrigated farmland projected within the Plan for 2007 will actually be irrigable because of the hydrological effects of decreases in forest cover. 50 Figure 2 also highlights the importance of the degradation and decreasing availability of good agricultural land, problems that deserve much closer attention than they usually receive. Currently, total global cropland amounts to about 1.5 billion hectares. Optimistic estimates of total arable land on the planet, which includes both current and potential cropland, range from 3.2 to 3.4 billion hectares, but nearly all the best land has already been exploited. What is left is either less fertile, not sufficiently rainfed or easily irrigable, infested with pests, or harder to clear and work.51 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 24/212 BIOTECH BAD (BIOTERROR) Biotech puts us at risk for a bioterrorist attack WSJ, 08 [Wall Street Journal, “Bioterrorism's Threat Persists As Top Security Risk”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121781124869708811.html] Bioterror experts warn that an attack is only going to become easier to launch as the same work that has spawned countless new biotech medical treatments continues to advance. "Unfortunately, there's going to be a dark side," says Randall Larsen, Director of the Institute for Homeland Security, a Virginia-based think tank. The biotech revolution, he said, is making it "easier for nonstate actors to develop sophisticated bioweapons." With easier access to fatal pathogens, it may be impossible to uncover preparations for an attack, leading government officials to focus more on lessening the impact of an attack than preventing one. New York is using the next generation of sensors that the federal BioWatch program hopes to distribute nationwide by 2010. The city has been asking the federal government for more sensors. Most of the devices require up to 34 hours to detect a lethal bug, but about a half dozen new machines can detect an agent more quickly. Yet New York remains at the leading edge. In most other cities, there was little federal guidance about which systems to buy, which led to a patchwork of often ineffective programs. The BioWatch system is active in more than 30 cities. In New York, if a lethal agent is detected, the city plans to immediately distribute drugs to counter the bug. The federal government has worked to develop a national stockpile of drugs to deploy anywhere in the country, and biosecurity experts give the program high marks, saying that it can get the drugs to an affected region quickly. The problem, they say, is getting the medication out of the airport, where the federal government leaves it, and into communities. If a biological attack were to happen tomorrow, said Lawrence O. Gostin, a bioterrorism expert at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown Universities, the best advice the government could give would be for people to stay where they are. He adds: "I have no idea how they would get to my suburban Maryland neighborhood and get me an antiviral or antibiotic." And biosecurity specialists lament that little progress has been made even on the most public of possible biological threats: countering an anthrax attack. Seven years after the nation contended with just such an attack, an $877 million effort to develop a new anthrax vaccine has failed; there's no quick way to test patients for an anthrax infection; and efforts to develop a drug to counter anthrax's lethal chemicals haven't produced much. "We need to seriously reconsider the approach we've been taking," said Alan Pearson, Director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. He advocates a greater focus on prevention. Biological terrorist attack would cause extinction Steinbruner, Senior Fellow at Brookings Institute 1997 [John, Sr. Fellow @ Brookings institution, “Biological Weapons: A Plague upon All Houses”, Foreign Policy, Winter 1997-1998, p. 85-96, JSTOR] Ultimately the world's military, medical, and business establishments will have to work together to an unprecedented degree if the international community is to succeed in containing the threat of biological weapons. Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback Biological Weapons is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use-the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 25/212 BIOTECH GOOD (AIDS) Biotech key to prevent and cure AIDS BIO, Biotechnology Institute Organization, 2K ( “AIDS: A Terrible Pandemic”, Your World, Biotechnology and You, http://www.biotechinstitute.org/resources/YWarticles/9.2/9.2.1.pdf) Meanwhile, every hour two U.S. teenagers become infected with HIV. AIDS kills more men between the ages of 25 and 44 in the U.S. than only other cause. In the U.S. alone, more than one million people have HIV. Worldwide, more than 47 million people are HIVinfected and 11 more become infected every minute. AIDS is destroying entire communities in Africa and Asia. People in these countries have no access to drugs that treat HIV, and people die rapidly of AIDS. Twenty-three million people in Sub-Saharan Africa are HIV-infected, and 13.7 million have died. There are two major weapons against AIDS: education and biotechnology. Education and biotechnology. Education helps prevent the behavior that leads to HIV infection. As the 1999 World AIDS Day slogan stated, "Listen, Learn, Live!" In the early 1980s, biotechnology helped scientists identify HIV as the cause of AIDS, diagnose HIV infection, and clear the blood supply of contaminated blood. In the 1990s, new biotechnology techniques allowed scientists to study the virus' life cycle and design drugs that can interrupt that life cycle. Now scientists are using biotechnology to develop new drugs and vaccines that may eventually cure or prevent new infection. Mutation and spread of AIDS ensures extinction. ACSA 05 ("U.N.: HIV Epidemic continues to Spread" American Computer Science Association http://www.acsa2000.net/aids/global_aids_ap.htm#ross ) At a 12% annual compounded growth rate in the spread of infection , which netted 5 million new cases in 2005 and 3 million deaths from the disease, that means the growth of HIV/AIDS will exceed Humanity's Birthrate within 100 Years. At that point it will be too late to do anything about: Humanity will cease to exist in less than 150 years , by 2155. The increasing number of long term survivors is at a rate of 40% increase, per year, but at some point, once the Birth Rate is exceeded by the AIDS deaths per year, the number of human beings to catch the disease will decline to the point where the only survivors will all be under the age of sexual activity, and many will be in-vitro infected and die within 5 years. At that point, only those capable of living with the disease and caring for the young, will live, a few million young persons at best . At the present rate Humanity will be Economically Bankrupt within 25 years (680 Million People will have AIDS, about 10% of humanity, 600 million People will have died of it by then: with 68 million new deaths each year, roughly equivalent to 1/5th the population of America.) The "Extinction Point" may actually accelerate the impending extinction to less than 75 years, if birth rate declines as a result. It is the Economically Bankrupt Point , however, that will insure Extinction, since beyond that point, the population of non-infected persons will drop due to other factors, such as war, barbarianism, and the like . Hopefully, the mechanism whereby retroviruses such as HIV enter the human bio-physiology will not develop to the point where it can be communicated by anything but open contact with human tissue through sexual or similar contact, or no one will survive it. Unfortunately, for so long as we continue to rely upon pharmacology, and not develop strong enough immune systems to survive against such as HIV, such viruses will MUTATE to overcome the pharmacology and will eventually win. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 26/212 BIOTECH GOOD (BIOTERROR) Biotech industry key to outpacing bioterrorists American Chemical Society 99. http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/A/199900120.html Biotechnology has enabled scientists, technicians and doctors to assemble an impressive arsenal to fight disease and hunger and, potentially, to correct devastating genetic disorders. The ability to manipulate genes "could [also] lead to the development of genetically engineered pathogens, toxins and biomodulators as weapons targeted to specific ethnic groups," writes senior correspondent Lois Ember. Jonathan Tucker of Stanford University's Hoover Institution, who served as a U.N. inspector in Iraq, calls upon scientists to help develop international treaties and "broad-spectrum antimicrobial drugs" as defenses against biological weapons. "A new professional ethic - analogous to the Hippocratic oath - that forbids the misuse of human genetic information to inflict injury or death" should be considered by scientists, he says. William Haseltine, chairman and CEO of Human Genome Science in Rockville, Md., believes research into genomics offers "more hope than cause for concern." He says "our ability to defend ourselves against such attacks will outstrip anyone's ability to create new, more deadly organisms." Biological terrorist attack would cause extinction Steinbruner, Senior Fellow at Brookings Institute 1997 [John, Sr. Fellow @ Brookings institution, “Biological Weapons: A Plague upon All Houses”, Foreign Policy, Winter 1997-1998, p. 85-96, JSTOR] Ultimately the world's military, medical, and business establishments will have to work together to an unprecedented degree if the international community is to succeed in containing the threat of biological weapons. Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential weapons of mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback Biological Weapons is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use-the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 27/212 BIOTECH GOOD (SWINE FLU) Biotech key to solve swine flu—new vaccine production techniques Euro Biotech 7/18/09 (European Biotechnology Science & Industry News, “The Future of Flu Vaccine Production”, http://www.eurobiotechnews.eu/service/start-page/top-news/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=10330) If vaccine producer Baxter is able to back up its claims, then the most advanced pandemic vaccine against the A(H1N1) virus will come from the field of biotech. The company’s spokeswoman Jutta Brenn-Vogt claimed that Baxter is “expecting the vaccine to be available sometime in July.” Pre-series testing and evaluation are already complete, she said, and mass production in Vero cells is underway at Baxter’s facility in the Czech Republic. If all goes according to plan, the commercial release will be a record-breaker in terms of time to market. Baxters’ only competitor Novartis, which produces in MDCK cells at its Marburg site, has just begun a Phase III clinical trial, and hopes to receive approval from the regulatory authorites for its pandemic flu vaccine by October. Because of the authorisation procedure, the first vaccine doses could only be delivered at the earliest by the end of the year. All other major producers still rely on the classic method of breeding a weakened and reassorted version of the virus in millions of fertilised chicken eggs – a slower process, but a tried and trusted one. GSK, Sanofi-Aventis and MedImmune will only be able to deliver vaccine doses by October at the earliest. Only CSL, which like Baxter began working from a CDC-isolate before the release of the seed viruses at the end of May, has said that it will be able to deliver doses by mid-August in an emergency situation. That is an ambitious plan, as the egg-based production of vaccines generally takes around 6 months from virus isolation to market. But although the cell-based vaccine made by Baxter might be produced more quickly, experts also expect it to be more expensive. In spite of that drawback, most analysts consider the method very promising for another reason – it could provide the means for a much shorter lag in the time it takes to respond to an outbreak with a vaccine. According to Brenn-Vogt, scalable cell-based vaccine production systems are able to cut roll-out times in half because the company is able to work immediately with an unaltered version of the isolated virus. In the classic procedure, seed virus strains have to be tweaked to cope with replication conditions inside the egg. Additionally, eggbased production cannot be performed in the BSL3 safety environment required for production of highly pathogenic viruses – and the cell-based method can. Swine flu outweighs nuclear war in devastation Sieff, defense industry editor for UPI, 09 ( Martin, “Swine flu-HIV could devastate human race”, United Press International, 5/4/2009, http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2009/05/04/Swine-flu-HIV-could-devastate-human-race/UPI-43071241461493) The global swine flu threat is receding, but it could return in a far more deadly form in the fall. The warning was given Monday by Dr. Margaret Chan, head of the 193-nation World Health Organization, in an interview with the Financial Times of London. Chan warned that the swine flu virus known as H1N1 that caused the Mexico City-centered outbreak could return in the fall as a far more dangerous mutation. After last week's warnings, school closings across the United States and the near shuttering of Mexico City, the current outbreak seems to have peaked. The WHO said Monday there were 985 confirmed cases of H1N1 spread over 20 countries. There have been 25 confirmed deaths. As of Monday there were 286 reported cases of swine flu in 36 U.S. states. Both U.S. and Mexican authorities expressed confidence that the spread of the disease was slowing down. The World Health Organization said the higher number of reports of cases from Mexico -- 590 -- comes from testing of previously gathered samples. The four strands of the swine flu virus come from pigs, humans and birds. Experts believe that the virus mutated into its current form in the bodies of pigs . Health authorities are particularly worried that the capability to mutate already exhibited by the virus could eventually let it combine with the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS. That could cause a lethally dangerous global health problem on a comparable scale to the 1918 Spanish influenza epidemic that eventually infected more than 500 million people -- more than one-quarter of the human race -- and killed 10 percent of them. That death toll of 50 million was more than five times the total fatalities of World War I. The epidemic killed more Americans than died in World War I and World II combined. Canadian health officials said Sunday they have confirmed that the H1N1 swine flu virus had, in at least one case, leaped back into a herd of 200 pigs. That raised the possibility it could mutate again in pigs and move back into the human population. Chan told the Financial Times that, given the potential scale of the possible threat, the World Health Organization did not overreact to the swine flu threat. While the number of new cases hasn't grown as fast as expected, Chan said the disease could return in a few months in a much more lethal strain. She also said she would rather be over-prepared than have to answer questions about why the World Health Organization didn't take sufficient action. The reaction of the U.S. government headed by President Barack Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was measured, restrained and less tough than that of the 27-nation European Union or of nations like China in closing cross-border traffic or imposing comprehensive screening. The Chinese government was horrified at the possibility that swine flu could spread among its 1.3 billion people, almost 20 percent of the human race. Its emergency measures, however, have infuriated the Mexican government and led to a major diplomatic row between the two nations. Mexican travelers were quarantined in hotels, and the Mexican ambassador to China was not allowed to meet with one group he tried to visit. The anger of the Mexican government at the Chinese measures, however, has obscured the real possibility that the global impact of swine flu has been limited precisely because of the swift measures that were taken globally to contain it. The global swine flu crisis recalls the so-called millennium bug, which was supposed to crash computers around the world as the machines' internal clocks turned over Jan. 1, 2000. That didn't happen, but some experts said that was because the precautions taken helped prevent the problem. Some said there wasn't a problem to begin with. The whole controversy revolved around a negative proposition that couldn't be proved. Skeptics are already arguing that the global fever over swine flu should fall into the same category. However, human history is filled with little-known but horrifying examples of global pandemics from diseases like Spanish flu, cholera, syphilis or bubonic plague that swept the world, killing hundreds of millions of people, destroying civilizations and reshaping the demographic patterns of the planet. In a modern world of unprecedented population scale and social mobility, Chan's caution therefore appears completely justified. The alternative is to risk a biological disaster that could eventually prove more devastating than a thermonuclear war. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 28/212 CCP COLLAPSE BAD – CHINA RUSSIA WAR Collapse of the Chinese government causes border conflict with Russia Lo and Rothman 06 [Bobo Lo and Andy Rothman, May 2006, Asian Geopolitics, special report http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7057/is_2_9/ai_n28498825/pg_17/] The second scenario for strategic conflict is predicated on a general collapse of law and order in China. With no effective central authority to contain the anarchy, millions of Chinese could cross the border into the Russian Far East. This would lead to tensions and clashes, at first sporadic and random, but subsequently escalating into interstate conflict. That escalates to full scale nuclear war and extinction Alexander Sharavin, WPS Monitoring Agency, 9/28/01, Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie, “THE THIRD THREAT Russia is overlooking the increasing military might of China”, http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5470.html##10 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. An aforementioned prospect is, undoubtedly, rather disagreeable and we would not like to believe it can be true. However, it is a realistic prospect - just like a war against NATO or Islamic extremists. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 29/212 CCP COLLAPSE BAD (NUCLEAR WAR) Nuclear war Extinction. Rexing, 05 (San, Staff – Epoch Times, The CCP’s Last Ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War, 8-5, http://english.epochtimes.com/ news/5-8-5/30975.html) Since the Party’s life is “above all else,” it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches. This theme is murderous and utterly evil. In China we have seen beggars who coerced people to give them money by threatening to stab themselves with knives or pierce their throats with long nails. But we have never, until now, seen such a gangster who would use biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons to threaten the world, that all will die together with him. This bloody confession has confirmed the CCP’s nature: that of a monstrous murderer who has killed 80 million Chinese people and who now plans to hold one billion people hostage and gamble with their lives. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 30/212 CCP COLLAPSE GOOD (NUCLEAR WAR) The CCP must lose popular support to prevent inevitable nuclear war McAdam 5, Brian Former Canadian diplomat. “Imminent collapse of Communism in China: Truth or Speculation” Prime Time 2005 www.primetimecrime.com/contributing/2005/20050805McAdam.htm “The CCP’s main aim for the civilian economy is to support the building of modern millitary weapons and to support the aims of the PLA.” The CCP has been posing an increasing threat to the rest of the world for a long time, with generals threatening nuclear attacks to maintain control. China can launch nuclear weapons that in thirty minutes could kill one hundred million people. China seems to be engaging in nuclear brinkmanship. “History demonstrates that a free people, who are free to choose, do not wage aggressive war. The only ultimate deterrence is democracy,” writes Constantine Menges. The world’s best hope is to nurture and empower the pro-democracy forces in China to bring about a transition. Menges writes in the final chapter of his book China-The Gathering Storm before he died: “History has no guarantees about the future. China may become democratic in the next years or not for decades. We know that a nuclear-armed Communist China, where the regime controls an advanced technology sector and is far better armed, would be a state that could become ever more dangerous. We know that Communist regimes can reform and evolve from reform Communism to political democracy. We know that this is better for their people and for peace – these are the lessons of Eastern Europe since 1989 and in Western Europe and Japan since 1945. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 31/212 CHINA-TAIWAN WAR GOOD (CCP COLLAPSE) China-Taiwan war causes Taiwan strikes on 3 Gorges Dam Shirk, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the State responsible for US-China relations under Clinton, 2007 [Susan, University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation director, and UC-San Diego Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies professor, China: Fragile Superpower, pg. 181-7] Newspapers took a line in a Pentagon report noting that if attacked, Taiwan might consider retaliating against high-value Mainland targets like the Three Gorges Dam, and turned it into a story that the United States had suggested attacking the dam." "Our government can't afford to ignore any American mistake on Taiwan because people will see it as acquiescence. So the government spokesman has to respond," said a Beijing university professor. Collapse of the 3 gorges dam causes CCP collapse—that ends the war because government collapses Navarro, University of California-Irvine business professor, May 2008 [Peter, The Coming China Wars: Where They Will Be Fought and How They Can Be Won, 106, mss] In addition, two catastrophic scenarios hang heavy over the Three Gorges Dam. First, if silt continues to rapidly build up behind the dam, eventually the dam will not be able to contain a flood crest and will surely be breached. Second, the mass of water in the reservoir is so heavy that it may alter the pressure in the rocks below and induce an earthquake. With the dam itself built in the vicinity of several fault lines, this earthquake may, in turn, cause the dam to collapse. Such a collapse would unleash the biggest fresh water-based tsunami ever witnessed. The death toll would run into the millions; the economic costs would run into the billions; and the political and social havoc that would likely ensue might even bring down the government, which insisted on building the project to begin with. The CCP must lose popular support to prevent inevitable nuclear war McAdam 5, Brian Former Canadian diplomat. “Imminent collapse of Communism in China: Truth or Speculation” Prime Time 2005 www.primetimecrime.com/contributing/2005/20050805McAdam.htm “The CCP’s main aim for the civilian economy is to support the building of modern millitary weapons and to support the aims of the PLA.” The CCP has been posing an increasing threat to the rest of the world for a long time, with generals threatening nuclear attacks to maintain control. China can launch nuclear weapons that in thirty minutes could kill one hundred million people . China seems to be engaging in nuclear brinkmanship. “History demonstrates that a free people, who are free to choose, do not wage aggressive war. The only ultimate deterrence is democracy,” writes Constantine Menges. The world’s best hope is to nurture and empower the pro-democracy forces in China to bring about a transition. Menges writes in the final chapter of his book China-The Gathering Storm before he died: “History has no guarantees about the future. China may become democratic in the next years or not for decades. We know that a nuclear-armed Communist China, where the regime controls an advanced technology sector and is far better armed, would be a state that could become ever more dangerous. We know that Communist regimes can reform and evolve from reform Communism to political democracy. We know that this is better for their people and for peace – these are the lessons of Eastern Europe since 1989 and in Western Europe and Japan since 1945. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 32/212 CHINESE MODERNIZATION BAD – ARMS RACE Chinese modernization will escalate into a full blown arms race, causing a miscalculated nuclear war Twomey 09 (Christopher, co-directs the Center for Contemporary Conflict and is an assistant professor in the Department of National Security Affairs, both at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, Arms Control Association, Chinese-U.S. Strategic Affairs: Dangerous Dynamism, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_01-02/china_us_dangerous_dynamism#Twomey) China and the United States are not in a strategic weapons arms race. Nonetheless, their modernization and sizing decisions increasingly are framed with the other in mind. Nuclear weapons are at the core of this interlocking pattern of development. In particular, China is the only permanent member of the UN Security Council expanding its arsenal ; it is also enhancing its arsenal. The basic facts of Chinese strategic modernization are well known, if the details remain frustratingly opaque. China is deploying road-mobile, solid-fueled missiles, giving it a heighted degree of security in its second-strike capability. It is beginning to deploy ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). It is researching a wide range of warhead and delivery systems technologies that will lead to increased accuracy and, more pointedly, increased penetration against ballistic missile defenses. The size of China's deliverable arsenal against the United States will undoubtedly increase beyond the few dozen that it possessed recently.[1] The pace of growth thus far has been moderate, although China has only recently developed reliable, survivable delivery systems. The final endpoint remains mired in opacity and uncertainty, although several score of deliverable warheads seems likely for the near term. These developments on the strategic side are coupled with elements of conventional modernization that impinge on the strategic balance.[2] The relevant issue, however, is not simply an evaluation of the Chinese modernization program, but rather an evaluation of the interaction of that modernization with U.S. capabilities and interests. U.S. capabilities are also changing. Under the provisions of START and SORT, the United States has continued to engage in quantitative reductions of its operational nuclear arsenal. At the same, there is ongoing updating of warhead guidance and fusing systems. Ballistic missile defense systems of a variety of footprints are being deployed. The U.S. SSBN force now leans more toward the Pacific than the Atlantic, reversing the Cold War deployment. Guam's capacity to support heavy bombers and attack submarines has been enhanced. Furthermore, advances in U.S. conventional weaponry have been so substantial that they too promise strategic effects: prompt global strike holds out the promise of a U.S. weapon on target anywhere in the world in less than an hour and B-2s with highly accurate weapons can sustain strategic effects over a campaign. What are the concerns posed by these two programs of dynamic strategic arsenals? Most centrally, the development of the strategic forces detailed above has increasingly assumed an interlocked form. The U.S. revolution in precision guided munitions was followed by an emphasis on mobility in the Chinese missile force. U.S. missile defense systems have clearly spurred an emphasis on countermeasures in China's ICBM force and quantitative buildups in its regional missile arsenals.[3] Beijing's new submarine-based forces further enhance the security of China's second-strike capability in the face of a potential U.S. strike but are likely to lead to increased attention to anti-submarine warfare in the United States. China's recent anti-satellite test provoked a U.S. demonstration of similar capabilities. Such reciprocal responses have the potential to move toward a tightly coupled arms race and certainly have already worsened threat perceptions on each side. The potential for conflict is not simply that of inadvertent escalation; there are conflicts of interests between the two. Heightening threat perceptions in that context greatly complicates diplomacy. Further, the dangers of inadvertent escalation have been exacerbated by some of these moves. Chinese SSBN deployment will stress an untested command-and-control system. Similar dangers in the Cold War were mitigated, although not entirely overcome, over a period of decades of development of personnel and technical solutions. China appears to have few such controls in place today. U.S. deployment of highly accurate nuclear warheads is consistent with a first-strike doctrine and seems sized for threats larger than "rogue" nations. These too would undermine stability in an intense crisis. Extinction The Straits Times (Singapore), June 25, 2K. “No one gains in war over Taiwan.” l/n THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 33/212 CHINESE MODERNIZATION BAD – ASATS China is developing ASATs aimed at deployment against the United States IFPA ‘9, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis (A Space and Security, A Net Assessment, January, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/Space_and_U_S_Security_Net_Assessment_Final_Dec15_08.pdf) In addition to the ground-based missile intercept of a Chinese satellite in January 2007, China is reported to be conducting research for other anti-satellite weapons, such as a ground-based laser capable of damaging and destroying satellites.79 Such a capability could paralyze U.S. civilian and military space systems that are crucially important for a variety of commercial and national security purposes. Again, to highlight the apparent Chinese focus on asymmetric capabilities to hold at risk U.S. spacebased assets, the loss of U.S. space-based satellites would have a dramatic effect on communications, whether for civilian or for military purposes. Wireless tele phones, pagers, and electronic mail would be disrupted. In addition, satellites that provide automated reconnais sance and mapping, aid weather prediction, track fleet and troop movements, give accurate positions of U.S. and enemy forces, and guide missiles and pilotless planes to their targets during military operations would have their services curtailed or terminated. Satellite warfare produces space debris which makes space unusable O’Neill ‘8, Postgraduate Researcher at University and Webmaster at the Mars Foundation (Ian, March 24, “A Space War would be a Seriously Messy Business”, Universe Today, Google) What if there was a Pearl Harbour-like, pre-emptive strike against orbiting satellites? What if our quarrels on the ground spill into space? This is no longer a storyline for the next sci-fi movie, early warning systems are currently being developed to defend satellites, low Earth orbit satellites are being quickly and accurately shot down by the US and China, plus satellite technology is becoming more and more valuable as a strategic target. Like all wars there is a losing side, bu t in the event of a war in space, we'll all be losers. Its one thing watching a space battle in a sci-fi movie, it's quite another to see it happen in reality. The critical thing about blowing stuff up in space is it produces a lot of mess and will leave a nasty legacy for future generations. Space debris is becoming a serious problem and should there be some form of orbital war, the debris produced may render space impassable. Extinction Hawking 6 (November 30. “To avoid extinction humans must colonize space says Hawking.” http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1130hawking.html) As he was awarded the most prestigious prize in science, British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking said that humans need to colonize outer space in order avoid extinction. Hawking, who was presented Thursday with the Copley medal from Britain's Royal Society, told BBC Radio that humanity faces extinction if it confines itself to Earth. "The long-term survival of the human race is at risk as long as it is confined to a single planet," Hawking said. "Sooner or later disasters such as an asteroid collision or a nuclear war could wipe us all out. But once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe. Hawking said that improvements in technology could make space travel for feasible in the future. "Science fiction has developed the idea of warp drive, which takes you instantly to your destination. Unfortunately, this would violate the scientific law which says that nothing can travel faster than light," he added "but matter/antimatter annihilation" could make it possible to travel at speeds just below the speed of light. "My next goal is to go into space," he said. Hawking, who has long pushed for space exploration and has performed groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe, believes that we could have a permanent base on the moon in 20 years and a colony on Mars in the next 40 years. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of," he said this summer at a news conference in Hong Kong. The Copley medal is the world's oldest award for scientific achievement. First awarded in 1731, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Louis Pasteur and Sir James Cook have been recipients the award. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 34/212 CHINESE MODERNIZATION BAD – CCP COLLAPSE Chinese military modernization crushes Chinese civil military relations—collapses the CCP and destabilizes all of Asia Howard M. Krawitz, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs U.S. Department of State, 12/03, Strategic Forum, “Modernizing China's military: a high-stakes gamble?”, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QZY/is_203204/ai_n13803180/?tag=content;col1// China is committed to modernizing almost every aspect of the People's Liberation Army (PLA). But military modernization may be more of a high-stakes gamble than Beijing realizes. Politics and professionalism may not mix well. No matter how carefully crafted, modernization inevitably will alter the PLA sense of identity and change its relationship over time with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Modernization may foment friction between military and civilian authorities competing for political primacy and limited resources or create within the PLA divisive social issues similar to those dogging Chinese civil society generally. The CCP struggle to define its future in a changing society makes the problem more complex. The PLA could become a truly national army, unwilling to be a tool for enforcing party dicta or policing internal security. Or PLA factions could end up vying for power. The resulting instability, if not outright anarchy, could threaten all of Asia. The final nature of an empowered, modernized PLA is anyone's guess. In one worst-case scenario, the PLA is an aggressive, nationalistic entity fueled by radical Chinese militarism. In a positive scenario, a more professional PLA with enhanced capability and self-confidence might become a safer, less insular military that is cognizant of the need for disciplined action and measured responses, bound by well-understood rules of engagement and, overall, a more potent force for preserving regional stability. China's grand ambition is to be the premier power in Asia by 2015 and to wield considerable worldwide authority by 2050. It has partially achieved this ambition through a combination of skillful diplomacy and a relatively successful program of domestic economic reform. But it still lacks the third leg of the tripod that supports any great state: a respected, competent military capable of credibly projecting power outside national borders and reinforcing policy initiatives in the international arena. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 35/212 CHINESE MODERNIZATION BAD – INDO-PAK WAR Chinese modernization causes nuclear instability between India and Pakistan Michael Krepon, Co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, 04/09, Joint Force Quaterly, “Nuclear arms and the future of South Asia”, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KNN/is_53/ai_n31464292/pg_4/?tag=content;col1 The nuclear arms competition between Pakistan and India has an additional driver: Chinese reactions to U.S. national security policies that seek "decisive" victory in the event of warfare with China over Taiwan. Beijing has long pursued what, in Cold War terms, has been a lackadaisical strategic modernization program. This relaxed pace is changing. The Bush administration's incorporation of conventional strike capabilities into strategic war plans, the proposed deployment of more than 40 ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, the revised U.S. Air Force guidance related to space superiority, and other military initiatives have gained Beijing's attention, as they have particular relevance vis-a-vis contingencies related to Taiwan. The accelerating pace of China's strategic modernization programs will feed into India's calculations for a minimal nuclear deterrent, which in turn will feed into Pakistan's perceived needs. The China-India-Pakistan nuclear triangle is likely to be the primary axis of vertical proliferation over the next 10 years or more. While this competition will fall well short of an arms race--at least in Cold War terms--it will work against nuclear stabilization on the subcontinent. Such China-facilitated arms build up leads to and Indo-Pak nuclear war ANI, world news agency, 12/07/08, Thaindian News, “US commission says urgent need to secure Pakistan’’s biological and nuclear weapons’, http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/us-commission-says-urgent-need-to-secure-pakistans-biological-andnuclear-weapons_100128015.html China is also fuelling the arms race, both by increasing its own strategic forces and by not stopping the Chinese entities from supporting Pakistan’s strategic programmes, says the report, adding, at present, all three are expanding their nuclear arsenals with no clear end in sight. The report also warned that Pakistan’s tense relationship with India and its build-up of nuclear weapons; could exacerbate the prospect of a dangerous nuclear arms race in South Asia that could lead to a nuclear conflict. “Analysts estimate that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan that targets cities would kill millions of people and injure millions more,” the commission warns in its “World at Risk” report. Describing the risk of a nuclear war between the two neighbours as serious, given their ongoing dispute over Kashmir and the possibility that terrorist attacks by the Pakistani militant groups, the report further says: “Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program is driven by its perception of the conventional and nuclear threat from India, while India’s program is focused on both Pakistan and China.” The report observes that the US and Russia have significantly reduced their nuke weapons, while Pakistan, India and China have been enhancing their nuclear capabilities and reliance upon nuclear weapons in their strategic postures. Indo- Pak conflict leads to Extinction Ghulam Nabi Fai, Executive Director of the Washington-based Kashmiri American Council, Editor-in-Chief of the Washington-based Kashmir Report; founding chairman of the London-based International Institute of Kashmir Studies, Ph.D. in mass communications from Temple University, Pennsylvania, 06/09/01, Media Monitors Network, “India-Pakistan Summit and the Issue of Kashmir”, http://www.mediamonitors.net/fai6.html The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of Defense, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 36/212 CHINESE MODERNIZATION BAD – JAPANESE REARM Chinese modernization causes Japan rearm Philip C. Saunders and Jing-dong Yuan, Montery Institute of International Studies, 07/2000, 2k, Proliferation Challenges and Nonproliferation Opportunities for New Administrations “CHINA’S STRATEGIC FORCE MODERNIZATION: ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES”, http://cns.miis.edu/opapers/op4/op4.pdf// Any significant expansion of China’s nuclear force would have important implications for regional security dynamics. Some Japanese analysts would interpret China’s strategic modernization as a threat, especially if it includes a shift to limited deterrence and an expansion in the number of MRBMs. The closing of the gap between Chinese nuclear missile forces and US military capabilities and the potential for nuclear exchanges in the western Pacific could cause Tokyo to question the credibility of extended deterrence and the US nuclear umbrella. This might lead Japan to make a greater commitment to theater missile defense and to reconsider its nuclear and ballistic missile options. This reassessment might also be triggered by an easing of tensions on the Korean peninsula, which might undercut the rationale for a forward-based US presence in Northeast Asia. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 37/212 CHINESE MODERNIZATION BAD – MISSILE TESTING China will test missiles to modernize Jannuzi, 2K – Senior East Asia Specialist on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (10/13, Frank, “Missile Defense and East Asia: Downside and Risks An Address” www.icasinc.org/f2000/f2000fsj.html) If China were to increase its strategic nuclear forces so as to counter our missile defense, it might well decide to MIRV its missiles. After all, that's how you field lots of warheads without having to build so many missiles. China's nuclear doctrine has been based upon an ability to absorb a first strike and then respond. Will they maintain that doctrine if they MIRV their ICBM's? Will they be confident that we can't target their new mobile ICBM's? Or will they put them on "hair-trigger" alert? China has little or no missile warning capability, so a China with MIRV's on hair-trigger alert is not a comforting thought. Consider, also, just how China would MIRV its missiles. Some experts believe that in order to field small enough warheads, China would have to resume nuclear testing. That would put a stake through the heart of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, and perhaps the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well. Does that give us greater security? Extinction Chalko, ‘3 – PhD in Geophysics (3/3, Thomas, “Can a Neutron Bomb Accelerate Global Volcanic Activity?", http://nujournal.net/neutron_bomb.pdf) However, the military seem to ignore the fact that a neutron radiation is capable to reach significant depths in the planetary interior. In the process of passing through the planet and losing its intensity, a neutron beam stimulates nuclei of radioactive isotopes inside the planet to disintegrate. Stimulated disintegration, in turn, produces more neutrons. This process causes not only an increase in radiation levels but also increased nuclear heat generation in the planetary interior, far greater than the energy of the bomb itself . It typically takes many days or even weeks for this extra heat to conduct/convect to the surface of the planet and cause increased seismic/volcanic activity. Due to this variable and seemingly inconsistent delay, nuclear tests are not currently associated with seismic/volcanic activity, simply because it is believed that there is no theoretical basis for such an association. Perhaps you heard that after every major series of nuclear test there is always a period of increased seismic activity in some part of the world. This actually cannot be explained by direct energy from the explosion. The mechanism of neutron radiation accelerating decay of radioactive isotopes in the planetary interior – a process that generates more neutrons and heat, however, is a very realistic explanation of Observable Reality. The process of accelerating volcanic activity is nuclear in essence. Accelerated decay of radioactive isotopes already present in the planetary interior provides the necessary energy. The TRUE danger of modern nuclear weaponry is that their neutron radiation is capable to induce global overheating of the planetary interior, global volcanic activity and, in extreme circumstances, may even cause the entire planet to be demolished. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 38/212 CHINESE MODERNIZATION BAD – TERRORISM China modernization bad—technology can get into the hands of terrorists, and they may use this as leverage against the US Blair and Hills 07 Dennis C. Blair, Former United States Director of National Intelligence, retired United States Navy Admiral. Carla A. Hills, former US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, former US Trade Representative, Co-Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, Chair of the National Commiittee on United States-China relations, primary negotiator of NAFTA, 2007. [Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. China Relations: An Affirmative Agenda, A Responsible Approach p. 70] The Department of Commerce also recently proposed, and then withdrew, new restrictions on ‘‘deemed exports.’’ These new regulations would have made it more difficult for American companies and universities to hire Chinese (and other foreign students) to work in laboratories. After a massive outcry from business associations and universities—which argued that if the United States was worried about competitiveness and its ability to train and attract the best and the brightest it ought not to treat these students as second-class citizens— the proposal was withdrawn. But new proposals are being considered. 49 This stands in marked contrast with the Reagan era, when the United States chose to launch satellites on Chinese rockets after the space shuttle Challenger disaster even though China was actively selling arms to Iran at the time. China has complained that U.S. restrictions on high-technology exports contribute significantly to the U.S.-China trade deficit. The Task Force finds this argument unconvincing and empirically false. There are legitimate national security and economic security reasons for the United States to restrict some sensitive technologies to China, including the risk that such technologies–even if not employed by China against U.S. interests—might fall into the hands of those who mean to do harm to the United States. Export licensing stopped only about 1.5 percent of the value of exports to China in 2005. Out of $39 billion in U.S. exports, only about $3 billion worth even required export licenses from the Commerce Department, and almost all of those exports were eventually approved, according to Commerce Department data. Today, the United States continues to use export controls and sanctions on technology transfer to protect transfers of sensitive goods, punish China for actions contrary to U.S. interests (such as proliferation), or to create incentives for China to change its foreign or domestic policies. The Bush administration has sanctioned dozens of Chinese firms for violating U.S. export controls regulations, often for selling dual-use technologies to Iran, Libya, or North Korea. Extinction Alexander, 2003 [Yonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, 8/28/03, Washington Times] Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 39/212 CHINESE MODERNIZATION BAD – PROLIF Chinese modernization removes every barrier for global prolif Sanders and Jing-Dong, 2K – Strategists at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (July, Phillip and Yuan, “China's Strategic Force Modernization: Issues and Implications in Proliferation Challenges and Nonproliferation Opportunities for New Administrations”, Occasional Paper No. 4. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, http://cns.miis.edu/opapers/op4/op4.pdf) Because this scenario involves a significant expansion of China’s strategic nuclear force, it would have a broad negative impact on international arms control and nonproliferation regimes. In the worst case, the United States might interpret China’s buildup in response to a US NMD deployment as evidence of hostile Chinese intentions, stimulating an arms race and an end to cooperation on regional security, nonproliferation, and arms control issues. The United States might also respond by attempting to build a “thick” NMD system capable of neutralizing China’s nuclear deterrent. The costs of such an offense-defense arms race would be heavy for both sides, and it is not clear whether the technology for a “thick” missile defense system would be effective or affordable. China’s nuclear buildup in an arms race with the United States would have major negative consequences for other regional actors, such as Japan, Russia, and India. A doctrinal shift from minimal deterrence to limited deterrence would call China’s NFU pledge into question. The associated build up of Chinese nuclear missile forces, coupled with a US-Russian START III build-down, would move China closer to numerical parity. This could have two contradictory consequences. China’s two-decade free ride on superpower nuclear weapons reductions might end, as international pressure mounted for China to participate in the global nuclear disarmament process. However, the United States and Russia might reconsider further reductions in their strategic nuclear arsenals, especially if China refused to make reductions in its arsenal. A shift in Chinese nuclear doctrine would probably be interpreted by the United States as evidence of Chinese hostility, which would worsen relations and undermine regional stability. Any significant expansion of China’s nuclear force would have important implications for regional security dynamics. Some Japanese analysts would interpret China’s strategic modernization as a threat, especially if it includes a shift to limited deterrence and an expansion in the number of MRBMs. The closing of the gap between Chinese nuclear missile forces and US military capabilities and the potential for nuclear exchanges in the western Pacific could cause Tokyo to question the credibility of extended deterrence and the US nuclear umbrella. This might lead Japan to make a greater commitment to theater missile defense and to reconsider its nuclear and ballistic missile options. This reassessment might also be triggered by an easing of tensions on the Korean peninsula, which might undercut the rationale for a forward-based US presence in Northeast Asia. Global nuclear war Utgoff, ‘2 - Deputy Director for Strategy, Forces, and Resources at the Institute for Defense Analyses, (Summer, Victor, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defense and American Ambitions”, Volume 44, Number 2, p. 87-90) Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand . Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 40/212 CHINESE MODERNIZATION GOOD (RUSSIAN NUKES) 1/2 China is modernizing its nuclear forces now Gill, phd, Director of SIPRI, 10 [Bates, “CHINA AND NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL: CURRENT POSITIONS AND FUTURE POLICIEs” , http://books.sipri.org/files/insight/SIPRIInsight1004.pdf] Nonetheless, China is in the midst of a significant modernization programme for its nuclear force, particularly its means of delivery. This modernization effort aims to assure China of a reliable , effective and credible retaliatory capability by shifting from heavy reliance on its landbased, fixedsite, liquidfuel rocket force to a more mobile, solidfuel force with significant landbased and seabased components and improved earlywarning and commandandcontrol systems.5 There are also important internal debates within China’s strategic community of military, governmental and quasigovernmental experts about reinterpretation of the longstanding no firstuse pledge, and the need to move towards an ‘elite and effective nuclear missile force that is on par with China’s position as a major power’.6 What is behind these changes? Two factors are important to consider, and they will continue to play an important role in shaping the form, extent and doctrine of China’s future nuclear arsenal and the country’s approach to issues of arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation. First, with greater financial and technological resources at hand, China has been able in the past decade to invest in upgrading and improving its outdated nuclear arsenal. Second, while its overall security situation is perhaps the most favourable it has known in over a century and a half, China continues to harbour concerns about potential confrontation with other nuclear armed powers , particularly the USA, but also India and Russia, however remote the possibility may seem now. Related to this, Chinese security perceptions, particularly in the nuclear realm, are affected by global developments in military technology—including the introduction of missile defence programmes, new types of nuclear warheads and advanced conventional weapons, including potential spacebased weapons—and these perceptions in turn influence China’s nuclear force modernization plans. Decisions and deployments by Russia and the USA will be particularly important in this regard And, Chinese modernization prevents US and Russian nuclear cuts Reuters, 10 [China seen staking "middle" role at nuclear talks”, april. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63P0GB20100426] "China is unlikely to take part in any unilateral or multilateral (nuclear) disarmament steps in the near- to medium-term," said the report written by Bates Gill, the director of SIPRI and an expert on Chinese security policy. "On the contrary, Chinese steps to modernize its nuclear arsenal will stand out among the world's major nuclear weapons states," said the report. President Barack Obama announced this month a shift in U.S. doctrine, vowing not to use atomic weapons against non-nuclear states that abide by the NPT. CHINA'S AWKWARD POSITION The deepening diplomacy over nuclear arms has thrown into relief China's awkward position in atomic diplomacy -- as a member of the club of five nuclear weapons states formally accepted by the NPT, but one claiming to share many developing countries' demands and grievances with that club. Gill said that ambivalence is likely to play out at the conference throughout much of May discussing the NPT's future. "Beijing will probably expect the United States in particular, but also Russia, to do much of the heavy lifting" over disarmament commitments, Gill said in an email. China is also likely to use the conference to "defend the right of non-nuclear states, and particularly developing countries, to access nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes," said the SIPRI report. Beijing faces growing calls from Western powers to support a fresh round of U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear activities. Although China has been discussing possible sanctions, it has also long stressed that Iranian demands for peaceful nuclear power must also be heeded. Under their new treaty, the United States and Russia vowed to limit their deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 each, 30 percent fewer than the limit set in a 2002 treaty. The SIPRI has estimated that as of 2009 China possessed 186 deployed strategic nuclear warheads. Since conducting its first nuclear test in 1964, China has said it will never be the first to use such weapons in any conflict. But Beijing wants to preserve some leeway to upgrade its arsenal, insulating its deterrent against possible moves by potential foes, including the United States developing anti-missile technology. China wants to have a limited nuclear "second strike" force to deter foes, the nation's main military newspaper said last week, spelling out the ideas behind the country's atomic modernization. China has been replacing liquid-fueled ballistic nuclear-capable missiles with solid-fuel missiles, which will make launching them faster. It is also building new "Jin-class" ballistic missile submarines, capable of launching nuclear warheads while at sea. "It remains too early to expect China to enter into official multilateral disarmament discussions with the other nuclear weapons states," Gill said in response to questions. But if the United States and Russia were to contemplate cutting their strategic warheads to below 1,000 each, that would "depend on the other nuclear weapons states, and especially China, showing a willingness to engage in multilateral disarmament discussions," said Gill. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 41/212 CHINESE MODERNIZATION GOOD (RUSSIAN NUKES) 2/2 Those prevent Russian loose nukes from falling into the hands of terrorists NSN, 09 [National Security Network, “Start with START”, http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1348] A START follow-on will secure more Russian nuclear materials; rebuild a significant US-Russian partnership on broader nuclear issues; and boost global efforts to control the most deadly weapons and materials. A new treaty enjoys tremendous bipartisan support, led by the “four horsemen” former Secretaries of State Kissinger and Shultz, former Secretary of Defense Perry and former Senator Nunn. Most recently, a START follow on was recommended by a Council on Foreign Relations task force chaired by Perry and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. But despite its bipartisan support and its importance to our national security and to U.S.-Russian relations, certain hard line conservatives like John Bolton and Arizona Senator John Kyle are determined to unravel over three decades of progress on arms control. Their obstructionism must be overcome. START replacement treaty is a key agenda item for Obama’s July 6 Moscow visit – and renewed US-Russian cooperation. “US and Russian negotiators arrived in Geneva on Monday to resume talks on cutting their nuclear weapons arsenals, diplomats said. The third round of talks on replacing the Cold War-era Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) are officially to be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, a US official said... The discussions are meant to feed into a summit between US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow in early July. The attempt to strike a new deal to succeed START, which expires on December 5, symbolises a thaw in US-Russian relations in recent months,” reports the AFP. An agreement on a new START is essential to reducing the number of nuclear weapons. A recent bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations task force, chaired William Perry and Brent Scowcroft, “supports efforts to renew legally binding arms control pacts with Russia by seeking follow-on agreements to START and the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT). The report also urges the United States and Russia to initiate a serious strategic dialogue, because it is only through such engagement that they can open up opportunities for deeper reductions in their arsenals and gain a better sense of the feasibility of moving toward multilateral nuclear arms control.” As Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director, of the Arms Control Association writes, “[t]he landmark 1991 START agreement reduced excess nuclear stockpiles and provided greater predictability and stability. START slashed each nation's strategic warhead deployments from about 10,000 to less than 6,000, and it limited each country to no more than 1,600 strategic delivery systems. START helped build the confidence and stability necessary to eliminate Cold War-era tensions.” [AFP, 6/22/09. Council on Foreign Relations, 4/09. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, 6/23/09. The Cable, 6/22/09. Daryl Kimball, 6/19/09] Nonproliferation negotiations promote the U.S.-Russian bilateral relationship, enabling cooperation on other important matters. The Council on Foreign Relations explains, “the change in administrations provides an opportunity to put the U.S.-Russia relationship on a new footing,” and that “U.S.-Russia arms control agreements have been invaluable in helping stabilize strategic relations, developing a shared understanding of activities involving nuclear weapons, and lending predictability to reductions in American and Russian strategic nuclear forces. Both sides have expressed interest in renewing arms control negotiations.” Samuel Charap of the Center for American Progress writes, “The first component [of a strategy toward Russia] should be to maximize the extent to which Russian policies complement our objectives on issues critical to our national security interests. Or, put another way, to make Russia a part of the solution to significant international problems. Russia can play a major role on a wide range of foreign policy challenges facing the United States. This is particularly true in terms of arms control and nonproliferation, since Russia is our only ‘peer’ on these issues.” This is specifically true regarding North Korea, as Russia’s role in the six party talks is vital. [Council on Foreign Relations, 4/09. Center for American Progress, 5/20/09] Nuclear stockpiles and vulnerable fissile material are a great risk to national and global security: talks with Russia are the first step in global efforts to reduce the m, and opposition to such efforts flows from an outdated Cold War view of the threat. The Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction programs have done much to secure nuclear stockpiles and fissile material around the world. But enthusiasm has lagged, and the threat remains real. A report from the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism assessed that the U.S. faces a serious threat from terrorists attempting to “carry out an attack with biological, nuclear or other unconventional weapons somewhere in the world ,” and the U.S. must act urgently to counter this threat. As the CFR report explains, “Terrorists now and for the foreseeable future do not have the wherewithal to enrich their own uranium or produce their own plutonium. Instead, they would have to target state stockpiles of these materials. To acquire nuclear weapons, a terrorist group could try to buy or steal existing weapons or weapons-usable fissile material, or convince or coerce a government custodian to hand over these assets.” The United States and Russia together hold over 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. A reduction of stockpiles between the two countries would reduce the possibility of theft or illicit sales – and heighten the incentive for other countries to take the problem seriously. This makes a new START agreement all the more important. Opposition to these efforts, led in Congress by Senator Kyl and outside by John Bolton, flows from the outdated assumption that, as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists describes Kyl’s views, “cutting U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles does nothing to deal with the more pressing threats of terrorism, North Korea, Iran, and the deteriorating situation in Pakistan.” Yet the Perry-Scowcroft task force believes that the START negotiations will actually make international responses to those nuclear challenges more likely. As they say in their task force report, “Success in negotiating a follow-on bilateral arms control treaty with Russia will require clarity about the long-term strategic visions of both the United States and Russia. As part of a reinvigorated strategic dialogue, both countries should explore the geopolitical implications of deeper reductions and changes in nuclear force posture.” [Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, 12/03/08. Council on Foreign Relations, 4/09. Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, 6/23/09.] Loose nukes culminate in global nuclear war Speice, 6 (Patrick F., Jr., J.D. Candidate 2006, Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William and Mary; B.A. 2003, Wake Forest University, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427, February, 2006, ln) The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the U nited S tates to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50 In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons . 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the U nited S tates [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52 as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. 53 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 42/212 COMPETITIVENESS BAD (TRADE WARS AND ECONOMY) Competitiveness leads to trade wars, and a worse economy. Krugman, 1994. (Paul Krugman, “Competitiveness- A Dangerous Obsession”, Foreign Affairs, March 1994, Volume 73, Number 2, http://infoshako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/~takasaki/Teaching_U/IEU/Krugman(1994).pdf.) THINKING AND SPEAKING in terms of competitiveness poses three real dangers. First, it could result in the wasteful spending of government money supposedly to enhance U.S. competitiveness. Second, it could lead to protectionism and trade wars. Finally, and most important, it could result in bad public policy on a spectrum of important issues. During the 1950s, fear of the Soviet Union induced the U.S. goverment to spend money on useful things like highways and science education. It also, however, led to considerable spending on more doubtful items like bomb shelters. The most obvious if least worrisome danger of the growing obsession with competitiveness is that it might lead to a similar misallocation of resources. To take an example, recent guidelines for government research funding have stressed the importance of supporting research that can improve U.S. international competitiveness. This exerts at least some bias toward inventions that can help manufacturing firms, which generally compete on international markets, rather than service producers, which generally do not. Yet most of our employment and value-added is now in services, and lagging productivity in services rather than manufactures has been the single most important factor in the stagnation of U.S. living standards. A much more serious risk is that the obsession with competitiveness will lead to trade conflict, perhaps even to a world trade war. Most of those who have preached the doctrine of competitiveness have not been old-fashioned protectionists. They want their countries to win the global trade game, not drop out. But what if, despite its best efforts, a country does not seem to be winning, or lacks confidence that it can? Then the competitive diagnosis inevitably suggests that to close the borders is better than to risk having foreigners take away high-wage jobs and high-value sectors. At the very least, the focus on the supposedly competitive nature of international economic relations greases the rails for those who want confrontational if not frankly protectionist policies. We can already see this process at work, in both the United States and Europe. In the United States, it was remarkable how quickly the sophisticated interventionist arguments advanced by Laura Tyson in her published work gave way to the simple-minded claim by U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor that Japan's bilateral trade surplus was costing the United States millions of jobs. And the trade rhetoric of President Clinton, who stresses the supposed creation of high-wage jobs rather than the gains from specialization, left his administration in a weak position when it tried to argue with the claims of NAFTA foes that competition from cheap Mexican labor will destroy the U.S. manufacturing base. Perhaps the most serious risk from the obsession with competitiveness, however, is its subtle indirect effect on the quality of economic discussion and policymaking. If top government officials are strongly committed to a particular economic doctrine, their commitment inevitably sets the tone for policy-making on all issues, even those which may seem to have nothing to do with that doctrine. And if an economic doctrine is flatly, completely and demonstrably wrong, the insistence that discussion adhere to that doctrine inevitably blurs the focus and diminishes the quality of policy discussion across a broad range of issues, including some that are very far from trade policy per se. Consider, for example, the issue of health care reform, undoubtedly the most important economic initiative of the Clinton administration, almost surely an order of magnitude more important to U.S. living standards than anything that might be done about trade policy (unless the United States provokes a full-blown trade war). Since health care is an issue with few direct international linkages, one might have expected it to be largely insulated from any distortions of policy resulting from misguided concerns about competitiveness. But the administration placed the development of the health care plan in the hands of Ira Magaziner, the same Magaziner who so conspicuously failed to do his homework in arguing for government promotion of high value-added industries. Magaziner's prior writings and consulting on economic policy focused almost entirely on the issue of international competition, his views on which may be summarized by the title of his 1990 book, The Silent War. His appointment reflected many factors, of course, not least his long personal friendship with the first couple. Still, it was not irrelevant that in an administration committed to the ideology of competitiveness Magaziner, who has consistently recommended that national industrial policies be based on the corporate strategy concepts he learned during his years at the Boston Consulting Group, was We might also note the unusual process by which the health care reform was developed. In spite of the huge size of the task force, recognized experts in the health care field were almost completely absent, notably though not exclusively economists specializing in health care, including economists with impeccable liberal credentials like Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution. Again, this may have reflected a number of factors, but it is probably not irrelevant that anyone who, like Magaziner, is strongly committed to the ideology of competitiveness is bound to have found professional economists notably unsympathetic in the past -- and to be unwilling to deal with them on any other issue. To make a harsh but not entirely unjustified analogy, a government wedded to the ideology of competitiveness is as unlikely to make good economic policy as a government committed to creationism is to make good science policy, even in areas that have no direct relationship to the theory of evolution. regarded as an economic policy expert. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 43/212 COMPETITIVENESS BAD (UNEMPLOYMENT) A. Competitiveness leads to unemployment Boltho 96 (Andrea Boltho, Autumn 1996, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol.12, No. 3, “The Assessment: International Competitiveness”, http://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/12/3/1) More importantly, at least from a European perspective, is a further and different danger. In a world of less than full employment, improving national competitiveness (e.g. by cutting nominal wages or by engineering a depreciation of the currency) would raise the production of domestic tradables and hence the level of employment. Beggar-thy-neighbor policies of this kind, however, invite retaliation and their ultimate result is likely to be not a zero- but a negative-sum game. Trying to reduce nominal wages in every country would lead to higher unemployment all round, without anyone’s competitiveness having improved, while tit-for-tat depreciations would similarly leave real exchange rates unchanged, but in this case result in generalized inflation as a consequence of easier monetary policies. B. Rising unemployment ensures we fall back into recession Douglas A. McIntyre 6 – 29 – 09. Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St., LLC. He has previously been the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of Financial World Magazine. He has been CEO of FutureSource, LLC and On2 Technologies, Inc. He has served on the board of directors of Vicinity Corporation, The Street.com, and Edgar Online. McIntyre is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard. [“With Unemployment Moving To 9.6%, Economic Impact Of Jobs Is Just Beginning”] http://247wallst.com/2009/06/29/with-unemployment-moving-to-9-6-economic-impact-of-jobs-is-just-beginning/ Unemployment is called a “lagging” indicator by most economists. The jobless rate recovery often runs a quarter or two behind an upturn in GDP. A prolonged period of unemployment higher than 10% may break that mold. A large enough number of people without work could hamper consumer spending enough that some parts of the economy could move back into a recession next year. The ranks of the unemployed are rarely good credit risks. This poses important problems for banks which hope to see the quality of their loan portfolios begin to rebound. There is a point at which unemployment becomes both a lagging and leading economic indicator. It shows the end of one recession and foretells the beginning of another if double-digit joblessness persists for any period beyond next year. The modern economy has not experienced this but once in the last several decades. That was in the early 1980s . The banking system was not as riddled with problems among its largest firms then and the auto industry was not in need of nearly complete nationalization. C. Global nuclear war Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, 2-4-09, “Only Makes You Stronger,” http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2 If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 44/212 COMPETITIVENESS BAD (SINGAPORE 1/2) Singapore just overtook US as the most competitive nation due to its heavy investments into science and education due to immigration and foreign help. Lohr, 2009. (Steve Lohr, “In innovation, U.S. said to be losing competitive edge, as Singapore takes lead”, New York Times, February 25 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/technology/25iht-innovate.4.20438414.html) The competitive edge of the European Union's economy has risen over the past decade while that of the United States has eroded , according to a new study by a nonpartisan research group published Wednesday. The report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation found that the United States ranked sixth among 40 countries and regions, based on 16 indicators of innovation and competitiveness.The EU minus Bulgaria and Romania, which joined the bloc in 2007, ranked 20th, but its score improved by 9.4 since 1999, while the American economy "The trend is very troubling," said Robert Atkinson, president of the foundation. Indicators included venture-capital investment, scientific researchers, spending on The study rated the most competitive nation as Singapore, which embarked on a national innovation strategy years ago, investing heavily and recruiting leading scientists and technologists from around the world. Sweden, on the strength of its government and placed last in terms of improvement. research and educational achievement. corporate investment in research and development, among other factors, Luxembourg and Denmark ranked second, third and fourth. The report said while the EU had made progress, it - like the United States - had been superseded in advances by Asia. South Korea is rated fifth on the list, while China, Singapore and Japan were in the top 10 most improved countries. "These trends suggest that absent concerted public sector efforts by the United States and Europe to boost innovation and competitiveness, that this century will not be the Atlantic century, but rather the Pacific Century, or perhaps more accurately the Southeast Asian century," the report said. the recent global competitiveness report by the World Economic Forum ranked the United States first. Much of the forum's report is based on opinion surveys. A report last year by RAND Measuring national competitiveness and the capacity for innovation is tricky. Definitions and methods differ, and so do the outcomes. For example, concluded that the United States was in "no imminent danger" of losing its competitive advantage in science and technology. The new report, published Wednesday, offers a more pessimistic portrait. Its assessment is in line the National Academies, the leading science advisory group in the United States. It warned that America's lead in science and technology was "eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength." Some countries, including Singapore, Taiwan, Finland and China, are pursuing policies that are explicitly designed to spur innovation. These policies typically try to nurture a broader "ecology of innovation," which often includes education, training, intellectual property protection and immigration. This is in contrast with the industrial policy of the 1980s, in which governments helped pick winners among domestic industries. The foundation study, according to John Kao, a former professor at the Harvard business school and an innovation consultant for governments and corporations, is an ambitious effort at measurement. He called its conclusions "a wake-up call." In the foundation report, unlike some competitiveness studies, results were adjusted for the size of each economy and its population. Consequently, the United States ranked sixth in venture capital investment while Sweden was first. It was fifth in corporate research and development spending, with Japan. with a landmark study in late 2005, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," by Competitiveness is zero-sum; plan necessarily trades off with other nation’s competitive abilities. Porter, 2005. (Michael Porter, “What Is Competitiveness?”, Center for Globalization and Strategy, April 2005 Notes on Globalization and Strategy, Year 1, No 1, http://insight.iese.edu/doc.aspx?id=00438&ar=7&idioma=2.) Competitiveness is defined by the productivity with which a nation utilizes its human, capital and natural resources. To understand competitiveness, the starting point must be a nation's underlying sources of prosperity. A country's standard of living is determined by the productivity of its economy, which is measured by the value of goods and services produced per unit of its Productivity depends both on the value of a nation's products and services - measured by the prices they can command in open markets - and by the efficiency with which they can be produced. Productivity is also dependent on the ability of an economy to mobilize its available human resources. True competitiveness, then, is measured by productivity. Productivity allows a nation to support high wages, attractive returns to capital, a strong currency - and with them, a high standard of living. What matters most is not exports per se or whether firms are domestic or foreign-owned, but the nature and productivity of the business activities taking place in a particular country. Purely local industries also count for competit iveness, because their productivity not only sets their wages but also has a major influence on the cost of doing business and the cost of living in the country. resources. What Matters for Competitiveness Almost everything matters for competitiveness. The schools matter, the roads matter, the financial markets matter and customer sophistication matters. These and other aspects of a nation's circumstances are deeply rooted in This makes improving competitiveness a special challenge, because there is no single policy or grand step that can create competitiveness, only many improvements in individual areas that inevitably take time to accomplish. Improving competitiveness a nation's institutions, people and culture. is a marathon, not a sprint. How to sustain momentum in improving competitiveness over time is among the greatest challenges facing countries. Creating Wealth at the Microeconomic Level The cornerstones for economic development have long been considered stable institutions, sound macroeconomic policies, market opening and privatization. Most discussion of competitiveness and economic development is still focused on these areas. It is well understood that sound fiscal and monetary policies, a trusted and efficient legal system, a stable set of democratic institutions, and progress on social conditions contribute greatly to a healthy economy. These broader conditions provide the opportunity to create wealth but do not themselves create wealth. Wealth is actually created in the microeconomic level of the economy. Wealth can only be created by firms. The capacity for wealth I have found that these factors are necessary for economic development, but far from sufficient. creation is rooted in the sophistication of the operating practices and strategies of companies, as well as in the quality of the microeconomic business environment in which a nation's companies compete. More than 80 percent of the variation of GDP per capita across countries is accounted for by microeconomic fundamentals. Unless microeconomic capabilities improve, macroeconomic, political, legal, and social reforms will not bear full fruit. Worldwide, the most intuitive definition of competitiveness is a country's share of world markets for its products. This definition makes competitiveness a zero-sum game, because one country's gain comes at the expense of others. This view of competitiveness is used to justify intervention to skew market outcomes in a nation's favor (so-called industrial policy). It also underpins policies intended to provide subsidies, hold down local wages and devalue the nation's currency, all aimed at expanding exports. In fact, it is still often said that lower wages or devaluation "make a nation more competitive." Business leaders are drawn to the market-share view because these policies seem to address their immediate competitive concerns. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 45/212 COMPETITIVENESS BAD (SINGAPORE 2/2) Singapore’s economy is key to regional stability and cooperation with the Asian power-houses – risks nuclear war otherwise. Narayanan, 2008. (M. K. Narayanan, National Security Advisor Republic of India, “ASIA : BUILDING INTERNATIONAL STABILITY”, February 10 2008, http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?menu_konferenzen=&menu_2009=&menu_konferenzen_archiv=&menu_2006=&sprache=en&id=219&print=&.) a few key countries of Asia have lent stability to their extended neighbourhoods. Notwithstanding this, For instance, India's economic dynamism and intensified engagement of late have helped reinforce India's historical role as a benign and stabilizing force in Asia. India's vision of an open and inclusive Asia - based on dynamic interaction among Asia's varied regions and between The rise of Asia is accepted wisdom to-day. Less known is that in the pre-industrialized age, India and China taken together contributed more than half of the world's economic output. By most accounts, India and China would once again Asia and the world at large - is also beginning to find a great deal of resonance across this region. India is thus a factor of stability not only in Asia but also far beyond the region. within a few decades - account for 50% of the world's trade, income, savings and investments. Already, with 40% of the world's population, the economies of China and India wield considerable influence on global economic Asia is thus re-claiming its position as the centre of gravity of global economic and, with it possibly, political power as well. Asian economic dynamism is underpinned by several factors. It is, nevertheless, the phenomenon of the simultaneous rise of China and India, alongside that of Japan, and the emergence of Singapore and ASEAN as Asian dynamos, that presents an unprecedented opportunity for ensuring stability, and with it the hope of a new world order. It is possibly difficult to find in history another occasion when so many nations and societies in close proximity to one another, have risen in a parallel timeframe. Asia's economic rise is thus a significant plus for international stability. For its part, India has adopted a policy premised on the view that an inter-locking network of close partnerships will help sustain economic and political growth. dynamism in Asia. For instance, in South Asia, India is actively engaged in strengthening the South Asian compact viz. SAARC which places maximum emphasis on economic, social, educational, health and political initiatives. This has vastly transformed the climate of relations in the South Asian region. Much more needs to be done and India is committed to this objective. In the East, India views its current close ties with Japan as amongst the most significant of relationships. India and Japan are both open societies sharing common values and have perceived common interests. Similarly, India is to-day engaged in expanding its strategic and cooperative partnerships with China. During PM Manmohan Singh's recent visit to Beijing the Prime Ministers of India and China signed a Joint Statement indicating their Shared Vision for the 21st Century which contains congruent perceptions of the future of the Asian region and the world at large. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh observed on the occasion of the visit that countries whose destinies are linked by geography and history, must seek tranquility and stability not only in their immediate neighbourhood but in the extended region as well. It is interesting that the China's People's Daily recently referred to 'a Triangle of Harmony' developing among India, Closer integration with ASEAN nations is again a key component of partnership strategy. The growing strength of countries like Singapore is of vital importance to all of Asia. China and Japan, referring to the active and simultaneous development of ties between the three countries. India's India has worked hard to achieve closer co-operation with the dynamic ASEAN region. India's ties to West Asia span several hundreds of years. Currently more than 4 million Indians are employed in this region, contributing to the prosperity of the countries they live in and sending back substantial savings to India. Peace and prosperity here is thus vital for India's and Asia's future. India regards Russia as a major influence as regards stability in Asia. The friendship between India and If economic prosperity and security go hand in hand, then the Asian economic miracle - and the ongoing economic and political partnerships across Asia - should be viewed as key building-blocks towards global stability and peace. What are the key challenges to Asian and global security to-day. The challenges are many. Quite a few are security-related and are highly daunting in nature. First and foremost are existential threats and vulnerabilities that pluralistic, secular and democratic countries such as India - with rapidly modernizing economies - face from nations in the region that are authoritarian, anti-democratic and anti-secular, approximating to failed states. Next is the threat to economic stability from a regional or global economic meltdown, as well as a dampening of growth prospects due to terrorist or a host of other non-traditional security threats. Third Russia is not merely time-tested but is one of the most successful of its kind anywhere. is the challenge posited by the energy crunch and environmental concerns. These need not necessarily affect stability, for contrary to popular perception, this is beginning to act as a driver and an incentive for new forms of cooperation by creating mutual linkages, new routes and mutual stakes in market stability. The search for non-polluting sources of energy is also leading to a global nuclear renaissance and the nuclear industry in India hopes to join the international nuclear mainstream shortly, thereby improving its own energy situation, as well as reaping other environmental benefits. The most pervasive challenge to Asian stability, however, is the one posed by terrorism and the activities of violent and extremist non-State armed groups and quite a few countries consequently face an uncertain future. In certain regions of Asia, such violent activities are unfortunately occurring with an element of official sponsorship. In the case of Afghanistan, specifically, it is Taliban-sponsored terrorist violence that is preventing a return to normal conditions. Operating from sanctuaries, the Taliban has been a baneful influence and a grave threat to democracy and stability in Afghanistan. Enough international attention has not been devoted to this dangerous phenomenon. While terrorism is not a new technique, what has to be understood in the Asian context at present - and which are relevant for Europe, Afghanistan and the West next - is that modern instruments are making it more lethal. Together with global communications, the proliferation of suicide bombers, and the easy availability of sophisticated devices, it has become a hydra-headed monster. The Al Qaeda has emerged as an international revolutionary movement, unique in terms of religious discourse, and makes a total departure from earlier faith-based movements. Al Qaeda's aims are political rather than religious and its 'single narrative' of Islam under attack is meeting with resonance given the complex background of globalization and the nature of modern societies. An important driving force in regard to the Al Qaeda is the power of ideas and the rapid spread of images as well as the changing character of its leadership. The ideological narrative from Maulana Madudi, Syed Qutb, Abdullaha Azam to Osama bin Laden and Zawahri to-day spawns not merely a multi-cell structure that is sublimating suicide terrorism into a legitimizing force, but is throwing up new leaderships across many countries. This has enabled the spread of the Al Qaeda mindset from the border regions of Pakistan-Afghanistan, where specialized schools exist for training suicide bombers, and recruits from several countries hone their terrorist skills into Asia, Africa and Europe. Three or more streams spread out to the rest of the world from this region - via Central Asia; via East, South and North Africa into Southern Europe and beyond, and into South East Asia. Al Qaeda's elite terrorist network such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the Islamic Jehad Group (in Central Asia), the Lashkar-e-Toeba, the Jaish-e-Mohd, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Hurkat-ul-Jehadi Islami and the Taliban (in South Asia), the Jemiah Islamiah and the Abu Sayyaf Group in South East and East Asia represents an intricate web of terrorist networks. They have forged common funding structures, common training curricula and have a common resource for obtaining explosives and weapons, etc. To-day, the Al Qaeda's mindset, even more than the Al Qaeda network, provides the most pervasive Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, material and equipment is one. Credible reports suggest that the region has been both a source and a destination for proliferation of WMD material and equipment - a situation that is cause for concern if proper steps are not put in place. Threats to stability from nuclear weapons in the hands of volatile states cannot be discounted. threat to Asian and international stability. Other challenges exist. Asian instability causes global nuclear war and extinction. Cirincinone, 2000. (Joseph Cirincinone, Director of the non-proliferation project as Carnegie endowment for International Peace, “The Asian Nuclear Chain Reaction”.) The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. Moreover, the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile defenses. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs; South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. Five of these states have nuclear weapons; the others are capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's actions can trigger reactions throughout the region , which in turn, stimulate additional actions. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation, bringing regional and global economic and political instability and, perhaps, the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 46/212 EXT – SINGAPORE COMPETITIVE Singapore’s economy is thriving as the most competitive economy globally. PRL, 2008. (“Singapore most competitive economy in the world, says Singapore Company Setup Specialists”, May 22 2008, PRLog Free Press Release, http://www.prlog.org/10074422-singapore-most-competitiveeconomy-in-the-world-says-singapore-company-setup-specialists.html.) According to the World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) published by IMD, Lausanne, the Switzerland-based business school, Singapore currently ranks just behind the United States, and is ahead of Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Denmark. The WCY is widely recognized to be the worldwide reference point to world competitiveness, and ranks the ability of nations to create and maintain an environment that sustains the competitiveness of enterprises. Singapore scored 99.33 in the 2008 study, as against 99.12 scored last year. Singapore is third on economic performance (up from fourth last year); up to second on business efficiency (fourth in 2007); and retains for the second straight year its first and third places on government efficiency and infrastructure, respectively. Singapore has been fast catching up with the US and it is expected to topple US from its top position next year. The survey ranks 55 economies according to 323 criteria, 2/3 hard facts, 1/3 executive opinion survey with 3,700 responses. The data are grouped into 4 main factors namely • Economic performance - encompassing 79 criteria, such as size of the economy, wealth, international trade, international investments, employment, prices etc • Government efficiency - encompassing 72 criteria, such as public finance, fiscal policy, institutional framework, business legislation etc • Business efficiency – encompassing 71 criteria, such as productivity and efficiency, labor market, finance, management practices, attitudes and values etc • Infrastructure – encompassing 101 criteria, such as land area, arable area, population, energy infrastructure, roads, technological infrastructure, scientific infrastructure, education, health, and environment etc. In a World Bank report last year, it was voted the world's easiest place to do business. Earlier Singapore was chosen as the world's second freest economy after Hong Kong, according to the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom, released in January 2008, by the US think-tank, The Heritage Foundation. Commenting on the new accolade, Ms. Ragini Dhanvantray CEO of Rikvin Consultancy says, “Singapore has been consistently scoring well when it comes to international ranking of factors crucial to the success of enterprises. Its efficiency, legislation and infrastructure give attractive incentives to investors and enterprises. Singapore has been adaptive to the changes in global economy and has fared well in the post globalization era. Even amidst the volatile globalised economy, Singapore is resilient in pursuing its enterprise development efforts, it is this determination and stable governance instills confidence among the enterprise community that is assured of the long term prosperity. Sustained distinctions in such international ranking attracts foreign enterprises and entrepreneurs to setup their operations in Singapore” In education and job training, Singapore is leading the world. Grey Chronicle, 2009. (The Grey Chronicle, “Asian Competitiveness Index 2008-2009: Singapore”, June 28 2009, The Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009, http://reyadel.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/asian-competitiveness-index-2008-2009-singapore/.) Delving further using Pareto’s 80-20 Rule, the GCR cited that the top 80% problematic factors for doing business in the Philippines are corruption (23.9%), inefficient government bureaucracy (19.7%), inadequate supply of infrastructure (13.1%), policy instability (8.7%), government instability (7.0%) and tax regulations (6.4%). Meanwhile, Singapore#146;s top 80% problems are inflation (35.4%), inadequately educated workforce (14.7%), restrictive labor regulations (10.3%), tax rates (9.4%), tax regulations (7.6%), and poor work ethic in national labor force (6.4%). All these problems are not insurmountable. Implementation of equitable laws, right government policies and focused investments might be the key answers. Interestingly, Singapore’s problem on work ethic and workforce would take time to address and bear fruit. Thus, the Philippines might just have ample Singapore scores higher in the fifth pillar: Higher education and training with competitive advantage factors in the quality of the educational system, math and science education, management schools and extent of staff training. Moreover, Singapore scores in the seventh pillar: Labor Market Efficiency boasts of top 10 ranks in seven competitive advantages out of 10 factors: cooperation in labor-employer relations, flexibility of wage determination, rigidity of employment, hiring and firing practices, firing costs, pay and productivity, and reliance on professional management. time to do catch up, but lest we forget, For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 47/212 EXT – COMPETITION ZERO SUM Market competitiveness necessarily drives out other competitors in a zero-sum game that’s a race to the top. Zadek, 2005. (Simon Zadek, “Responsible competitiveness: reshaping global markets through responsible business practices”, December 2005, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Corporate Governance, Vol 6, No. 4, 2006 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/2680060401.html.) markets reward companies that embrace responsible practices in their daily business operations. This is the only way in which competitive markets will create a “race to the top” of escalating productivity, human development and environmental responsibility. Achieving the moral and pragmatic imperative symbolized by the UN's Millennium Development Goals requires “responsible markets” in the sense that The potential exists for a positive relationship between, on the one hand, political and social rights and conditions, and on the other hand, productivity growth and rising living standards (Sen, 1999). Indeed, many highly a competition-driven “race to the bottom” remains a very real possibility (Stiglitz, 2002). This can be readily observed where competition is intense, and where the world's attention and pressures are absent. Competition can drive down labour costs, or encourage the destruction of the respected economic and political commentators believe that they necessarily go hand in hand (Wolf, 2004). Business “as usual” can and does deliver social and environmental, as well as economic gains. But natural environment through a mixture of extraction and dumping. The visible and unsustainable downsides of economic success are driving growing numbers of business leaders to recognise the need to do business in a different, more responsible way. Businesses are increasingly acknowledging, in visible and practical ways, their broader roles in society (Fussler et al., 2004). The many examples of businesses delivering improved social, economic and environmental outcomes, often at no cost and increasingly with accrued competitive gains, point towards a revitalised social contract with business that draws on its insights and competencies in addressing public policy goals as a normal part of doing profitable business the market's “invisible hand” creates its own motion and direction, and the negative impacts of global competition, sometimes irreversible, are not easy to prevent. Individual businesses, however powerful as market players, find it difficult to go against the grain of the market. Consumers care, but often not enough to create success out of responsible behaviour. Some investors are concerned with some social and environmental risks, but most remain (Holliday et al., 2002; Zadek and Weiser, 2001). The need for a responsible vision and practice of globalisation is widely acknowledged. However, focused on short-term returns where such risks are negligible (Zadek et al., 2005). The challenge is to evolve a responsible basis for competitiveness. This requires a “tipping point” in how markets reward business. There is a need to transform and scale up leadership cases and make them the new business-as-usual (SustainAbility, 2004). As Oded Grajew, Former Special Advisor to the President of Brazil, and Founder and President of Instituto Ethos, argued, “The responsible competitiveness of nations is essential to achieve sustainable development in today's globalised world” (quoted in MacGillivray et al., 2003) (see Table I). Competitiveness is ultimately a zero-sum game where nations are forced to maximize economic growth through trade domination. Zadek, 2005. (Simon Zadek, “Responsible competitiveness: reshaping global markets through responsible business practices”, December 2005, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Corporate Governance, Vol 6, No. 4, 2006 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/2680060401.html.) competitiveness practices can work by impacting on an economy's infrastructure and the way that its social characteristics contribute to competitive advantage. For example the EU is seeking to develop a distinctive European competitiveness that builds on its diversity, consensual political Building business infrastructure – responsible processes, tendency to internalise costs into markets, and collaborative approach to education, health and public infrastructure. It therefore uses ICT to provide a means through which new forms of partnership can be competitiveness: dilemmas and challenges Exists, but is a distraction – responsible competitiveness distracts business and public policies from the real need to maximize economic growth as a development driver , leaving social and environmental considerations to later stages of development. Exists, but is too weak to count – responsible competitiveness potential is not sufficient to offset ‘race to the bottom’ price competitiveness that undermines social and environmental standards and promotes unsustainable and problematic business practices. Part of the problem, not the solution – responsible competitiveness confers significant competitive advantage on multinationals and developed economies, blocking exports of developing countries and so constraining economic development opportunities. It's a zero-sum game – responsible competitiveness cannot work because enhanced competitiveness based on social and environmental aspects of performance is a zero-sum game that will be competed away if a first mover advantage appears significant. developed. Responsible Competitiveness is necessarily a zero-sum game – prefer our evidence, we analyze history not theory. Cowe, 2005. (Roger Cowe, director of the corporate responsibility consultancy Context, freelance business writer specialising in responsible and sustainable enterprise, on the Guardian's business staff from 1987 to 1999 where he developed coverage of corporate responsibility, contributed to the Financial Times, The Observer, and Ethical Corporation, as well as writing for a diverse range of organizations, management accountant and gained an MBA from Manchester Business School, “Corporate Responsibility and competitiveness”, Ethical Corporation, May 19 2005, http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=3704.) Can benefits aggregate across an economy or is it a zero-sum game? Does it introduce inefficiencies when scaled up to the level of the economy as a whole, as classical economics would argue? This is heady stuff for corporate Quite apart from the “ifs” in this argument, there are plenty of other imponderables: does the case for corporate social responsibility apply to all kinds of company? responsibility, which is normally happier in the nitty-gritty of micro-economics rather than the wide expanses of national economic and industrial strategies. But it is increasingly common to talk about the triple bottom line in the context of the development of African or Latin American economies, strategies for Asian countries to compete with China, or the European Union’s development strategy (see box 2). But while lots of questions are being asked, there are as yet few answers. The blurb for a European Commission conference on the subject held in late April observes: “ Advocates of corporate social responsibility argue that it should contribute to the quantity and quality of macro-economic competitiveness and development. But demonstrating this relationship at the macro-economic level is a challenge.” (see box 3) Upcoming Ethical Corporation conferences & events: Find out about upcoming events, subscribe to EC conference updates It works in theory Conceptually, there is no problem. Kathryn Gordon, chief economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, says: “It does make sense in economic terms. It is almost true by definition that appropriate at the level of the economy rather than the firm, whether business behaviour is good for competitiveness.” She points to the specific case of bribery and corruption: “There is no question that eliminating corrupt business practices is good for competitiveness.” The same must be true for other aspects of company-level corporate social responsibility. Companies’ actions to improve the skills of their employees will collectively raise the skill level of the whole workforce, which should have a positive impact on the country’s productivity as well as benefiting individual companies. Similarly, improved supply chain practices that lead to better sourcing for individual companies should boost the whole economy by removing reputational gains are usually the most significant benefits touted by advocates of corporate responsibility, and it is not obvious that these can always be aggregated to the level of the economy. If Nike gains sales because it has improved its reputation, for example, that is likely to be at the expense of Adidas, Reebok and its other competitors. It looks like a zero-sum game rather than an aggregate benefit to, say, the US economy as the whole industry competes for reputational advantage. When an industry competes on economic efficiency, the whole economy should benefit as everybody gets more efficient, but the inefficiencies. On the other hand, analogy with everyone improving their reputation doesn’t seem to hold, at least for the buying country. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 48/212 EXT – SINGAPORE SOLVES WARS Singapore’s economy is critical as a strong stabilizing force in Asia and throughout the world. Rudd, 2009(Kevin Michael Rudd, Marist College Ashgrove, Dux of the school, written extensively on Chinese politics, Chinese foreign policy, Australia-Asia relations and globalization, Prime Minister of Australia, “Address at Shangri-La Dialogue – Singapore”, 29 May 2009, E&OE, http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2009/speech_1041.cfm#top.) the Shangri-La Dialogue has cemented itself as the pre-eminent defence and security dialogue in the Asia Pacific region. In only seven years The successful development of the Shangri-La Dialogue is symbolic, in some ways, of Singapore’s own emergence as a critical player in our region. From its independence 43 years ago, when some thought this new political Singapore has developed into a thriving, influential nation-state that it is today. Singapore has become a major centre of regional and world trade; a global transport hub and an international financial centre. Singapore has maintained a peaceful multi-ethnic society in a region where ethnic tensions have, from time to time, been acute. And Singapore continues as a strong force for stability and effective diplomacy in our region – entity, Singapore would not survive. and therefore a most appropriate place for this regular dialogue to be held. Ladies and gentleman, at the forefront of every government’s mind today is the global economic crisis. Twelve months ago, the International Monetary Fund forecast that the world economy would expand by 3.8 per cent. Earlier this month, the IMF announced that in 2009, world economic output would contract by 1.3 per cent. Much, very much has changed. This is the first time the global economy will contract since the war. What began as a financial crisis, has become an economic crisis and then an employment crisis; in some countries becoming a social crisis and political crisis, and prospectively fuelling a new range of security crises yet to fully unfold. In Japan exports have contracted 43 per cent in just six months. In China exports have contracted 33 per cent. In South East Asia the total GDP of the ASEAN members contracted by around 13 per cent in the course of 2008. The Asian Development Bank has predicted the global recession could in 2009 lead to an additional 62 million people living in poverty in Asia. Singapore is critical to ASEAN and global stability overall. Rudd, 2009. (Kevin Michael Rudd, Marist College Ashgrove, Dux of the school, written extensively on Chinese politics, Chinese foreign policy, Australia-Asia relations and globalization, Prime Minister of Australia, “Address at Shangri-La Dialogue – Singapore”, 29 May 2009, E&OE, http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2009/speech_1041.cfm#top.) The choice was how to shape their region; how to look beyond their own borders and to build a region that would support their ambition to grow in peace, stability and prosperity. The nations of South East Asia – including of course our hosts Singapore chose, actively chose cooperation. They chose to shape their common future together. They chose to form the Association of South East Asian Nations. At its core was the notion that through cooperation, rather than conflict or competition, all members, all members would be better off. Implicit in the choice made by those farsighted leaders in the 1960s is the notion of interdependence – that the future of a nation depends on the future of the nations around it; that by building communities of nations, all members of the The results of course speak for themselves. ASEAN has played an important role in building a stable strategic foundation for South East Asia, when before its creation this was far from the case. And that stability has enabled its member nations to grow from strength to strength. It has also allowed the influence of South East Asia to be felt in the region and beyond. Tonight I want to draw on the great example of ASEAN and talk about the future of our wider region in this the Asia Pacific century. I want to draw on the lessons of ASEAN and argue that as a wider region we also have long-term choices before us. The choice is whether we seek actively to shape the future of our wider region – the Asia Pacific region – by building the regional architecture we need for the future, if we are together to shape a common regional future. Or whether instead, we will adopt a passive approach – where we simply wait and see what evolves, whether that enhances stability or whether in fact it undermines stability. Do we sit by and allow relations between states to be buffeted by economic and strategic shifts and shocks. Or do we seek to build institutions to provide anchorages of stability able to withstand the strategic stresses and strains of the future, when they inevitably arise. In the first half of the 20th century, we saw the tragic consequences of rampant nationalism as nations competed for power. Great powers in Europe bumped up against each other without the benefit of regional institutions to smooth problems as they arose. The result was devastating conflict. For our community reap greater rewards than they could working alone. own region, we cannot simply assume that peace and prosperity are the inevitable products of human progress. Will we make choices for cooperation or conflict? Will we make active choices for cooperation; or allow drift to set in that takes us in the reverse direction. Will we seek a framework of shaping the institutions of common security for our region; or will we allow traditional interstate tensions to evolve and in some cases escalate. It will take us time to make the choices before us. But the first step in this process is that we need to have the regional conversation about our trajectory for the future – about what sort of region we want to be in 2020 and beyond. We need to have a discussion about what we have. We need to have a discussion about what we want to be. And, if there is cooperation delivers benefits in strategic stability, not just in economic growth. The truth is we must work hard at peace and stability because the possibilities of miscommunication, of miscalculation, and misadventure are always great. And that cooperation, transparency and common endeavour represent the exception, which means our conscious efforts to enhance cooperation must always be the greater because the natural default position tends to be suspicion rather than cooperation. Within East Asia there are also other particular dynamics at play. South-East Asian growth is altering traditional strategic, strong East Asian growth is altering relativities making the management of regional security even more complicated. America’s capacity for economic re-invention and renewal should never be underestimated. And, while China’s remarkable development will continue, we should not underestimate the challenges China faces in balancing its engines of growth from exports to domestic consumption, potentially a turning point in East Asia’s future economic growth. Managing major power relations – particularly in the context of the rise of China and India – will be crucial for our collective future. This will place a premium on wise statecraft, particularly the effective management of relations between the United States, Japan, China and India. Over the last half century the United States has underwritten stability in the Asia Pacific. This stability has allowed nations in the region to prosper. And our common interest is for this stability to continue into the future. But just as economic cooperation cannot be assumed, strategic cooperation too is also a matter of choice. Asia includes the world’s two most populous countries; the world’s largest holders of foreign exchange reserves; two of the world’s top three economies; and three of the world’s five largest militaries, there’s a lot going on in our neighbourhood. The centre of global geo-strategic and geo-economic gravity is shifting to our region. So not only do the countries of our region have an interest in the region’s future stability, so too does the world at large. The simple truth is this; that much of the critical history of the 21st century will be written, shaped and lived out here in our own region. Together therefore we shoulder great responsibilities both regional and global. Also in our region we have the United States, which will remain for the foreseeable future the single most powerful strategic actor through a combination of military, economic and soft power, and the only nation capable of projecting power globally. This strategic primacy of the United States will continue to be vital in the maintenance of stability. As other countries become more affluent, their military spending will also increase. Strategically therefore, our region will be dynamic, not static, adding further to the uncertainties we confront in the future. And in a rapidly changing region, we will therefore face a wide range of emerging security challenges – both traditional and non-traditional. agreement on this, what steps might be useful in realising our common regional future. History tells us that For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 49/212 COMPETITIVENESS GOOD (ECONOMY) Competitiveness key to economic growth Donofrio, 2005. (Nick, honorary doctorate in Science from U Warwick in the UK. “US Competitiveness: the innovation challenge.” House science committee hearing. July 21. www.ieeeusa.org/policy/reports/InnovationHearing0705.pdf) A major factor in the accelerated growth of the American economy since 1995 has been increased productivity resulting from the application of information technology to the improvement of business processes. The pace of economic change in the US and elsewhere in the world is being driven by the convergence of three historic developments: the growth of the Internet as the planet’s operational infrastructure; the adoption of open technical standards that facilitate the production, distribution and management of new and better products and services; and the widespread application of these technologies to the solution of ubiquitous business problems. In an increasingly networked world, the choice for most companies and governments is between innovation or commoditization. Winners can be innovators those with the capacity to invent, manage and leverage intellectual capital or commodity players who differentiate through low price, economies of scale and efficient distribution of someone else’s intellectual capital. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 50/212 COMPETITIVENESS GOOD (HEG) COMPETITIVENESS KEY TO HEG. SEGAL 04. [ADAM, Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html] The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home. Nuclear War Khalilzad 95, (Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND analyst, “Losing the Moment,” WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Spring 1995, LN.) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 51/212 DEFORESTATION BAD (BIODIVERSITY) Deforestation causes biodiversity loss and human extinction Akhand Jyoti 3 (Akhand Jyoti is the leading magazine in Mathura, India. “The Disaster of Deforestation” March-April 2003. http://www.akhandjyoti.org/?Akhand-Jyoti/2003/Mar-Apr/Deforestation/) Imagining Earth without forests is a horrifying picture to conceive. As its knowledge base has expanded and deepened, mankind has realised that forests are extremely important to the survival of humans and other life forms on earth. Yet deforestation continues unabated in different parts of the world. According to the World Resource Institute based at Washington DC (U.S.A.), the rates of rainforest destruction are 2.4 acre per second, 149 acres per minute, 214000 acres per day and 78 million acres per year. Literature survey and research by Stephen Hui reveals that British Columbia has about 40% of its original forests remaining, while Europe has less than half; the United States have approximately 1-2% of their original forest cover; more than 80% of the planet’s natural forests have already been destroyed.1 This article examines the importance of forests, the effects of deforestation on health and environment and an effective remedy to replenish the flora already lost. Plants and animals, along with microorganisms, comprise life on Earth. Herbivorous animals sustain their life by consuming plants. Carnivorous animals and birds kill herbivorous animals for food; therefore indirectly they also depend on plants. Sea creatures eat aquatic plants and humans consume crop plants. A large variety of birds feed on seeds. There would rarely be any animal or bird who do not use plants directly or indirectly to satisfy their food requirements. It is thus not surprising that tropical forests are the home to 70% of the world’s plants and animals (more than 13 million distinct species) 30% of all bird species and 90% of invertebrates.2 Loss of forests has led to the extinction of thousands of species, estimated to be 50000 species annually. Besides being the source for food, plants help us in a number of other ways. Animals, including humans, inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide; plants take up carbon dioxide and in return they release oxygen – this exchange is very important. Forests in particular act as a huge carbon dioxide sink. If there were not enough trees to absorb carbon dioxide, its accumulation would make the environment poisonous. Over the last 150 years, the amount of carbon dioxide has increased by about 25%.3 Carbon-dioxide also contributes to global warming. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 52/212 DEFORESTATION BAD – DISEASES Deforestation causes human extinction through new disease outbreaks Butler 7 (Rhett Butler has been researching and studying rainforests since 1995. “INCREASE OF TROPICAL DISEASES” http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0904.htm) The emergence of tropical diseases and outbreaks of new diseases, including nasty hemorrhagic fevers like ebola and lassa fever, are a subtle but serious impact of deforestation. With increased human presence in the rainforest, and exploiters pushing into deeper areas, man is encountering "new" microorganisms with behaviors unlike those previously known. As the primary hosts of these pathogens are eliminated or reduced through forest disturbance and degradation, disease can break out among humans. Although not unleashed yet, someday one of these microscopic killers could lead to a massive human die-off as deadly for our species as we have been for the species of the rainforest. Until then, local populations will continue to be menaced by mosquito-borne diseases like dengue fever, Rift Valley fever, and malaria, and water-borne diseases like cholera. Many emergent and resurgent diseases are directly linked to land alterations which bring humans in closer contact with such pathogens. For example, malaria and snailborne schistosomiasis have escalated because of the creation of artificial pools of water like dams, rice paddies, drainage ditches, irrigation canals, and puddles created by tractor treads. Malaria is a particular problem in deforested and degraded areas, though not in forested zones where there are few stagnant ground pools for mosquito breeding. These pools are most abundant in cleared regions and areas where tractors tear gashes in the earth. Malaria is already a major threat to indigenous peoples who have developed no resistance to the disease nor any access to antimalarial drugs. Malaria alone is cited as being responsible for killing an estimated 20 percent of the Yanomani in Brazil and Venezuela. Malaria—caused by unicelluar parasites transferred in the saliva of mosquitoes when they bite—is an especially frightening disease for its drugresistant forms. Thanks to poor prescribing techniques on the part of doctors, there are now strains in Southeast Asia reputed to be resistant to more than 20 anti-malarial drugs. There is serious concern that global climate change will affect the distribution of malaria, which currently infects roughly 270 million people worldwide and kills 1-2 million a year— 430,000-680,000 children in sub-Saharan Africa alone. The outbreak of disease in the tropics does not affect only the people of those countries, since virtually any disease can be incubated for enough time to allow penetration into the temperate developed countries. For example, any Central African doctor infected with the ebola virus from a patient can board a plane and land in London within 10 hours. The virus could quickly spread, especially if airborne, among the city's population of 8 million. Additionally, every person at the airport who is exposed can unknowingly carry the pathogen home to their native countries around the world. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 53/212 DEFORESTATION BAD (POVERTY) Deforestation causes poverty Jakarta Post 7 (“Avoiding deforestation will help eradicate poverty” http://westpapuafree.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/avoidingdeforestation-will-help-eradicate-poverty/) Many understand that deforestation contributes a lot to global warming, but few are aware that forest plundering will lead to poverty. On the sidelines of the UN climate change conference in Bali, Papua’s Governor Barnabas Suebu, one of Time’s Hero of the Environment awardees, talked to The Jakarta Post contributor I. Christianto about his efforts to combat poverty through the protection of 31-million hectares of forest remaining in the province. Question: You often mention Papua’s forests are rich but the people are poor. What are you trying to say? Answer: Papua is impoverished. The state of people’s health, their nutrition, education, housing and clean water, to name a few, is still very poor. It will worsen if the forest is destroyed. Therefore we are trying to protect our forest and stop deforestation. There must be a funding mechanism from the international community, an issue that we have discussed with some parties like Greenpeace. The fund must go to the people to improve their welfare. No single tree can be felled.The benefit of forest exploitation for the local government and people is trivial, but the impact is devastating, including the loss of rich biodiversity inside the forest. There’s no benefit at all to plunder the forest, as it is the people who are then made to suffer. Logging activities, for example, have impoverished the people. A timber log is valued at US$10, but the price can climb to more than $10,000 after being processed into wooden goods. That’s why we have introduced a policy aimed at benefiting both the government and people. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 54/212 DEFORESTATION BAD – WARMING Deforestation is the main cause of warming Daniel Howden, May 14 2007, “Deforestation: The Hidden Cause Of Global Warming”, deputy foreign editor of The Independent, (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/deforestation-the-hidden-cause-of-global-warming-448734.html) The accelerating destruction of the rainforests that form a precious cooling band around the Earth's equator, is now being recognised as one of the main causes of climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage caused by planes and automobiles and factories. The rampant slashing and burning of tropical forests is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases according to report published today by the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of leading rainforest scientists. Figures from the GCP, summarising the latest findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total. "Tropical forests are the elephant in the living room of climate change," said Andrew Mitchell, the head of the GCP. Scientists say one days' deforestation is equivalent to the carbon footprint of eight million people flying to New York. Reducing those catastrophic emissions can be achieved most quickly and most cheaply by halting the destruction in Brazil, Indonesia, the Congo and elsewhere. No new technology is needed, says the GCP, just the political will and a system of enforcement and incentives that makes the trees worth more to governments and individuals standing than felled. "The focus on technological fixes for the emissions of rich nations while giving no incentive to poorer nations to stop burning the standing forest means we are putting the cart before the horse," said Mr Mitchell. Warming culminates in extinction Stein 6 (David, Science Editor for the Guardian, “Global Warming Xtra: Scientists Warn about Antarctic melting, http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/14/02463.html, AD: 7-8-9) BL Global Warming continues to be approaches by governments as a "luxury" item, rather than a matter of basic human survival. Humanity is being taken to its destruction by a greed-driven elite. These elites, which include 'Big Oil' and other related interests, are intoxicated by "the high" of pursuing ego-driven power, in a comparable manner to drug addicts who pursue an elusive "high", irrespective of the threat of pursuing that "high" poses to their own basic survival, and the security of others. Global Warming and the pre-emptive war against Iraq are part of the same self-destructive prism of a political-military-industrial complex, which is on a path of mass planetary destruction, backed by techniques of mass-deception." The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction", reported Bill Henderson in CrossCurrents. If strict global environmental security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of humankind's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 55/212 DEFORESTATION GOOD (WARMING) Despite increases in CO2, deforestation causes global cooling Bala et al. 7 (G. Bala, K. Caldeira, M. Wickett, T. J. Phillips, D. B. Lobell, C. Delire, and A. Mirin, “Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1871823) Atmospheric CO2 content is greater in the Global deforestation experiment by 381 ppmv because of both the release of carbon stored in trees in the early 21st century and the loss of CO2 fertilization of forested ecosystems seen in the Standard simulation (Fig. 1). Despite higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the global- and annual-mean temperature in the Global case is cooler by ≈0.3 K than the Standard case. Thus, on a global-mean basis, the warming carbon-cycle effects of deforestation are overwhelmed by the cooling biophysical effects. Relative to the Standard case, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is higher by 299, 110, and 5 ppmv in the Tropical, Temperate, and Boreal cases. The global-mean temperature differences relative to the Standard case in year 2100 in the Tropical, Temperate, and Boreal experiments are +0.7 K, −0.04 K, and −0.8 K, respectively (Fig. 1), implying that the combined carbon-cycle and biophysical effects from tropical, temperate, and boreal deforestation are, respectively, net warming, near-zero temperature change, and net cooling. These latitude-band experiments thus suggest that projects in the tropics promoting afforestation are likely to slow down global warming, but such projects would offer only little to no climate benefits when implemented in temperate regions and would be counterproductive, from a climate-perspective, at higher latitudes. The linear sum of the area-weighted globalmean temperature change over all of the latitude-band experiments is −0.1 K in the year 2100. This value is close to the corresponding −0.3 K temperature change of the Global deforestation simulation, suggesting a near-linear behavior of the large-scale climate system despite the many nonlinear processes represented by the INCCA model. The linear sum is slightly larger because, in the latitude-band experiments, our dynamic vegetation model allows the forests to expand in the regions that are not deforested (23, 26), and forests have lower albedo and absorb more solar radiation than grasses. The presence of trees in the latitude-band deforestation experiments and the consequent higher CO2 fertilization causes the linear sum of CO2 changes from the Tropical, Temperate, and Boreal experiments to be lower than that of the Global case by 67 ppmv in year 2100. Because the linear sum of the temperature response from latitude-band experiments is approximately equal to that of the Global case (Fig. 1), we focus our analysis on our global-scale deforestation simulation for brevity. The removal of forests in the Global case results in an atmospheric CO2 concentration at year 2100 that is 381 ppmv greater than in the Standard simulation (1,113 vs. 732 ppmv; Fig. 1). In the Standard A2 scenario, 1,790 PgC carbon is emitted to the atmosphere over the 21st century (Fig. 2). By year 2100, the terrestrial biosphere in the Global deforestation experiment has 972 Pg less carbon than in the Standard case. Approximately 82% (799 PgC) of this carbon resides in the atmosphere, with the oceans taking up the remaining 18% (173 PgC). The ocean uptake increases in the Global case (444 vs. 271 PgC in Standard) because the higher atmospheric CO2 concentration drives an increased flux of carbon into the oceans. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 56/212 EUGENICS GOOD (DISEASE) No eugenics impacts—solves disease and evolution—risks extinction Sailer 99 [By Steve Sailer, National Post, “The Coming War over Genes: Darwin's Enemies on the Left Part II of a Two Part Series Darwin's Enemies on the Right” 12/1/99, http://www.isteve.com/Darwin-Enemiesonleft.htm] The imminent birth of Canada's first "designer baby," a child whose embryo was screened before implantation in its mother to make sure it didn't suffer from the genetic disease cystic fibrosis (National Post, 11/29/99), reminds us that the evolution of the human race is about to accelerate almost unimaginably. Thus, we can no longer afford the comforting illusion that evolution doesn't really apply to humanity. Charles Darwin is a secular saint to much of the well-bred, well-read public. While they may not know the details of Darwinism, they do know that if rightwing fundamentalists are against Darwin, then they're for him. And on the principle that your enemy's enemy must be your friend, nice people with nice liberal arts degrees assume that Darwin scientifically disproved all those not-nice ideas like sexism and racism. Not that they've personally read Darwin, but Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould (author of "The Mismeasure of Man") has assured them that that's what Darwin meant. Or, to be precise, that's what Darwin would have meant if only he'd been as enlightened as Stephen Jay Gould. Having reviewed Darwin's enemies on the right, (see "A Miracle Happens Here" in the National Post's Commentary section of 11/20/99), let me now consider his enemies (and false friends) on the left. Ironically, while the religious right engages in futile attacks on Darwin's theory of what animals evolved from, the left and center clamps down upon Darwin's theory of what humans evolved to. These intellectual disputes produce real victims. Stalin even shipped the Soviet Union's Darwinian geneticists to the Gulag. And though Western scientists typically enjoy more rights than that, our traditions of free speech, academic freedom, and scientific inquiry didn't stop the former Attorney-General of Ontario, Ian Scott, from ordering a lengthy police investigation of the U. of Western Ontario psychologist Jean-Philippe Rushton. His supposed crime? Publishing a Darwinian theory of the causes of human biodiversity. And others, such as biologist Edward O. Wilson and psychologist Arthur Jensen, have been the victims of assault, threat, firing, censorship, character assassination, and non-stop harassment. Why is unfettered Darwinism so subversive of the reigning political pieties? There is a paradox bedeviling Darwinism today that begins with its needless war with religion. The equal worth of all human souls has been one of the most popular, influential, and beneficial of all Christian beliefs. It inspired many of the great humanitarian achievements in Western history, such as the abolition of the slave trade. Science can neither prove nor disprove spiritual equality -- a defect in a scientific theory, but a blessing in a religious doctrine. By contrast, the literal interpretation of Genesis that the world was created in 4004 BC was eminently refutable, as Darwin demonstrated. Although the Darwinian demolition of Old Testament fundamentalism was logically irrelevant to the question of whether all souls are of equal value to God, it made the whole of Christianity seem outdated. Thereafter the prestige of evolutionary biology encouraged egalitarians to discard that corny creed of spiritual equality - and to adopt the shiny new scientific hypotheses that humans are physically and mentally uniform. And that eventually put Darwinian science on a collision course with progressive egalitarians. For Darwinism requires hereditary inequalities. The left fears Darwinian science because its dogma of our factual equality cannot survive the relentlessly accumulating evidence of our genetic variability. Gould, a famous sports nut, cannot turn on his TV without being confronted by lean East Africans outdistancing the world's runners, massive Samoans flattening quarterbacks, lithe Chinese diving and tumbling for gold medals, or muscular athletes of West African descent out-sprinting, out-jumping, and out-hitting all comers. No wonder Gould is reduced to insisting we chant: "Say it five times before breakfast tomorrow: … Human equality is a contingent fact of history" -- like Dorothy trying to get home from Oz. Darwin did not dream up the Theory of Evolution. Many earlier thinkers, like his grandfather Erasmus Darwin and the great French naturalist Jean Baptiste Lamarck, had proposed various schemes of gradual changes in organisms. Darwin's great contribution was the precise engine of evolution: selection. Lamarck, for example, had believed that giraffes possess long necks because their ancestors had stretched their necks to reach higher leaves. This stretching somehow caused their offspring to be born with longer necks. Darwin, however, argued that the proto-giraffes who happened to be born with longer necks could eat more and thus left behind more of their longer-necked children than the proto-giraffes unlucky enough to be born with shorter necks. And what selection selects are genetic differences. In "The Descent of Man," Darwin wrote, "Variability is the necessary basis for the action of selection." Consider the full title of Darwin's epochal book: "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." It is hard to imagine two words that could get a scholar in worse trouble today than "Favoured Races." But that term is not some deplorable Dead White European Maleism that we can scrape away to get down to its multiculturally sensitive core. Not at all: "Favoured Races" is Darwin's Big Idea. For if we didn't differ genetically, selection could not act upon us. We would still be amoebas. There is much chatter lately that because we can never all agree on the exact number, names, and members of the various races, therefore "Race does not exist; it's just a social construct." Darwin knew better. Although races are indeed fuzzy, extended families are even fuzzier, yet no one denies their reality. In fact, a race is not just like an extended family, it is an extended family. A race is simply an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some degree. In turn, a species is a race that inbreeds virtually exclusively, typically due to reproductive incompatibilities with outsiders. The human race is definitely one species -- the most widespread single species of all the large mammals on Earth. Yet, we are also almost endlessly subdividable into partially inbred races, each with recognizable genetic tendencies. (That's why forensic anthropologists can rather accurately deduce race from DNA left at crime scenes). According to Berkeley anthropologist Vincent Sarich, no mammal exceeds our species in physical variation, except for dogs and a few other artificially selected animals. Another For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Things Go Boom! Gonzo and Lison 57/212 paradox: the unity and diversity of the human race are not contradictory ideas. In fact, considering the vast range of geographic and social environments found across the face of the Earth, the only way we could flourish in so many places yet retain our unity is to adapt endlessly. To stay one species, we have to be many races. Note well, however, that Darwin wrote "Favoured Races," not "Favoured Race." Darwinism is no brief for some purported Master Race. It proposes not that one race is superior in all things, but that all races are superior in several things. That is how it accounts for the glorious diversity of life. Here again Darwin clashes with the left. While "diversity" and "equality" are both considered Good Things by multiculturalists, that does not make them synonyms. They are antonyms. The more environments we have been selected to adapt to, the more trade-offs selection has had to make. Thus, the more diversity, the more meaningless it is to boast that your group is supreme overall. But the more implausible it also is to expect all groups to be identically favoured in each particular setting or skill -- whether it is engineering, charisma, running the 100 metres, or stand-up comedy. For example, over the 6,000 or so years that New World Indians have lived 12,000 feet up in the Andes, individuals with genetic variations useful in that harsh environment -- e.g., larger lungs -- have left more descendents than their less gifted neighbors. These barrel-chested Bolivians, however, are no longer favored when they descend to the Amazon, where the local people have evolved a slighter form better suited for a hot and humid rain forest. So what did Darwin say specifically about human biodiversity? In "The Descent of Man," he wrote, "... the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other -- as in the texture of hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotions, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck by the contrast between the taciturn, even morose aborigines of South America and the lighthearted, talkative negroes." Darwin wouldn't be surprised to learn which race had invented rap music. The true nature of Darwinism is not merely an academic question. For we are moving, with alarming rapidity, from the Age of Darwin the Scientist to the Age of Galton the Inventor. Sir Francis Galton was Darwin's even more ingenious half-cousin. (Their common grandparent was, not surprisingly, the brilliant Erasmus Darwin.) While Darwin was the hedgehog with one great idea, selection, Galton was the fox with innumerable notions large and small. Galton has as much claim as anybody to being the father of statistics, the dog whistle, fingerprinting, the systematic study of human variation, and the best way to cut a cake so it won't go stale. Darwin, however, inspired Galton to devise one enormous idea glittering with promise and ominous with danger: eugenics. That's the attempt to create a better human race by augmenting the slow and uncertain processes of natural and sexual selection with artificial selection. Humans have always lusted for favoured genes for their future children. (Trust me on this one, because I know -- I was turned down for a lot of dates.) Today, however, researchers are learning how to turbocharge evolution in laboratories all over the world. In the first half of the 20th century, eugenics in action largely meant governments sterilizing or murdering people they didn't like. (Lenin, Stalin, and Mao slaughtered even more tens of millions in the name of equality than Hitler murdered in the name of inequality. And, as Aleksandr Solzenhistyn has pointed out, the doctrine of "class origins" transformed "egalitarian" mass murder into ethnic genocide since there is no sharp line between family and race.) Today, however, eugenics consists of couples voluntarily choosing to create life on their own terms. Orthodox Jews have largely freed themselves from the scourge of Tay Sachs disease through genetic testing. Lesbians comparison-shop the Internet for just the right sperm donor. Couples at risk for passing on hereditary diseases to their children are choosing to implant in the mother's womb only a genetically-screened embryo. High-IQ Ivy League coeds are selling their eggs to infertile women for $5,000 apiece. Dr. Joe Tsien made the cover of Time magazine by genetically engineering mice with better memories. These breakthroughs are only the beginning. Galton's Age will see far more. While today's free-market eugenics is infinitely less sinister on a day-to-day basis than yesterday's totalitarian eugenics, its ultimate impact could be far greater. The very nature of the human race is up for grabs. Should we therefore ban voluntary eugenics? Regulate it? Ignore it? Subsidize it? To decide, we need to understand the social impact of the various possible changes in our gene frequencies. Fortunately, we have a huge storehouse of data available to base predictions upon: the vast amounts of existing genetic diversity. Unfortunately, we now discourage scholars from examining it. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 58/212 EUGENICS GOOD (U.S. CHINA WAR) Eugenics check nuclear war with China Sailer 99 [By Steve Sailer, National Post, “The Coming War over Genes: Darwin's Enemies on the Left Part II of a Two Part Series Darwin's Enemies on the Right” 12/1/99, http://www.isteve.com/Darwin-Enemiesonleft.htm] A ban, however, would drive genetics labs and fertility clinics to Caribbean freeports. Still, as shown by President Clinton's recent heroic victory over that Sudanese aspirin factory, with enough cruise missiles NATO could likely Tomahawk the Cayman Islands into submission. China, however, would be harder to bully. Unencumbered by post-Christian ethics, the Chinese government recently passed a pre-1945-style eugenics law calling for the sterilization of "morons." If China pursues genetic enhancements while the West bans them, the inevitable result within a few generations would be Chinese economic, and thus military, global hegemony. Thus, those serious about preventing genetic engineering should start planning a pre-emptive nuclear strike on China. However, the left is likely at some point to flip from opposing voluntary Galtonism to demanding mandatory re-engineering of human nature. Feminists, for example, will decide that instead of parents designing their daughters to appeal to men, the government should redesign men to better appreciate women like themselves. This logic will also revitalize collectivism. Socialism failed, in part, because it conflicts with essential human nature. So, why not change human nature to make Marxism possible? And what better response to the intractable fact of human biodiversity than to eliminate inequality at the genetic level? What could be more equal than a world of clones? Such speculations illustrate the necessity of our learning soon how genes actually affect society. Our only chance of foreseeing the potential world-shaking impact of Galtonian selection rests in the honest, unstifled study of Darwinian selection. God help us if we don't start helping ourselves. Extinction The Strait Times, 2000 [“No one gains in war over Taiwan”, June 25, Lexis] The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilization. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armageddon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 59/212 FAMINE GOOD – CIVIL WARS Food riots good, destroys ability to wage civil wars Hardin 01, __www.thesocialcontract.com/ artman2/publish/tsc1201/ article_1029.shtml__ Still, we have not described what may be the worst consequence of a food-only policy revolution and civil disorder. Many kindhearted people who support food aid programs solicit the cooperation of "hard-nosed" doubters by arguing that good nutrition is needed for world peace. Starving people will attack others, they say. Nothing could be further from the truth. The monumental studies of Ancel Keys and others have shown that starving people are completely selfish.(15) They are incapable of cooperating with others, and they are incapable of laying plans for tomorrow and carrying them out. Moreover, modern war is so expensive that even the richest countries can hardly afford it. The thought that starving people can forcefully wrest subsistence from their richer brothers may appeal to our sense of justice, but it just ain't so. Starving people fight only among themselves, and that inefficiently. So what would happen if we brought ample supplies of food to a population that was still poor in everything else? They would still be incapable of waging war at a distance, but their ability to fight among themselves would be vastly increased. With vigorous, wellnourished bodies and a keen sense of their impoverishment in other things, they would no doubt soon create massive disorder in their own land. Of course, they might create a strong and united country, but what is the probability of that? Remember how much trouble the thirteen colonies had in forming themselves into a United States. Then remember that India is divided by two major religions, many castes, fourteen major languages, and a hundred dialects. A partial separation of peoples along religious lines in 1947, at the time of the formation of Pakistan and of independent India, cost untold millions of lives. The budding off of Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) from the rest of Pakistan in 1971 cost several million more. All these losses were achieved on a low level of nutrition. The possibilities of blood-letting in a population of 600 million well-nourished people of many languages and religions and no appreciable tradition of cooperation stagger the imagination. Philanthropists with any imagination at all should be stunned by the thought of 600 million well-fed Indians seeking to meet their energy needs from their own resources. So the answer to our Jacobian question, "How can we harm India?" is clear: Send food only. Escaping the Jacobian by re-inverting the question, we now ask, "How can we help India?" Immediately we see that we must never send food without a matching gift of nonfood energy. But before we go careening off on an intoxicating new program we had better look at some more quantities. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 60/212 HIGH FOOD PRICES BAD (CHINESE ECONOMY) Increased food prices cause Chinese econ collapse Lester Brown, 1995, founded the Earth Policy Institute. 23 honorary degrees, a MacArthur Fellowship, the 1987 United Nations' Environment Prize, the 1989 World Wide Fund for Nature Gold Medal, and the 1994 Blue Planet. , “Who Will Feed China?” p. 133-4, Worldwatch Institute, KAPUSTINA In the new era, political leaders will be called on to govern under unfamiliar conditions. Their understanding of the world, their values, and their priorities were shaped in a far different age. With the new era comes the need for different priorities in the use of public resources- priorities that recognize food scarcity rather than military aggression as the principal threat to security. In an integrated economy where expanding human demand for food is colliding with the earth’s natural limits, population growth anywhere limits the ability of popular opinion, it will not be in the devastation of poverty-stricken Somalia or Haiti but in the booming economy of China that we will see the inevitable collision between the expanding demand for food and the limits of some of the earth’s most basic natural systems. In addition to raising food prices, the failure to arrest the deterioration of our basic life-support systems could bring economic growth to a halt, dropping incomes and food purchasing power throughout the world. It could lead to political unrest and a swelling of hungry migrants across national borders. Rising food prices and the associated economic and political disruptions within China could bring that nation’s economic miracle to a premature end. Chinese economic collapse leads to World War Three – multiple scenarios Tom Plate, professor at UCLA, 6-28-03, ““Neo-Cons A Bigger Risk to Bush Than China,” Straits Times [Tandet] But imagine a China disintegrating - on its own, without neo-conservative or Central Intelligence Agency prompting, much less outright military invasion - because the economy (against all predictions) suddenly collapses. That would knock Asia into chaos. A massive flood of refugees would head for Indonesia and other places with poor border controls, which don't want them and can't handle them; some in Japan might lick their lips at the prospect of World War II Revisited and look to annex a slice of China. That would send Singapore and Malaysia - once occupied by Japan - into nervous breakdowns. Meanwhile, India might make a grab for Tibet, and Pakistan for Kashmir. Then you can say hello to World War III, Asia-style. That's why wise policy encourages Chinese stability, security and economic growth - the very direction the White House now seems to prefer. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 61/212 HIGH FOOD PRICES BAD (FOOD SHORTAGES) High food prices cause global famine and food shortages Hubpages, October 2007, “The Rise in Global Food Prices Is Famine Inevitable,” http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Rise-in-Global-FoodPrices-Is-Famine-Inevitable Food riots in some countries recently also show that the situation is serious and if something is not done soon a lot of people in the world would starve. Take a look at what some of the experts had to say about this emerging problem: World Bank: Zoellick Calls For Coordinated Effort To Cope With Rising Food Prices Josette Sheean, Director of the UN World Food Programme "We are seeing a new face of hunger. We are seeing more urban hunger than ever before. We are seeing food on the shelves but people being unable to afford it." Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank "Food policy needs to gain the attention of the highest political levels because no one country or group can meet these interconnected challenges. We should start by helping those whose needs are absolutely most immediate. The UN's World Food Programme says that they require at least $500 million of additional food supplies to meet emergency calls. The US, the EU, Japan and other countries must act now to fill that gap - or many people will suffer and starve." Food shortages cause extinction Douglas S. Winnail, Ph.D., MPH, ’96, “On the Horizon”: Famine, From the World Ahead, Sep/Oct, http://www.survivalplus.com/foods/page0004.html Perhaps you have been too busy to notice, but the concern about our global food supply is real! Major news magazines are reporting that after a quiet few decades, talk of a world food crisis is again in the air. Government leaders, economists and scientists are seriously pondering such sobering questions as: Does the world face a global shortage? and Will the world starve? There is a growing sense of urgency. In November 1996 the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization will convene a World Food Security Summit in Rome. The conference was called due to growing concerns that shrinking world food reserves, rising prices and the declining production of food grains could be the precursors of an imminent food security crisis. Dr. Jacques Diouf, the FAO DirectorGeneral, has stated, "The very survival of humanity depends on world food security ". Just what does the future hold for humanity? Will there be enough food to go around? What does a look at all the evidence indicate? And how will this issue affect your life in the months and years ahead? HOW LONG BEFORE THE CUPBOARD IS BARE? Numerous sources document that global supplies of rice, wheat, corn and other key commodities have dwindled to their lowest levels in years . The U.N. recently warned that food stocks stand far below the minimum needed to provide for world food security. The world's grain harvest has not increased in any of the last five years, and since 1992 world grain consumption has exceeded production... this year--for the first time since World War II--there are basically no surplus stocks in government-owned reserves. The tight supplies have led to steep price increases for wheat, rice, and corn. Grain stockpiles have fallen particularly fast in the U.S. and the European Union as a result of agricultural reforms that have focused on reducing overproduction and selling off surpluses--primarily to China--to gain revenue from exports. Bad weather and a string of poor harvests in grain producing areas of the world have also contributed to the dwindling reserves. A CRISIS AHEAD? Opinions are sharply divided over what the future may hold. The world's food economy may be shifting from a long-accustomed period of overall abundance to one of scarcity and that food scarcity will be the defining issue in the future. The lack of growth of the world grain harvest since 1990 coupled with the continuing growth in world population and the increased likelihood of crop-damaging heat waves in the years ahead at least carries the potential of severe food shortages. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 62/212 HIGH FOOD PRICES BAD (GMO’S) High food prices increase support for GMOs International Herald Tribune, 7-8-08, “high food prices may cut opposition to genetically modified food, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/08/business/gmo.php, KAPUSTINA ZURICH - Like many stores in Europe, the Coop chain of supermarkets in Switzerland does not specify whether goods are genetically modified - because none are. But a wave of food-price inflation may help wash away popular opposition to so-called Frankenstein foods.http://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0708_05_1.jpg “I think there’s a lot of resistance in Switzerland,” said a shopper, Beatrice Hochuli, as she picked out a salad for dinner at a bustling supermarket outside the main Zurich station. “Most people in Switzerland are quite against it.” Consumers, even those from relatively wealthy parts of the world, are rarely first in line to adopt new technologies. Although food prices are up more than 50 percent since May 2006, according to the UN Europeans remain wary of foods derived from tinkering with the genetic makeup of plants. But policy makers and food companies are pressing the genetic modification topic in a bid to temper aversion to biotech crops like pesticideFood and Agriculture Organization’s Food Price Index, resistant rapeseed for oils and “Roundup-ready” soybeans, which tolerate dousing of the Roundup herbicide. These are crops already common in the United States and other major food exporters like Argentina and Brazil. The European Commission has said that it believes biotech crops can alleviate the current crisis in food supply, although it added in June that expediency should not overrule strict scientific scrutiny of the use of the technology involved. The chairman of Nestlé, the world’s biggest food group, has said it is impossible to feed the world without genetically modified organisms. Meanwhile, the British government’s former chief scientific adviser, David King, has said over the past week that genetically modified crops hold the key to solving the world’s food crisis. He called in a Financial Times interview for a “third green revolution,” in reference to two waves of innovation that helped increase crop yields sharply in Asia over the past 50 years. Climate change and increasing concern about fresh water supplies are helping to fuel interest in new seed GM technology still has many opponents, who fear that genetically Yet a European Commission-sponsored opinion poll last month showed slight change in awareness and acceptance of the technology . “For me it is just a varieties likely to be more resistant to drought and able to produce reasonable yields with significantly less water. modified crops can create health problems for animals and humans, wreak havoc on the environment, and give far-reaching control over the world’s food to a few corporate masters. matter of time before we get our head around GM,” said Jonathan Banks at the market information company AC Nielsen. “The way people will learn to live with GM is to say ‘we do it product by product and make The European Union has not approved any genetically modified crops for a decade, and the Union’s 27 member countries often clash on the issue. Outside the EU, Switzerland has a moratorium on growing GM crops, sure everything is OK,”‘ Banks said. “At the moment we have a knee-jerk reaction which thinks of Frankenstein foods.” though that authorities have granted permission for three GM crop trials between 2008 and 2010 for research. The market represents a substantial opportunity for biotechnology companies: the European seeds market is worth $7.9 billion, out of a global total of $32.7 billion, according to data from Cropnosis, a consultancy. The global genetically modified seeds market was worth $6.9 billion in 2007 and is set to grow further. Agrochemical companies are riding a wave of high food prices and soaring demand for farm goods , and Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta have all raised 2008 earnings forecasts. Although high prices are a boon for farm suppliers, much of the cost has been passed on to consumers, sparking protests in many countries including Argentina, Indonesia and Mexico. Others also see opportunity: in June, the chocolate maker Mars, the computer giant IBM and the U.S. Department of Agriculture said they would map the DNA of the cocoa tree to try to broaden the crop’s $5 billion market. In a Eurobarometer opinion poll in March, the number of European respondents saying they lacked information on genetically modified food fell to 26 percent, compared with 40 percent in the previous survey, which took People do change attitudes, just gradually, because they become used to technologies,” said Jonathan Ramsay, spokesman for Monsanto, the world’s biggest seed company. “Consumers are looking at prices, consumers hear the stories about food production, growing population in the world, and I think people do understand that agriculture needs to be efficient.” place in 2005. But 58 percent were apprehensive about the use of such crop technology and just 21 percent were in favor, down from 26 percent in a 2006 Eurobarometer survey on biotechnology. “ GMOs kill honeybees, which disrupts the ecosystem and results in extinction Hutaff 07 (Matt Hutaff, "Give Bees a Chance," The Simon, May 1, , pg. http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01375_give_bees_chance.html), KAPUSTINA Rumor has it Albert Einstein once declared humanity could only outlive the bee by about four years. His reasoning was simple: "no more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man ." Nothing like entomological doomsday scenarios from a classical physicist, right? Nonetheless, it looks like we're poised to find out if the godfather of relativity is right. Bees are disappearing at an alarming rate, particularly in the United States and Germany. And while it's normal for hive populations to fall during colder winter months, the recent exodus is Are we witnessing the death throes of the human race firsthand? puzzling beekeepers and researchers around the world. Will the bee go the way of the dodo? Not likely, but I'll tell you one thing – whatever's driving the collapse of the bee population, it's man-made. "During the last three months of 2006, we began to receive reports from commercial beekeepers of an alarming number of honey bee colonies dying in the eastern United States," says Maryann Frazier, an apiarist with Penn State University. "Since the beginning of the year, beekeepers from all over the country have been reporting unprecedented losses," including one gentleman who's lost 800 of his 2,000 colonies in less than four months. Those losses are atypical. The usual causes of death, aside from climate, are varroa mites, hive beetles, and wax moths, which infest hives weakened by sickness and malnutrition. Annual casualties tend to hover in the 20th percentile, and beekeepers work with entomologists to protect their investments via antibiotics, miticides, and advanced pest management. Not so today. The current blight has spread across the country rapidly, leaving abandoned hives full of uneaten food and unhatched larvae. Natural predators brave enough to enter behave erratically, "acting in a way you normally don' t expect them to act," says beekeeper Julianne Wooten. And whereas naturally abandoned hives are infested by other insects within a short period of time, hives affected by what is tentatively labeled colony collapse disorder (CCD) are avoided. California and Texas have been hit particularly hard by the sudden disappearance of bees, but dozens of other states are reporting major losses as well. And when you consider bees are big business as well as a critical part of the food chain, that vanishing act is no laughing matter. Consider: bees are essential for pollinating over 90 varieties of vegetables and fruits, including apples, avocados, blueberries, and cherries; pollination increases the yield and quality of crops by approximately $15 billion annually; and California's almond industry alone contributes $2 billion to the local economy, and depends on 1.4 million bees, which are brought in from all over the United States. Bees stimulate the food supply as well as the economy. So what's the cause of colony collapse? Suspicions are pointed in several different directions, including cell phone transmissions and agricultural pesticides, some of which are known to be poisonous to bees. But if these two factors are responsible, why are the deaths not a global phenomenon? The bee collapse began in isolated pockets before progressing rapidly around the nation. If cell phones are to blame, shouldn't the effect have been simultaneous, and witnessed years ago? And if pesticides are strictly to blame, shouldn't beekeepers near major farm systems scientists have come forward with the startling claim that is destroying bees. How could something so wondrous as pest-resistant corn kill millions upon millions of bees? Simple – by producing so much natural pesticide that bees are either driven mad or away. Most genetically- modified seeds have a transplanted segment of DNA that creates a well-known bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), in its cells. Normally Bt is not a problem – it's a be able to track those pollutants and narrow the field of possible suspects? Perhaps they have – and the culprit is bigger than we imagine. Several genetically modified food – you know, that blessing from above that would solve famine and put food in the belly of every undernourished, Third World child – naturally-occurring pesticide that's been used as a spray for years by farmers looking to control crop damage from butterflies. And it's effective at helping beekeepers keep bees alive, too – Bt is sprayed under hive lids to But "instead of the bacterial solution being sprayed on the plant, where it is eaten by the target insect, the genes that contain the insecticidal traits are incorporated into the genome of the farm crop," writes biologist and beekeeper John McDonald. "As the transformed plant grows, these Bt genes are replicated along with the plant genes so that each cell contains its own poison pill that kills the target insect. "Canadian beekeepers have detected the disappearance of the wax moth in untreated hives, apparently a result of worker bees foraging in fields of transgenic canola plants. [And] the planting of transgenic corn and soybean has increased exponentially, according to statistics from farm states. Tens of millions of acres of transgenic crops are allowing Bt genes to keep those pesky wax moths from attacking. move off crop fields." McDonald's analysis stands up under scrutiny. A former agronomist has commented that the one trial of GM crops in the Netherlands quickly led to colony collapse within 100 kilometers of the fields, and it's reasonable to hypothesize nature's pollinators would bear an averse reaction to plants with poison coursing through every stem. "The amount of Bt in these plants is enough to trigger allergies in some people, and irritate the skin and eyes of farmers who handle the crops," writes Patrick Wiebe. "In India, when sheep were used to clear a field of leftover Bt cotton, several sheep died after eating it." If it can kill a sheep, it can certainly kill a bee. What can be done? Precious little if gene-modified plants are the genesis of colony collapse. "There is no way to keep genetically modified genes from escaping into the wild," says Mike Rivero. "Wild varieties of corn in Mexico have been found to contain artificial genes carried by the wind and bees. Indeed it is probable that the gene that makes the plant cells manufacture a pesticide This is far more dangerous than a toxic spill, which confines itself to the original spill and the downwind/downstream plumes. A mistake in a gene, once allowed into the wild, can spread across the entire planet ." Genetically-modified has already escaped, which means this problem will only spread. " food is produced by companies such as Monsanto (how many of its scientists do you think drive a hybrid?). Despite a number of tests, the food created by these gene-spliced crops are considered a failure. It consistently makes animals ill, increases liver toxicity, and damages kidneys. What's the incentive to grow this food? What's the incentive to eat it? In our dash to trademark the very building blocks of our food supply, companies experimenting with "upgrading" crops may have irreparably damaged one of nature's most . Instead of approaching famine from a balanced perspective, corporations have patented the right to subsist. If Einstein's lesser-known theory is right, they have unwittingly become Shiva, the destroyer of worlds important contributors For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 63/212 HIGH FOOD PRICES BAD (KILLS HALF THE PLANET) High food prices kill half the planet Lester Brown, President – Earth Policy Institute, ‘05, People and the Planet, “Falling Water Tables 'Could Hit Food Supply'”, 2-7 http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2424] Many Americans see terrorism as the principal threat to security, but for much of humanity, the effect of water shortages and rising temperatures on food security are far more important issues. For the 3 billion people who live on 2 dollars a day or less and who spend up to 70 per cent of their income on food, even a modest rise in food prices can quickly become life-threatening. For them, it is the next meal that is the overriding concern." Food price fluctuations kill a billion Tampa Tribune, 1-20-96, Lexis That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersen noted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security. During the food crisis of the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. "Even if they are merely blips, higher international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food," he said. "Rising prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less." He also said many people in low-income countries already spend more than half of their income on food. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 64/212 HIGH FOOD PRICES GOOD (AFRICAN ECONOMY) A. Rising food prices key to African economy Business Day, 7-14-08, “Food crisis is a long-term opportunity for Africa,” http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A801230 THE global food crisis presents Africa with great threats — and great opportunities. African countries have traditionally had some of the worst-performing agricultural sectors. Despite many possessing natural advantages, 35 of 48 sub-Saharan African economies are net food importers. While east Asian countries have tripled, and Latin American countries doubled, agricultural yields in the past four decades, Africa has lagged well behind — African cereal yields are estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organisation to be 66% below the global average. The reasons for this are clear: war, instability, lack of clarity about land title, low investment in people and management systems, and the absence of technology. Africa uses only 13% of the global average amount of fertiliser per hectare. Africa’s irrigated farming area is estimated at 14% of the potential against 49% globally. It is also using only 43% of the arable land with rain-fed potential. Such low productivity coupled with poor infrastructure and high transport costs poses a threat to Africa’s long-term development by making the export of surpluses to the cities more difficult. Coupled with rising food prices, this could be a catalyst for political tension, especially in urban areas. Whereas the average African household spends more than half of its income on food, those in Europe are likely to spend a third of that. One third of Africans, about 300-million people, are already malnourished. And as Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga has put it: “A hungry man is an angry man.” The relationship between agriculture performance, development and trade is important. For almost half of sub-Saharan countries, transport payments absorb more than 20% of foreign earnings from exports. For some landlocked nations, these costs absorb more than half. Particularly significant is the negative impact of poor transport infrastructure on rural development, making it difficult for African farmers to specialise in high-value crops for export. Rising fuel costs make this even more difficult, and not only in freighting food in, and high-value exports out. Heating charges for greenhouses, production costs and the expense of refrigeration have all risen, too. But many of the trade costs are caused by things comparatively easy to fix, including inefficient customs and clearance procedures, themselves the product of an overbearing and inefficient bureaucracy, and uncompetitive policy environment. While African governments expend enormous energy on negotiating fresh trade access, they spend comparatively little time fixing the things directly within their power, such as customs opening hours. It is no good producing stuff if it is held up at ports. Agriculture is, so far, another story of unrealised African potential. Growth in this sector is not only a means to improving overall social welfare among the 600-million people engaged in production, but is also a means to mitigate development risks. While estimates predict Africa’s gross domestic product growth for the next three years to be more than 5% (compared to 3,4% globally), Africa is likely to remain hostage to commodity performance, given its significant oil and mining dependence. Africa’s food crisis is thus a short-term problem and a long-term opportunity. Much is known about how to create the conditions for a “green revolution”. Realising the opportunity will of course happen only in those countries that have a comparative climatic advantage. But this also depends on getting a number of other things right, demanding good policy and sound management. Land ownership needs to be clearly defined since private ownership enables the collateralisation of property. Production needs to be scaled up through the creation of larger holdings and improved access to fertilisers, technology, machinery and markets. And agriculture production and marketing needs to be commercialised — it has to be responsive to local and international markets and prices. Overall, knowledge and management are central to seizing the opportunities. This hinges on political and institutional improvement and greater political stability. If Africa cannot enable this revolution without external assistance, it should at least identify its capacity needs and partners to fill these gaps as a matter of urgency. Commercial rather than donor support can provide a sustainable method sensitive to market trends, as Mozambique’s enviable experience with tobacco extension and production in Tete province illustrates. In the short term, rising food prices are bad news for those whose main expense is food. But higher long-term prices could be a catalyst for higher investment in this sector, financially, legally and in policy and management terms. The revival of African agriculture offers a route to development for 180-million small farmers. B. Africa's economy drives the global economy China View 6-6-08 (Chinese newspaper, "Africa drives forward world economy: WEF participants", http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/06/content_8318186.htm) The African economy is becoming robust and energetic and will complement with the world economy as it is turning out to be one of the economic driving forces worldwide, said participants at the ongoing World Economic Forum on Africa held here. The world major economies are optimistic about African economic growth, which is offering the world huge investment opportunities in the sectors of infrastructure, petroleum and mining, agriculture, power, telecommunications, tourism and finance, said Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, chairman of the Dubai World company of the United Arab Emirates. Sulayem expects that total investment in the continent's infrastructure facilities will hit 250 billion U.S. dollars in the coming 10 years, as most African countries are putting construction of infrastructures on priority lists. This is a favor to the world economy, he said. He said that Africa will keep its growth momentum and will become not only driving force pushing forward the world economy, but also energy center or "world factory" in the future. C. Economic collapse causes extinction Kerpen 8 Phil, National Review Online, October 29, , Don't Turn Panic Into Depression, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/opinion/main4555821.shtml It’s important that we avoid all these policy errors - not just for the sake of our prosperity, but for our survival. The Great Depression, after all, didn’t end until the advent of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the planet. In a world of nuclear and biological weapons and non-state terrorist organizations that breed on poverty and despair, another global economic breakdown of such extended duration would risk armed conflicts on an even greater scale. To be sure, Washington already has stoked the flames of the financial panic. The president and the Treasury secretary did the policy equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater when they insisted that Congress immediately pass a bad bailout bill or face financial Armageddon. Members of Congress splintered and voted against the bill before voting for it several days later, showing a lack of conviction that did nothing to reassure markets. Even Alan Greenspan is questioning free after the elections, all eyes will turn to the new president and Congress in search of reassurance that the fundamentals of our free economy will be supported. That will require the shelving of any talk of trade protectionism, higher taxes, and more restrictive labor markets. The stakes couldn’t be any higher. markets today, placing our policy fundamentals in even greater jeopardy. But For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 65/212 HIGH FOOD PRICES GOOD (AGRICULTURE) High food prices key to sustaining agriculture South China Morning Post,”stronger food prices boost rural communities,” 4-28-08, p. 10, lexis, KAPUSTINA Likewise, unaccountable and power-hungry international institutions like the IMF now wish to set themselves up as the global food price policeman, and it is using the spectre of war due to high food prices to justify its grab for power ("Soaring food prices raise risk of war, warns IMF", April 14). Having seen the great job it did in "saving" Southeast Asia from itself in the late 1990s, I hope that the countries of the region tell the IMF to mind its own business. Higher food prices are likely to keep poorer farmers on the land, within their existing communities where they have strong family welfare and cultural links. While urbanisation and industrialisation are inevitable trends, unrestrained urbanisation without a strong enough urban economy to absorb rural labour is one of the greatest security threats that developing countries face. Artificially rigging commodity prices at a low level destroys rural economies and thwarts rural entrepreneurs who are the driving force of economic development in the countryside. Faltering rural economies result in farmers walking off the land, mass internal and international migration, conflicts over resources and explosions in urban slum populations. These outcomes are far more likely to lead to armed conflict than urban housewives complaining about the price of pork chops. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 66/212 HIGH OIL PRICES BAD (BIOFUELS) 1/2 High Oil Prices lead to increased biofuel use Zarroli, 07 (11/12/07, NPR, “High Oil Prices Affect Many Products” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16211938) "When oil gets much more expensive … some biofuels," become more cost effective, Goldstein said" "We are able to make that switch today. We weren't able to make that earlier."Federal Reserve Governor Alice Rivlin said there is another reason the economy has survived price increases — less manufacturing. "We don't depend on energy as much because we don't depend on manufacturing as much ," Rivlin said. "Services are less energy intensive."Goldstein believes the days of relatively painless price increases are ending. A lot of things are getting more expensive. "For example, the price of some of these sports drinks hadn't increased in seven years. It did this summer and precisely because the price of transporting that stuff by truck to the supermarket to the grocery store got more expensive to the point where they had to go for a price increase," he said. Goldstein says there is always a lag between the time when oil goes up and the time its impact is felt in the economy. "This $100 — near $100 — a barrel crude oil, that's still on the tanker," he said. "That hasn't even gotten to the refinery, let alone to the gas station on the corner."When it does, he said, gasoline could hit $4 a gallon.That's bound to be felt by consumers. Whether they stop spending will depend partly on other factors, such as how well the housing industry and the job market do. But the past few years have shown that the economy can adjust to rising prices better than people once thought. U.S biofuel use causes deforestation across the globe, specifically in the Amazon Butler 08 (1/17.08, Rhett, Mongabay News, “U.S. biofuels policy drives deforestation in Indonesia, the Amazon”, http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0117-biofuels.html) U.S. incentives for biofuel production are promoting deforestation in southeast Asia and the Amazon by driving up crop prices and displacing energy feedstock production, say researchers. William Laurance, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, says that massive subsidies to promote American corn production for ethanol have shifted soy production to Brazil where large areas of cerrado grasslands are being torn up for soybean farms. The expansion of soy in the region is contributing to deforestation in the Amazon. "Some forests are directly cleared for soy farms. Farmers also purchase large expanses of cattle pasture for soy production, effectively pushing the ranchers further into the Amazonian frontier or onto lands unsuitable for soy production," said Laurance. Projected soybean exports for Brazil and the United States, 2004-2015. Chart based on USDA data. Click to enlarge. "In addition, higher soy costs tend to raise beef prices because soy-based livestock feeds become more expensive, creating an indirect incentive for forest conversion to pasture," added Laurance. "Finally, the powerful Brazilian soy lobby has been a driving force behind initiatives to expand Amazonian highway networks, which greatly increase access to forests for ranchers, farmers, loggers, and land speculators." Satellite imagery from NASA supports Laurance. Data released last summer indicates that much of the recent burning is concentrated around two major Amazon roads: Trans-Amazon highway in the state of Amazonas, and the unpaved portion of the BR-163 Highway in the state of Pará. Brazilian satellite data also show a marked increase in the number of fires and deforestation in the region. The states of Para and Mato Grosso -- the heart of Brazil's booming agricultural frontier -- both experienced a 50 percent or more increase in forest loss over the same period last year coupled with a large jump in burning: a 39-85 percent jump in the number of fires in Para during the July-September burning period and 100-127 percent rise in Mato Grosso, depending on the satellite. More broadly, the 50,729 fires recorded by the Terra satellite and 72,329 measured by the AQUA satellite across the Brazilian Amazon are the highest on record based on available data going back to 2003. Total deforestation and area of soybean cultivation across states in the Brazilian Amazon. Overall soybean cultivation makes up only a small portion of deforestation, though its role is accelerating. Further, soybean expansion and the associated infrastructure development and farmer displacement is driving deforestation by other actors. Note: some soybean farms are established on already degraded rainforest lands and neighboring cerrado ecosystems. Therefore it would be inappropriate to assume the area of soybean planting represents its actual role in deforestation. Deforestation causes species extinction and loss of biodiversity Butler (Unknown, Rhett, Mongabay Environemntal news, “Extinction” http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0908.htm) The greatest loss with the longest-lasting effects from the ongoing destruction of wilderness will be the mass extinction of species that provide Earth with biodiversity. Although great extinctions have occurred in the past, none has occurred as rapidly or has been so much the result of the actions of a single species. The extinction rate of today may be 1,000 to 10,000 times the biological normal, or background , extinction rate of 1-10 species extinctions per year. So far there is no evidence for the massive species extinctions predicted by the species-area curve in the chart below. However, it is possible that species extinction, like global warming, has a time lag, and the loss of forest species due to forest clearing in the past may not be apparent yet today. Ward (1997) uses the term "extinction debt" to describe such extinction of species and populations long after habitat alteration: Decades or centuries after a habitat perturbation, extinction related to the perturbation may still be taking place. This is perhaps the least understood and most insidious aspect of habitat destruction. We can clear-cut a forest and then point out that the attendant extinctions are low, when in reality a larger number of extinctions will take place in the future. We will have produced an extinction debt that has to be paid. . . We might curtail our hunting practices when some given population falls to very low numbers and think that we have succeeded in "saving" the species in question, when in reality we have produced an extinction debt that ultimately must be paid in full. . . Extinction debts are bad debts, and when they are eventually paid, the world is a poorer place. For example, the disappearance of crucial pollinators will not cause the immediate extinction of tree species with life cycles measured in centuries. Similarly, a study of West African primates found an extinction debt of over 30 percent of the total primate fauna as a result of historic deforestation. This suggests that protection of remaining forests in these areas might not be enough to prevent extinctions caused by past habitat loss. While we may be able to predict the effects of the loss of some species, we know too little about the vast majority of species to make reasonable projections. The unanticipated loss of unknown species will have a magnified effect over time. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 67/212 HIGH OIL PRICES BAD (BIOFUELS) 2/2 Extinction – this outweighs nuclear war Chen 2k—Professor of Law and Vance K. Opperman Research Scholar, University of Minnesota Law School (Jim, Globalization and Its Losers, Winter 2000, 9 Minn. J. Global Trade 157, Lexis) Ellipses in original Conscious decisions to allow the extinction of a species or the destruction of an entire ecosystem epitomize the "irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources" that NEPA is designed to retard. 312 The original Endangered Species Act gave such decisions no quarter whatsoever; 313 since 1979, such decisions have rested in the hands of a solemnly convened "God Squad." 314 In its permanence and gravity, natural extinction provides the baseline by which all other types of extinction should be judged. The Endangered Species Act explicitly acknowledges the "esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value" of endangered species and the biodiversity they represent. 315 Allied bodies of international law confirm this view: 316 global biological diversity is part of the commonly owned heritage of all humanity and deserves full legal protection. 317 Rather remarkably, these broad assertions understate the value of biodiversity and the urgency of its protection. A Sand County Almanac, the eloquent bible of the modern environmental movement, contains only two demonstrable biological errors. It opens with one and closes with another. We can forgive Aldo Leopold's decision to close with that elegant but erroneous epigram, "ontogeny repeats phylogeny." 318 What concerns [*208] us is his opening gambit: "There are some who can live without wild things, and some who cannot." 319 Not quite. None of us can live without wild things. Insects are so essential to life as we know it that if they "and other land-dwelling anthropods ... were to disappear, humanity probably could not last more than a few months." 320 "Most of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals," along with "the bulk of the flowering plants and ... the physical structure of most forests and other terrestrial habitats" would disappear in turn. 321 "The land would return to" something resembling its Cambrian condition, "covered by mats of recumbent wind-pollinated vegetation, sprinkled with clumps of small trees and bushes here and there, largely devoid of animal life." 322 From this perspective, the mere thought of valuing biodiversity is absurd, much as any attempt to quantify all of earth's planetary amenities as some trillions of dollars per year is absurd. But the frustration inherent in enforcing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has shown that conservation cannot work without appeasing Homo economicus, the profit-seeking ape. Efforts to ban the international ivory trade through CITES have failed to stem the slaughter of African elephants. 323 The preservation of biodiversity must therefore begin with a cold, calculating inventory of its benefits. Fortunately, defending biodiversity preservation in humanity's self-interest is an easy task. As yet unexploited species might give a hungry world a larger larder than the storehouse of twenty plant species that provide nine-tenths of humanity's current food supply. 324 "Waiting in the wings are tens of thousands of unused plant species, many demonstrably superior to those in favor." 325 As genetic warehouses, many plants enhance the productivity of crops already in use. In the United States alone, the [*209] genes of wild plants have accounted for much of "the explosive growth in farm production since the 1930s." 326 The contribution is worth $ 1 billion each year. 327 Nature's pharmacy demonstrates even more dramatic gains than nature's farm. 328 Aspirin and penicillin, our star analgesic and antibiotic, had humble origins in the meadowsweet plant and in cheese mold. 329 Leeches, vampire bats, and pit vipers all contribute anticoagulant drugs that reduce blood pressure, prevent heart attacks, and facilitate skin transplants. 330 Merck & Co., the multinational pharmaceutical company, is helping Costa Rica assay its rich biota. 331 A single commercially viable product derived animals, plants, and microorganisms also provide ecological services. 333 The Supreme Court has lauded the pesticidal talents of migratory birds. 334 Numerous organisms process the air we breathe, the water we drink, the ground we stroll. 335 Other species serve as sentries. Just as canaries warned coal miners of lethal gases, the decline or disappearance of "from, say, any one species among ... 12,000 plants and 300,000 insects ... could handsomely repay Merck's entire investment" of $ 1 million in 1991 dollars. 332 Wild indicator species provides advance warning against deeper [*210] environmental threats. 336 Species conservation yields the greatest environmental amenity of all: ecosystem protection. Saving discrete species indirectly protects the ecosystems in which they live. 337 Some larger animals may not carry great utilitarian value in themselves, but the human urge to protect these charismatic "flagship species" helps protect their ecosystems. 338 Indeed, to save any species, we must protect their ecosystems. 339 Defenders of biodiversity can measure the "tangible economic value" of the pleasure derived from "visiting, photographing, painting, and just looking at wildlife." 340 In the United States alone, wildlife observation and feeding in 1991 generated $ 18.1 billion in consumer spending, $ 3 billion in tax revenues, and 766,000 jobs. 341 Ecotourism gives tropical countries, home to most of the world's species, a valuable alternative to subsistence agriculture. Costa Rican rainforests preserved for ecotourism "have become many times more profitable per hectare than land cleared for pastures and fields," while the endangered gorilla has turned ecotourism into "the third most important source of income in Rwanda." 342 In a globalized economy where commodities can be cultivated almost anywhere, environmentally [*211] sensitive locales can maximize their wealth by exploiting the The value of endangered species and the biodiversity they embody is "literally ... incalculable." 343 What, if anything, should the law do to preserve it? There are those that invoke the story of Noah's Ark as a moral basis for biodiversity preservation. 344 Others regard the entire JudeoChristian tradition, especially the biblical stories of Creation and the Flood, as the root of the West's deplorable environmental record. 345 To avoid getting bogged down in an environmental exegesis of Judeo-Christian "myth and legend," we should let Charles Darwin and evolutionary biology determine the imperatives of our moment in natural "history." 346 The loss of biological diversity is quite arguably the gravest problem facing humanity. If we cast the question as the contemporary phenomenon that "our descendants [will] most regret," the "loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats" is worse than even "energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government." 347 Natural evolution may in due course renew the earth with a diversity of species approximating that of a world unspoiled by Homo sapiens -- in ten million years, perhaps a hundred million. 348 "boutique" uses of their natural bounty. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 68/212 HIGH OIL PRICES BAD (ECON) High oil prices threaten multiple sectors of the u.s. economy The Southern States Energy Board, AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY: BUILDING A BRIDGE TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, July 2006, p. 2-3. Americans are nearly unanimous in the belief that dependence on imported oil is a very serious problem. Fully 92% The latest oil price surge is unique. Unlike the high prices that resulted from the 1973 oil embargo and the Iranian revolution of 1979, there have been no recent major oil supply disruptions. Either oil producers around the world simply cannot meet rapidly increasing global demand, or OPEC members (and possibly others) are manipulating oil supplies and prices for maximum profit (and perhaps to retaliate economically against U.S. policies on terrorism and democracy). In either case, rapidly. rising oil prices have disturbing implications for the U.S. economy and for U.S. energy security Oil and natural gas price increases in recent years have had a profound impact on U.S. businesses. Increased energy prices have required companies to pass along price increases to consumers, change capital investment, alter the way businesses are run, or, in the extreme, go out of business. The sectors most at risk include: * The aviation industry, both commercial airlines and cargo airlines, including air transportation industry manufacturers and suppliers * The agriculture industry, including pesticide and fertilizer manufacturers • The automobile industry, including the supporting parts manufacturers and the sales infrastructure • Trucking companies, landscapers, laundry and dry-cleaning firms, restaurants, delivery businesses, taxi and limousine services, florists, and numerous other energy-dependent businesses For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 69/212 HIGH OIL PRICES BAD (FOOD PRICES) Food prices follow oil prices – new energy technology proves Brown 10 – Earth Policy Institute (Lester, June 2, “Cars and People Compete for Grain”, http://blog.sustainablog.org/food-and-fuelcompetition/), The price of grain is now tied to the price of oil. Historically the food and energy economies were separate, but now with the massive U.S. capacity to convert grain into ethanol, that is changing. In this new situation, when the price of oil climbs, the world price of grain moves up toward its oil-equivalent value. If the fuel value of grain exceeds its food value, the market will simply move the commodity into the energy economy. If the price of oil jumps to $100 a barrel, the price of grain will follow it upward. If oil goes to $200, grain will follow. Increased food prices will cause mass starvation killing 95% of the world Adams 8 – staff writer for naturalnews.com (April 23, “The Biofuels Scam, Food Shortages and the Coming Collapse of the Human Population”, http://www.naturalnews.com/023091.html) So, to repeat, the food bubble is now starting to implode. What does it all mean? It means that as these economic and climate realities unfold, our world is facing massive starvation and food shortages. The first place this will be felt is in poor developing nations. It is there that people live on the edge of economic livelihood, where even a 20% rise in the price of basic food staples can put desperately-needed calories out of reach of tens of millions of families. If something is not done to rescue these people from their plight, they will starve to death. Wealthy nations like America, Canada, the U.K., and others will be able to absorb the price increases, so you won't see mass starvation in North America any time soon (unless, of course, all the honeybees die, in which case prepare to start chewing your shoelaces...), but it will lead to significant increases in the cost of living, annoying consumers and reducing the amount of money available for other purchases (like vacations, cars, fuel, etc.). That, of course, will put downward pressure on the national economy. But what we're seeing right now, folks, is just a small foreshadowing of events to come in the next couple of decades. Think about it: If these minor climate changes and foolish biofuels policies are already unleashing alarming rises in food prices, just imagine what we'll see when Peak Oil kicks in and global oil supplies really start to dwindle. When gasoline is $10 a gallon in the U.S., how expensive will food be around the world? The answer, of course, is that it will be triple or quadruple the current price. And that means many more people will starve. Fossil fuels, of course, aren't the only limiting factor threatening future food supplies on our planet: There's also fossil water. That's water from underground aquifers that's being pumped up to the surface to water crops, then it's lost to evaporation. Countries like India and China are depending heavily on fossil water to irrigate their crops, and not surprisingly, the water levels in those aquifers is dropping steadily. In a few more years (as little as five years in some cases), that water will simply run dry, and the crops that were once irrigated to feed a nation will dry up and turn to dust. Mass starvation will only take a few months to kick in. Think North Korea after a season of floods. Perhaps 95% of humanity is just one crop season away from mass starvation. Food scarcity leads to World War 3 Calvin 98 - William H. Calvin, Theoretical Neurophysiologist @ the University of Washington, January 1998, "The great climate flip-flop," The Atlantic Monthly 281(1):47-64, http://williamcalvin.com/1990s/1998AtlanticClimate.htm, ACC: 6.28.07, p. online The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields will cause some powerful countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands — if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food, will go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries will attempt to use their armies, before they fall apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This will be a worldwide problem — and could easily lead to a Third World War — but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 70/212 HIGH OIL PRICES BAD (HEG) High oil prices gut hegemony—trade deficits, enrich our enemies Michael T. Klare, Professor, Peace and World Security Studies, Hampshire College, “Bad Oil News Here to Stay,” ASIA TIMES 313-08, www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JC13Dj03.html, Finally, there are the implications for the United States as a whole. Because the US relies on petroleum for approximately 40% of its total energy supply, and because nearly two-thirds of its crude oil must be imported, this country will be forced to devote an ever-increasing share of its national wealth to energy imports. If oil remains at or above the $100 per barrel mark in 2008, and, as expected, the United States imports some 4.75 billion barrels of the stuff, the net outflow of dollars is likely to be in the range of $475 billion. This will constitute the largest single contribution to America's balance-of-payments deficit and will surely prove a major factor in the continuing erosion of the dollar. The principal recipients of petro-dollars - the major oil-producing states of the Persian Gulf, the former Soviet Union and Latin America - will undoubtedly use their accumulating wealth to purchase big chunks of prime American assets or, as in the case of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or the Saudi princes, pursue political aims inconsistent with American foreign policy objectives. America's vaunted status as the world's sole superpower will prove increasingly ephemeral as new petro-superpowers - a term coined by Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana - come to dominate the geopolitical landscape. So, while March 3 may have only briefly made the headlines here, it may well be remembered as the true "black Monday" of our new century, the moment when energy costs became the decisive factor in the balance of global economic power. U.S. hegemony solves nuclear war. Zalmay Khalilzad (Dep. Secretary of Defense) Spring 1995 The Washington Quarterly A world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and receptive to American values--democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, renegade states, and low level conflicts. Finally, US leadership would help preclude the rise of another global rival, enabling the US and the world to avoid another cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 71/212 HIGH OIL PRICES BAD (RUSSIA) 1/2 High Oil Prices undermine the Russian economy and undermine reform efforts which are key to economic growth Prime-Tass English-language Business Newswire October 13, 2005 Oil prices may be at all time highs, but Russia's GDP growth in 2005 is expected to decline from its 2004 level even as oil money is pouring into government coffers. Although it is often said that the Russian economy is booming thanks to the high oil price this is not the current reality. What is worse, some economists argue, even higher oil prices may damage Russian economic reforms and increase the government's control over the economy. Russia's GDP, rose 5.8% in January-August, according to the Economic Development and Trade Ministry. GDP was up 7.3% in January-August last year. 'A more accurate statement is that Russia is maintaining a high growth rate thanks to a high oil price,' Natalya Orlova, economist at Alfa Bank, said. 'The problem is that the growth rate is not accelerating. Russia's GDP growth was 7.1% in 2004 and will fall to just under 6% in 2005. Should oil prices drop, the growth rate could fall to 3% or 4%,' she added. But the financial situation of the Russian government has significantly improved thanks to high oil prices, economists said. 'Most of the gains from (high oil prices) are simply going to radically improve the state's international balance sheet,' Al Breach, chief economist at Brunswick UBS, said in a September report. 'There are considerable second-order effects of this improvement, but it is not the oil money directly that is fuelling the rapid domestic demand growth.' 'The clear beneficiaries of the high (oil) prices are the budget and Stabilization Fund,' Breach added. Breach said that since big oil receipts now go to the budget surplus and reserves the economy is running on U.S. USD 30 per barrel oil price, not USD 60 per barrel oil price. "This is very positive: it boosts creditworthiness, keeps vulnerability to oil prices low, and allows for sustained, strong expansion,' Breach said. However, the downturn in GDP growth along with protests by dissatisfied public sector workers over low salaries has only increased pressure on the government to spend from the Stabilization Fund. The Stabilization Fund, which was established on January 1, 2004, accumulates the federal budget's extra revenues from progressive oil export taxes on Urals blend oil prices exceeding USD 20 per barrel. President Vladimir Putin has signed a bill into a law hiking the base oil price used for calculating contributions to the Stabilization Fund to USD 27 per barrel starting January 1, 2006. Established in 2004, the Stabilization Fund has accumulated 960.7 billion rubles as of October 1. The Fund is projected to amount to 1.425 trillion rubles as of January 1, 2006, Russia's Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said last month. Putin said on September 27 that Russia's Stabilization Fund would not be used for social purposes, but to stabilize the Russian economy. "It (Stabilization Fund) is being formed not to resolve social issues but to keep macroeconomic figures stable, to not destroy the economy, to prevent prices hikes and restrict inflation," Putin said. Russian government officials have also reiterated that the fund is only to be used for reserve purchases and debt repayment. The Finance Ministry plans to pay USD 10 billion-USD 15 billion on Russia's sovereign foreign debt ahead of schedule in 2006, Kudrin said last month. In the remainder of this year, Russia plans to pay USD 3 billion-USD 5 billion on Russia's sovereign foreign debt ahead of schedule, Kudrin added. The early debt repayment is to be financed from Russia's Stabilization Fund, he added. So far this year Russia paid USD 18.3 billion ahead of schedule to the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, and the Paris Club of creditors. 'Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin has so far won the fight so that all money going to the Stabilization Fund can only be used for reserve purchases or debt repayment,' Breach said. 'While there is Allowing too much cash to be tied up in the Stabilization Fund could be a drag on the economy, O rlova of Alfa Bank said. 'I don't believe the loosening planned in 2006, the budget should balance at USD 33 per barrel Brent prices,' he added. Some economists believe the time has already come to remove the lock from the Stabilization Fund. government is properly managing the oil revenues,' she said. 'The Stabilization Fund has expanded greatly and the economy needs this money. They should increase spending, but first they have to define where the money should be spent and evaluate the macroeconomic implications,' Orlova added. Funds must be allocated for projects in a way that will minimize the inflationary impact, analysts said, such as projects to improve infrastructure or create employment. 'However, the government should not necessarily expect to meet its goal of lowering inflation to 4% in two years (if spending is increased),' she added. Other economists believe any spending from the Stabilization Fund would be irresponsible given the government's stated goal to lower inflation. 'I don't think any (of the money) in the Stabilization Fund should be released, there are other sources within the budget that can be reallocated to achieve the government's spending priorities,' Yevgeny Nadorshin, chief economist at Trust Investment Bank, said. 'There is a very important reason for this, and that is a political and economic obligation to lower inflation. If the CBR (Central Bank of Russia) continues its current exchange rate policy they need the Stabilization Fund to remain untouched (in order to control inflation),' Nadorshin said. Nadorshin believes the government will not have misgivings about spending from the Stabilization Fund if oil prices decline. 'The government always has an intention to spend from the Stabilization Fund if oil prices decrease,' Nadorshin said. 'I disagree with this policy. As soon as they touch the Stabilization Fund will face monetary problems, namely high inflation . If the government is faced with a budget deficit I would rather they finance the debt with bonds instead of turning to the Stabilization Fund.' With Duma elections scheduled for 2007 and a presidential election in 2008 politicians could have another excuse to spend from the Stabilization Fund in order to curry favor with voters. 'There will probably be some pressure (on politicians) to increase spending, but any expansion of spending would most likely be moderate, healthy and would not have adverse affects,' Orlova of Alfa Bank said. But some analysts said it is possible that oil prices rise to USD 100 per barrel and remain at that level for an extended period of time. 'Under our USD 100 per barrel scenario the picture starts to border on the surreal: Putin's goal of doubling GDP by 2012 would be met in 2011 and his 2000 target of catching Portugal on a GDP per capita basis within 15 years would have been achieved in 2012,' Peter Westin, chief economist at Aton Capital, wrote in a recent report. But Orlova said the picture may not be that exciting. 'The implications are that Russia will become more dependent on oil, local producers will loose their competitiveness to importers and the budget will rely even more on oil revenues,' she said Orlova. This scenario would be negative for Russia, Nadorshin of Trust Bank said. 'High oil prices do not always bring extraordinary growth,' he said. 'Domestic energy prices also increase, causing the producer price index to rise, making it problematic for industry to develop. I would expect stagnation to occur, even in an environment with an incredibly high budget surplus . (An oil price of USD 100) would threaten institutional modifications necessary for the economy to expand,' he added. Contrary to popular opinion, oil wealth is not always a blessing and can create more problems than it solves, economists said. 'Oil wealth allows governments to pursue populist, short-termist policy and reduces the incentive to make hard decisions,' Breach said. 'For example, why privatize UES and the electricity industry when one could simply use some of the ample state funds to renew its capital stock? Or worse still, why not buy up more previously privatized assets? Put another way, the best case would be for the oil windfall to be used to help mitigate the effects of speeded-up reform, rather than used to delay needed ones,' he added. End For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 72/212 HIGH OIL PRICES BAD (RUSSIA) 2/2 Russian economic collapse causes nuclear conflict Steven David, Prof. of political science at Johns Hopkins, 1999, Foreign Affairs If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause . From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe . A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 73/212 HIGH OIL PRICES BAD (TAR SANDS) 1/2 Tar sand production inevitable with high oil prices – any increase makes it profitable Stockman 10 (Lorne, May 6, “Tar Sands Oil Means High Gas Prices”, http://dirtyoilsands.org/files/CEI-TarSandsMeansHigherOilPrices.pdf), Corporate Ethics International Tar sands (also known as oil sands) oil production is the most expensive oil production in the world. The Keystone XL pipeline will create significant over capacity for tar sands crude into the U.S. raising pipeline tariffs and adding to the already high cost of tar sands production. The growth in tar sands production needed to fill the Keystone XL pipeline will only occur if oil prices keep rising. Tar sands production exerts little if any influence over global oil prices because it maintains no spare production capacity. Tar sands production is a symptom of high oil prices and not a basis for lower prices. Tar sands oil production is the most expensive oil production in the world today and has been labeled the ‘marginal barrel’ by the International Energy Agency. In April 2010 Marvin Odum, Shell’s head of tar sands, announced that the company would not go ahead with any new tar sands projects in the next five years and perhaps longer because of the expense of doing so. He said that, ‘the oil sands have become one of the most costly places on earth to pursue oil projects’. Referring to the company’s recent $14 billion expansion of its tar sands mining project he said that it represented, ‘some of the most expensive production that we have.’iii He stated that the 100,000 barrel a day (b/d) project will require minimum oil prices of $70-75 to turn a profit. Further, construction costs in Alberta are only going up. The rush to develop tar sands projects and the huge requirements for labor, cement, steel, engineering equipment and other resources mean that everything from rigs to housing are at a premium in the tar sands regions. A recent decline in costs spurred by the recession is already being reversed.iv In November 2009, one of Canada’s respected energy think tanks, the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) produced its 2009 to 2043 forecast for the tar sands industry.v In this 35 year timeline it expects oil prices to rise to around $200/bbl stimulating growth in tar sands production of between 5 and 6 million b/d by the 2030s to 2040s. It calculates that the oil price required to facilitate this level of production ranges from $119 to $134/bbl. The last time oil prices were at this level, in mid-2008, U.S. gasoline prices averaged $3.96 per gallon.vi The tar sands industry is clearly betting on high oil prices in order produce much of the as yet undeveloped resource. However, there is a raft of economic analysis including that from the IEAvii and othersviii that shows that high oil prices hinder economic growth and are therefore unsustainable. CERI and the tar sands industry are counting on a situation that would be devastating for the U.S. economy. If oil prices ever did reach $200/bbl, gasoline prices would probably be above $7 per gallon. Tar sands production is expensive primarily because it is bitumen, a solid or semi-solid form of degraded oil. Extracting and processing it requires more complex procedures than most conventional oil production. These processes require extensive specialized infrastructure leading to huge capital investment costs and high operating costs. Compare for example the estimated cost of developing a heavy oil field in Saudi Arabia with Shell’s recent tar sands mining expansion. The Manifa Field in Saudi Arabia is estimated to cost $15.75 billion to develop and as such is one of the most expensive developments in the country. It is slated to produce 900,000 b/d of oil as well as significant quantities of natural gas and condensate.ix In contrast, Shell’s Athabasca Oil Sands Project (AOSP) expansion cost $14 billion but only added 100,000 b/d of crude oil capacity. Impact is environmental destruction – deforestation, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions Flower 10 – analyst (Merlin, April 28, “Tar sand mining gaining force”, http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/Tar-sand-mining-gaining-force.php), Apart from pollution, the mining causes deforestation, destruction to the land, and impacts the livelihood of indigenous communities. The extraction process is carbon-intensive as it produces three to four times green house gases than the conventional oil fields. Nobody knows for sure how long it would take to reclaim the land- if at all they could be restored. The Athabasca River passes through the mining areas of the forest. Water from this river is used in the mining operations and environmentalist fear for the aquatic life in the river. The process in very energy intensive and two to three barrels of water are used for every barrel of crude produced, to separate the bitumen from the sand. The waste water, filled with heavy metals and chemicals, are left in ponds called 'tailing ponds'. These toxic ponds are a source of environmental pollution, the clean-up of which is very expensive. Apart from the waste water other wastes like mine tailings- a mixture of water, sand, clay, and bitumen are produced which cause environmental damage too. Last month the Alberta government acknowledged that apart from the more than 500 migratory ducks killed in a toxic pond in 2008, there were more than 164 animals killed during 2000- 2008 because of the mining process. Two decades ago, the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in the Prince William Sound, Alaska, when about 10.8 million gallons of crude oil spilled into the sea. And according to reports, the effects are still felt with Harlequin ducks living in the area showing effects of long-term exposure to the oil. And the Boreal forests are home to many animals like wolves, lynx, bears, and woodland caribou; to about thirty percent of North America's song birds and three to five billion land birds, including migratory ones. Last week Europe's largest oil company BP, beat a shareholder rebellion- co-ordinated by FairPensions and Co-operative Asset Management with support from WWF-UK, - over environmental, financial and social risks associated with BP's oil sand project in Canada. The advance votes showed that about 85% had voted against the resolution. The resolution will be discussed at the BP AGM and the company is expected to make a final decision on the oil sands venture by the end of this year. Though the resolution failed, it did succeed in bringing to the table BP's plans for tar sands projects. The oil company, for the first time, disclosed information on the company outlook on demand for tar sands oil. It also furnished details on regulations the company had planned while deciding on the proposed joint venture between them and Husky energy for the Sunrise project. The company contents that the extraction process in the Sunrise project was less damaging than the older methods. The project is expected to produce 200,000 of oil a day by 2012. The Chairman of the BP Carl-Henric Svanberg said the vote was "not about winning or losing". He added that "This resolution raises perfectly legitimate concerns" I understand the concerns, but I disagree with the analysis. And that "The decision to move into the sands is a strategic one " most analysts think it is a stretch to think we can meet future energy demands without fossil fuels, we will need at least 50 million barrels a day of new oil. BP and Shell are saying that they would extract oil from tar sands in a responsible way. Shell states that the greenhouse emissions could be reduced using carbon capture and proper storage methods. Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Melina Laboucan-Massimo said "BP's involvement in the toxic tar sands industry exposes the hypocrisy behind its carefully crafted image of being beyond petroleum". Further adding that, "With its stake in the tar sands, BP more accurately stands for 'Broken Promises' and can't claim any longer to be 'Beyond Petroleum'." Strangely, the IEA has commended Canada for its commitment to 'increase the share of clean energy in electricity supply by 2020.' Said IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka, "the goal to increase to 90% the portion of Canada's electricity needs that are provided by carbon-free sources such as hydro, nuclear or wind power by the end of the decade is progressive and ambitious." But, really, how's that possible with blatant destruction of forests? It would be unwise, if not silly, to expect investors to be ethical and abstain from the project. However, there is, be assured, a way to save the forests. If the government imposes higher charges for carbon dioxide emissions, it would cut into the profit. This looks like the only possible way to save the Boreal forest. For, should the Canadian government dirty its backyard at the cost of its wildlife just to supply oil to the energy thirsty US? The US is not going to reclaim the land, anyway. The bottom-line, as oil-price.net has always maintained, is more investment in renewable energies and reduced consumption of oil. As for Canada's tar sands project, spirited opposition is the only way to prevent an environmental disaster. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 74/212 HIGH OIL PRICES BAD (TAR SANDS) 2/2 Extinction – this outweighs nuclear war Chen 2k—Professor of Law and Vance K. Opperman Research Scholar, University of Minnesota Law School (Jim, Globalization and Its Losers, Winter 2000, 9 Minn. J. Global Trade 157, Lexis) Ellipses in original Conscious decisions to allow the extinction of a species or the destruction of an entire ecosystem epitomize the "irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources" that NEPA is designed to retard. 312 The original Endangered Species Act gave such decisions no quarter whatsoever; 313 since 1979, such decisions have rested in the hands of a solemnly convened "God Squad." 314 In its permanence and gravity, natural extinction provides the baseline by which all other types of extinction should be judged. The Endangered Species Act explicitly acknowledges the "esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value" of endangered species and the biodiversity they represent. 315 Allied bodies of international law confirm this view: 316 global biological diversity is part of the commonly owned heritage of all humanity and deserves full legal protection. 317 Rather remarkably, these broad assertions understate the value of biodiversity and the urgency of its protection. A Sand County Almanac, the eloquent bible of the modern environmental movement, contains only two demonstrable biological errors. It opens with one and closes with another. We can forgive Aldo Leopold's decision to close with that elegant but erroneous epigram, "ontogeny repeats phylogeny." 318 What concerns [*208] us is his opening gambit: "There are some who can live without wild things, and some who cannot." 319 Not quite. None of us can live without wild things. Insects are so essential to life as we know it that if they "and other land-dwelling anthropods ... were to disappear, humanity probably could not last more than a few months." 320 "Most of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals," along with "the bulk of the flowering plants and ... the physical structure of most forests and other terrestrial habitats" would disappear in turn. 321 "The land would return to" something resembling its Cambrian condition, "covered by mats of recumbent wind-pollinated vegetation, sprinkled with clumps of small trees and bushes here and there, largely devoid of animal life." 322 From this perspective, the mere thought of valuing biodiversity is absurd, much as any attempt to quantify all of earth's planetary amenities as some trillions of dollars per year is absurd. But the frustration inherent in enforcing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has shown that conservation cannot work without appeasing Homo economicus, the profit-seeking ape. Efforts to ban the international ivory trade through CITES have failed to stem the slaughter of African elephants. 323 The preservation of biodiversity must therefore begin with a cold, calculating inventory of its benefits. Fortunately, defending biodiversity preservation in humanity's self-interest is an easy task. As yet unexploited species might give a hungry world a larger larder than the storehouse of twenty plant species that provide nine-tenths of humanity's current food supply. 324 "Waiting in the wings are tens of thousands of unused plant species, many demonstrably superior to those in favor." 325 As genetic warehouses, many plants enhance the productivity of crops already in use. In the United States alone, the [*209] genes of wild plants have accounted for much of "the explosive growth in farm production since the 1930s." 326 The contribution is worth $ 1 billion each year. 327 Nature's pharmacy demonstrates even more dramatic gains than nature's farm. 328 Aspirin and penicillin, our star analgesic and antibiotic, had humble origins in the meadowsweet plant and in cheese mold. 329 Leeches, vampire bats, and pit vipers all contribute anticoagulant drugs that reduce blood pressure, prevent heart attacks, and facilitate skin transplants. 330 Merck & Co., the multinational pharmaceutical company, is helping Costa Rica assay its rich biota. 331 A single commercially viable product derived animals, plants, and microorganisms also provide ecological services. 333 The Supreme Court has lauded the pesticidal talents of migratory birds. 334 Numerous organisms process the air we breathe, the water we drink, the ground we stroll. 335 Other species serve as sentries. Just as canaries warned coal miners of lethal gases, the decline or disappearance of "from, say, any one species among ... 12,000 plants and 300,000 insects ... could handsomely repay Merck's entire investment" of $ 1 million in 1991 dollars. 332 Wild indicator species provides advance warning against deeper [*210] environmental threats. 336 Species conservation yields the greatest environmental amenity of all: ecosystem protection. Saving discrete species indirectly protects the ecosystems in which they live. 337 Some larger animals may not carry great utilitarian value in themselves, but the human urge to protect these charismatic "flagship species" helps protect their ecosystems. 338 Indeed, to save any species, we must protect their ecosystems. 339 Defenders of biodiversity can measure the "tangible economic value" of the pleasure derived from "visiting, photographing, painting, and just looking at wildlife." 340 In the United States alone, wildlife observation and feeding in 1991 generated $ 18.1 billion in consumer spending, $ 3 billion in tax revenues, and 766,000 jobs. 341 Ecotourism gives tropical countries, home to most of the world's species, a valuable alternative to subsistence agriculture. Costa Rican rainforests preserved for ecotourism "have become many times more profitable per hectare than land cleared for pastures and fields," while the endangered gorilla has turned ecotourism into "the third most important source of income in Rwanda." 342 In a globalized economy where commodities can be cultivated almost anywhere, environmentally [*211] sensitive locales can maximize their wealth by exploiting the The value of endangered species and the biodiversity they embody is "literally ... incalculable." 343 What, if anything, should the law do to preserve it? There are those that invoke the story of Noah's Ark as a moral basis for biodiversity preservation. 344 Others regard the entire JudeoChristian tradition, especially the biblical stories of Creation and the Flood, as the root of the West's deplorable environmental record. 345 To avoid getting bogged down in an environmental exegesis of Judeo-Christian "myth and legend," we should let Charles Darwin and evolutionary biology determine the imperatives of our moment in natural "history." 346 The loss of biological diversity is quite arguably the gravest problem facing humanity. If we cast the question as the contemporary phenomenon that "our descendants [will] most regret," the "loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats" is worse than even "energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government." 347 Natural evolution may in due course renew the earth with a diversity of species approximating that of a world unspoiled by Homo sapiens -- in ten million years, perhaps a hundred million. 348 "boutique" uses of their natural bounty. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 75/212 HIGH OIL PRICES BAD (TERRORISM) Each price increase in oil goes to terrorists Powers, 10 – COO Truman National Security Project (3/17/10, Jonathon, Huffington Post, “Oil Addiction: Fueling Our Enemies”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-powers/oil-addiction-fueling-our_b_465554.html) In Iraq and Afghanistan today, our military is facing down bullets and improvised explosive devices that are being paid for right here at home! The U.S sends approximately one billion dollars a day overseas to import oil. While this figure is staggering by itself, the dangerous implications of our addiction are even more pronounced when analyzing where our money goes -- and whom it helps to support. Today, the Truman National Security Project is releasing our latest report, Oil Addiction: Fueling Our Enemies. As an Iraq veteran, I am joining with hundreds of my fellow veterans as part of Truman National Security Project's Operation Free to secure American with clean energy. We want to make sure Americans understand the true costs of our addiction to oil. Examine what these true costs meant during the year 2008: * One Billion Dollars a Day Spent on Foreign Oil: In 2008, the United States imported * 4.7 billion barrels of crude oil to meet our consumption needs. The average price per barrel of imported oil for 2008 was92.61. This works out to1.19 billion per day for the year. * Our Annual Oil Debt Is Greater than Our Trade Deficit with China: Our petroleum imports created a386 billion U.S. trade deficit in 2008, versus a266 billion deficit with China. This national debt is a drain on our economy and an anchor on our economic growth. * We Overwhelmingly Rely on Oil Imports...: In 2008, we consumed 7.1 billion barrels of oil in the United States, meaning that the 4.7 billion barrels of crude oil we imported was 66% of our overall oil usage. * ... to the Detriment of National Security: Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, U.S. Navy (Retired), captured the national security dangers of our addiction to oil in 2009 testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: "In 2008, we sent386 billion overseas to pay for oil -- much of it going to nations that wish us harm. This is an unprecedented and unsustainable transfer of wealth to other nations. It puts us in the untenable position of funding both sides of the conflict and directly undermines our fight against terror." The one billion dollars a day that Americans send overseas on oil floods into a global oil market that enriches hostile governments, funds terrorist organizations, and props up repressive regimes. Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey> explains it this way: Except for our own Civil War, this [the war on terror] is the only war that we have fought where we are paying for both sides. We pay Saudi Arabia $160 billion for its oil, and $3 or $4 billion of that goes to the Wahhabis, who teach children to hate. We are paying for these terrorists with our SUVs. For every $5 increase in the global price of crude oil represents: * An additional $7.9 billion for Iran and President Ahmadinejad; * An additional $4.7 billion for Venezuela and President Chavez; and, * An additional $18 billion for Russia and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. While these nations may have an abundance of oil, most of them lack democracy and human rights. Worse yet, some of them are state sponsors of terrorism -- and sworn enemies of the United States. "With only one or two exceptions, OPEC is effectively dictatorships and autocratic kingdoms," former C.I.A. director James Woolsey tells CBN News. Woolsey is a member of the Set America Free Coalition. The group highlights the national security and economic implications of America's dependence on foreign oil. "Ninety seven percent of our transportation is fueled by oil products of one sort or another," says Woolsey. "And two thirds of the world's proven reserves of conventional oil are in the Middle East, and about that share is also in the hands of OPEC." Gas and oil prices are currently at an all-time high OPEC sets the market price. Woolsey says Saudi Arabia is using a chunk of its oil wealth to spread its brand of radical Wahhabi Islam worldwide. "The Saudis control about 90 percent of the world's Islamic institutions," he says. "And oil is the reason for that." Iran's big oil profits mean big money for that country's nuclear program and its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. Lately, Iranian Pesident Mahmoud Ahmadenijad has been joined by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez in threatening to help drive oil prices up even further. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 76/212 HIGH OIL PRICES GOOD (ECON) High prices improve global growth—exporting countries re-invest their revenues in global manufacturing and service sectors—this is comparatively stronger than the price effect on industrial producers. Andrew McKillop, 4/19/2004. Energy economist and consultant. “A counterintuitive notion: economic growth bolstered by high oil prices, strong oil demand,” Oil and Gas Journal, Lexis. The real impact of higher oil prices, certainly up to the range of about $ 60/bbl, is to increase economic growth at the composite worldwide level. This is the main reason why demographic oil demand during 1975, with oil prices at $ 40-65/bbl in 2003 dollars, was significantly higher than it is today. It should be clearly understood that if the demographic demand rate in 2003 was the same as in 1979, then world oil demand in 2003 would have been 95.4 million b/d. Relative to real total world oil demand at this time (about 78 million b/d), the additional capacity needed would be close to two times Saudi exports, more than three times Russia's export offer, or well above five times Venezuela's current export capacity. There is no certainty at all that world oil supply would or could have been able to meet this demand. Higher oil prices operate to stimulate first the world economy, outside the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and then lead to increased growth inside the OECD. This is through the income, or revenue, effect on oil exporter countries, and then on metals, minerals, and agrocommodity exporter countries , most of them low income (per capita gross national product below $ 400/year). Almost all such countries have very high marginal propensity to consume. That is to say that any increase in revenues, due to prices of their export products increasing in line with the oil price, is very rapidly spent on purchasing manufactured goods and services of all kinds. During 1973-81, in which oil price rises before inflation were 405%, the New Industrial Countries (NICs) of that period -- notably the so-called "Asian Tigers" Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore -- experienced very large and rapid increases in solvent demand for their export goods. In easily described macroeconomic terms, the revenue effect of higher oil prices "greasing economic growth" was and is much stronger than the price effect on industrial producers . NICs as a group or bloc of economies rapidly expanded their oil imports and increased their oil consumption as prices increased in 1974-81, because demand for their export goods had increased, due to the global economic impacts of higher oil and "real resource" prices. This has very strong implications for oil demand of today's emerging and giant NICs with large populations and immense internal markets: China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, and Iran. For the much smaller NICs of 1975-85, their oil import trends during 1974-81 show dramatic growth only slightly impacted by the major price rises of the period. In general terms, the NICs Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore increased their oil demand by about 60-80% in volume terms in this period of a 405% increase in nominal prices (Table 2). For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 77/212 HIGH OIL PRICES GOOD (RUSSIA) High oil prices key to Russian economy – each 1 dollar drop causes a 5 billion dollar loss. Gawdat Bahgat (Centre for Middle Eastern Studies, Dept Political Science, Indiana U of Penn.) 2004 OPEC Review “Russia's oil potential: prospects and implications” v28 i2 p. 133 Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian economy has been in a state of transition, from a state-run economy to a free-market one. A delicate process of restructuring and diversification is underway. Still, the Russian economy is heavily dependent on oil revenue. This revenue represents a substantial proportion of the country's gross domestic product export earnings; in 2002, energy accounted for almost 20 percent of russia's gdp and 55 percent of export revenue. These figures indicate Russia's economy is extremely sensitive to global energy price fluctuations. The sensitivity implies a one dollar rise (drop) in the price of a barrel of Russia's urals blend benchmark leads to an increase (decline) in real GDP growth of about .5 percentage points and contributes to an estimated US $5 billion in extra earnings (losses). The relatively high and stable oil prices since 1999 brought a windfall in oil export revenue to the Russian economy, spurred strong growth in GDP and contributed to the overall economic recovery. Put differently, Russia's real GDP growth since 1999 has been an impressive 6.6 per cent per year. This strong recovery after the 1998 crisis can be explained by favourable external conditions in the form of high oil prices, as well as the effects of the sharp 1998-99 rouble devaluation/ Not suprisingly, in May 2003, The Russian government released its energy strategy to 2020, which designates the energy sector as the engine of economic growth. Global nuclear conflict Steven David (Prof. Political Science at Johns Hopkins,) Jan/Feb 1999 [Foreign Affairs AT NO TIME since the civil war of 1918 -- 20 has Russia been closer to bloody conflict than it is today. The fledgling government confronts a vast array of problems without the power to take effective action. For 70 years, the Soviet Union operated a strong state apparatus, anchored by the KGB and the Communist Party. Now its disintegration has created a power vacuum that has yet to be filled. Unable to rely on popular ideology or coercion to establish control, the government must prove itself to the people and establish its authority on the basis of its performance. But the Yeltsin administration has abjectly failed to do so, and it cannot meet the Russians know they can no longer look to the state for personal security, law enforcement, education, sanitation, health care, or even electrical power. In the place of government authority, criminal groups -- the Russian Mafia -- increasingly hold sway. Expectations raised by the collapse of communism have been bitterly disappointed, and Moscow's inability to govern coherently raises the specter of civil unrest. If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a most basic needs of the Russian people. society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the milit ary leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism , a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war. all clear which side the military would support. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 78/212 HIGH OIL PRICES GOOD (RUSSIAN ECONOMY) High oil prices solves Russian economy Kudenko 10 – Aleksey, RiaNovosti, Feb 6, “High oil prices to solve Russia’s financial problems – Putin”, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100602/159273742.html Extra budget revenues due to higher oil prices will allow Russia to effectively deal with its main financial issues, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday. Putin said that whereas the 2010 budget was based on a projected oil price of $58 per barrel , the average price so far this year had in fact exceeded $70. "We can make greater headway in solving our main financial problems. Above all, in reducing the budget deficit," he told a cabinet meeting, adding that in 2009 the deficit constituted 5.9% of GDP. He said the country's Reserve Fund could be used "more economically." Putin said economic growth was also higher than forecast several months ago. According to the Ministry of Economics and Trade it currently stands at 3.54.5% y-o-y, or possibly even higher. Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said in mid-May the 2010 deficit would be 5.2-5.4% and that the budget would be balanced with an average oil price of $95 per barrel. The budget deficit in 2011 is expected at 4% of GDP with an oil price of $70 per barrel and 8% of GDP with a price of $50. Kudrin also said that the Reserve Fund would most likely last through 2011 and not be completely used up in 2010, as was previously expected. Russia, which continues to rely on raw material exports as its principal source of budget revenue, was badly affected by the 2008 global economic crisis, but a quicker-than-expected recovery of oil prices has eased pressure on the federal budget. Impact is nuclear war Steven David, Prof. of political science at Johns Hopkins, 1999, Foreign Affairs If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation -personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe . A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat responds with force, civil war is likely. more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 79/212 HIGH OIL PRICES GOOD (WARMING) High prices cause a shift to alternative and more efficient energy – this weans us off of oil dependence and harmful environmental practices Miller 7/30/08 – Debbie, writer for the Progressive, author of many books on the environment http://www.progressive.org/mp/dsmiller072908.html 2. High gas prices and the slump in SUV sales have prompted automakers to produce more hybrids and develop all-electric cars. That’s better for consumers in the long run and it helps the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 3. Another good reason, she said, is that finally renewable energy is getting a chance. People are investing in wind and solar. Clean energy is the way to go for our future. As much as Americans grimace when they fill up their cars, we should recognize the silver lining of the pocketbook pain. My daughter and I discussed seven other benefits. 4. People are increasingly carpooling, using mass transit, and batching their drive-around errands together. This ultimately will give people more time in their lives to do other activities. Who really enjoys bumper-to-bumper freeway driving? 5. Some states are considering four-day workweeks, such as Utah recently enacted for its government employees. This would take millions of commuter cars off the road. Who dislikes three-day weekends? 6. Drivers are speeding less, no pedal to the metal through the intersections. That not only saves gas; it also saves lives. In the first five months of this year, deaths from car crashes dropped 9 percent from last year. 7. As we gradually wean ourselves from fossil fuels, this means fewer oil spills, less air pollution, and less harm to the environment. 8. By developing and distributing clean energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, biomass and synthetic fuels, we help the environment by offering clean, non-toxic energy to consumers. 9. As petroleum becomes a fossil fuel of the past, we eliminate the prospect of war over oil, and our nation truly becomes more energy secure. Good news: Based on 2008 projections by the Energy Information Administration, the United States is on track to import 100 billion barrels less oil through 2050, due to greater efficiency, conservation, and alternative energy. This equates to 10 times as much oil than what is projected to be recovered from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 10. We don’t need to drill for oil in sensitive areas, such as the extraordinary Arctic Refuge, because we have better energy choices. Should we rip open America’s greatest wildlife refuge so the oil companies can make another billion in profits for a few months’ supply of oil? Oil dependence causes warming and global war Deborah James, October 28, 2007, “Free Trade and the Environment” http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/Environment.html Increased Trade Increases Our Dependency on Oil Increasing trade increases our consumption of and dependency on oil, which has created a massive global crisis of human-induced climate change. The rise of global temperatures means more severe droughts and floods that will literally change the face of the Earth; the loss of coastal lands and the destruction of forests; an increase in heat waves and other human health hazards; and the extinction of plant and animal species. Our consumption of oil also leads to violations of the human rights of peoples in oil-producing countries such as Ecuador, Colombia, Indonesia, and Nigeria, who suffer environmental heath problems, displacement, and contamination of their communities. Increased trade -- and hence dependence on oil -- will also contribute to global insecurity by providing further incentive for the drive towards war as the U.S. government struggles for control over this most strategic global resource. Extinction Tickell, 8-11-2008 (Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Gaurdian, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange) We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 80/212 HUMAN RIGHTS BAD (US CHINA RELATIONS) Human Rights Promotion destroys US-China relations The Guardian (a UK journal), Tania Branigan, June 2009, Asian correspondent for the Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/04/tiananmen-clinton-china-meddling-1989 China has accused the US of "crudely meddling" in its affairs after Hillary Clinton urged Beijing to account for those killed in a crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square 20 years ago. The US secretary of state last night also called on China to release those still imprisoned in connection with the protests, stop harassing those who took part and begin a dialogue with victims' families. She urged the regime to "examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal". "China can honour the memory of that day by moving to give the rule of law, protection of internationally recognised human rights and democratic development the same priority as it has given to economic reform," she said. A China foreign ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, said at a press conference: "The statement from the United States ignores the facts and makes groundless accusations against the Chinese government. "We express our strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition. We urge the United States to forsake its prejudices, correct its erroneous ways and avoid obstructing and damaging China-US relations." US-China relations solve nuclear war Desperes, 1 - Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation (John, China, the United States, and the Global Economy, p. 227-8) Nevertheless, America's main interests in China have been quite constant, namely peace, security, prosperity, and a healthy environment. Chinese interests in the United States have also been quite constant and largely compatible, notwithstanding sharp differences over Taiwan, strategic technology transfers, trade, and human rights. Indeed, U.S.-Chinese relations have been consistently driven by strong common interests in preventing mutually damaging wars in Asia that could involve nuclear weapons; in ensuring that Taiwan's relations with the mainland remain peaceful; in sustaining the growth of the U.S., China, and other Asian-Pacific economies; and, in preserving natural environments that sustain healthy and productive lives. What happens in China matters to Americans. It affects America's prosperity. China's growing economy is a valuable market to many workers, farmers, and businesses across America, not just to large multinational firms like Boeing, Microsoft, and Motorola, and it could become much more valuable by opening its markets further. China also affects America's security. It could either help to stabilize or destabilize currently peaceful but sometimes tense and dangerous situations in Korea, where U.S. troops are on the front line; in the Taiwan Straits, where U.S. democratic values and strategic credibility may be at stake; and in nuclear-armed South Asia, where renewed warfare could lead to terrible consequences. It also affects America's environment. Indeed, how China meets its rising energy needs and protects its dwindling habitats will affect the global atmosphere and currently endangered species. US/Sino war would cause a nuclear holocaust Johnson, 2001 (Chalmers, President of Japan Policy Research Institute, The Nation, 5/14, l/n) China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China's minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world's most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China's sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 81/212 EXT – KILLS RELATIONS US human rights policy moves anger China- frays relations QPih,. D Candidate @ Johns-Hopkins, 05 (Zhou, "Conflicts Over Human Rights Between China and the US"), Human Rights Quarterly 27.1) While the US takes pride in pursuing human rights abroad and strives for self-identity in its foreign policy, many Chinese think that US human rights policy essentially uses the issue of human rights as an excuse for the United States to intervene in other countries' domestic affairs and to advance its own strategic goals. In China, US human rights policy is generally called "human rights diplomacy." implying that US promotion of human rights in China has an instrumental motivation, intended to consolidate US power globally. "The human rights issue was taken by the US as a diplomatic tool to realize its national interests," just as the "Ping-Pong diplomacy"26 was used by the Chinese leadership to deal with its relations with the United States in the early 1970s.27 In recent Chinese publications, US human rights policy is condemned, for instance, as "a tool for conducting 'peaceful evolution' in socialist countries . . . to attain its long-range strategic goal: to impose on socialist countries its own values, ideology, political standards, and development model, aimed at changing the nature of the Chinese socialist system."28 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 82/212 HUMAN RIGHTS BAD (WAR) Rights-oriented agendas pressure other countries and lead to global wars in defense of rights John A. Gentry, The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999, Human Rights Quarterly, http://www.thewashingtonquarterly.com/autumn99/224Gentry.pdf As rights-oriented agendas increasingly dominate the politics and budgets of Western countries, human-rights activism has expanded to exert pressure on nations around the world to assure greater governmental and social compli- ance with Western human rights standards. Governments and private groups regularly press new rights agendas with mixed success. In some cases they generate internally inconsistent demands that defeat their own goals. Even in temporary failure, however, rights advocates often plant the seeds of new human-rights institutions. Prompted by large-scale killing in Bosnia, central Africa, and Cambodia, for example, human-rights advocates won signature in July 1998 of a treaty that establishes a permanent international war crimes tribunal at The Hague. The court would have supranational authority to charge alleged violators of human rights.11 After ratification by 60 countries, the treaty will give indict- ment powers to the UN and special prosecutors as well as countries. After initially supporting the new tribunal, the United States opposed it because Washington feared that the court would charge U.S. citizens with war crimes. This reflected an obvious interest in self-preservation; statecraft is often dirty business and no politician wants to be vulnerable to attacks by naive human-rights activists or political opponents using loose international human-rights statutes as political weapons. Like other rogue states, moreover, the United States in recent years regularly flaunted international law when it saw fit. An example is the unilateral 1986 air strikes against Libya that killed Muammar Gadhafi’s young daughter. The United States surely wants to continue to do so unimpeded by the opin- ions of other countries of its actions. The ethical imperialism of the United States, its sometimes crude Realpolitik, and its support for states such as Israel that regularly commit war crimes and violate human rights as defined by Amnesty International and others, have created many en- emies. Moreover, the United States clearly prefers to judge others without risk of reciprocal treatment. Bureaucratic concerns and national ambitions aside, there are fundamental reasons why major parts of the international human-rights agenda make little sense. Warfare in recent decades has changed dramatically toward total warfare of a sort that prominently involves civilians as both targets and participants, which often is in alleged defense of group rights. The 1992- 1995 Bosnian war is a classic example. In this conflict, simply put, griev- ances among three ethnic factions—Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats, and Bosnian Muslims—led to combat whose strategic as well as tactical objec- tives focused on increasing the size and security of pockets of land held nearly completely by one’s own ethnic group. This required expansion of key chunks of ethnically homogeneous land and capture of some strategic loca- tions, which simplified the demographic mosaic of prewar Bosnia. Pejoratively called ethnic cleansing, the strategy that all three sides em- ployed had at its heart the advancement of the rights of their own group over those of others and the targeting of members of other groups who stub- bornly resisted achievement of those goals by refusing to leave their homes. When bombast did not work, the groups used murder and other “atrocities” to move people to other places, either horizontally as corpses or vertically as living beings. This type of warfare both tramples the human rights of victims and fosters alleged rights to personal and group security and self-actualization. Western descriptions, such as victim or war criminal, depend largely on who won and who lost, not on behavior. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 83/212 HUMAN RIGHTS GOOD (IRAN PROLIF) Human rights promotion is critical to stem Iran prolif William W. Burke-White, Senior Special Assistant to the Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Spring, 2004, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, Lexis The human rights-aggression link suggests alterations in U.S. policy toward Iran. Current policy emphasizes preventing Iran from acquiring WMD,[133] which is admittedly important. The danger of WMD in Iranian hands, however, stems in part from the aggressive tendencies associated with Iran’s human rights abuses. A dramatic improvement in Iran’s human rights record would thus decrease the danger of the state’s potential WMD acquisition. Part and parcel of U.S. non-proliferation goals, then, should be active advocacy of human rights improvement in Iran. Such a policy would differentiate reformist groups in government and civil society from conservative religious leaders. It would single out repressive elements within Iran—those particular clerics who seek to push Iran back toward totalitarian theocracy. Likewise, it would support elements within Iran that seek liberalization, democracy, and human freedom. That might involve beginning a conversation with President Mohammed Khatami and members of parliament through our European partners. It might involve changing rhetoric and granting minor concessions that strengthen Khatami’s hand vis-à-vis the clerical leadership. Such a policy would encourage non-governmental efforts to engage with and assist Iran’s NGO and academic communities. Finally, such a policy would require Iran’s full participation in the war on terror and an end to its support for the Hezbollah. Iran proliferation causes arms race, terrorism, and nuclear war Kurtz, 6 (Stanley, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, “Our Fallout-Shelter Future”, National Review Online, 8/28, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWU4MDMwNmU5MTI5NGYzN2FmODg5NmYyMWQ4YjM3OTU=) Proliferation optimists, on the other hand, see reasons for hope in the record of nuclear peace during the Cold War. While granting the risks, proliferation optimists point out that the very horror of the nuclear option tends, in practice, to keep the peace. Without choosing between hawkish proliferation pessimists and dovish proliferation optimists, Rosen simply asks how we ought to act in a postproliferation world. Rosen assumes (rightly I believe) that proliferation is unlikely to stop with Iran. Once Iran gets the bomb, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are likely to develop their own nuclear weapons, for self-protection, and so as not to allow Iran to take de facto cultural-political control of the Muslim world. (I think you’ve got to at least add Egypt to this list.) With three, four, or more nuclear states in the Muslim Middle East, what becomes of deterrence? A key to deterrence during the Cold War was our ability to know who had hit whom. With a small number of geographically separated nuclear states, and with the big opponents training satellites and specialized advance-guard radar emplacements on each other, it was relatively easy to know where a missile had come from. But what if a nuclear missile is launched at the United States from somewhere in a fully nuclearized Middle East, in the middle of a war in which, say, Saudi Arabia and Iran are already lobbing conventional missiles at one another? Would we know who had attacked us? Could we actually drop a retaliatory nuclear bomb on someone without being absolutely certain? And as Rosen asks, What if the nuclear blow was delivered against us by an airplane or a cruise missile? It might be almost impossible to trace the attack back to its source with certainty, especially in the midst of an ongoing conventional conflict. More Terror We’re familiar with the horror scenario of a Muslim state passing a nuclear bomb to terrorists for use against an American city. But imagine the same scenario in a multi-polar Muslim nuclear world. With several Muslim countries in possession of the bomb, it would be extremely difficult to trace the state source of a nuclear terror strike. In fact, this very difficulty would encourage states (or ill-controlled elements within nuclear states — like Pakistan’s intelligence services or Iran’s Revolutionary Guards) to pass nukes to terrorists. The tougher it is to trace the source of a weapon, the easier it is to give the weapon away. In short, nuclear proliferation to multiple Muslim states greatly increases the chances of a nuclear terror strike. Right now, the Indians and Pakistanis “enjoy” an apparently stable nuclear stand-off. Both countries have established basic deterrence, channels of communication, and have also eschewed a potentially destabilizing nuclear arms race. Attacks by Kashmiri militants in 2001 may have pushed India and Pakistan close to the nuclear brink. Yet since then, precisely because of the danger, the two countries seem to have established a clear, deterrence-based understanding. The 2001 crisis gives fuel to proliferation pessimists, while the current stability encourages proliferation optimists. Rosen points out, however, that a multi-polar nuclear Middle East is unlikely to follow the South Asian model. Deep mutual suspicion between an expansionist, apocalyptic, Shiite Iran, secular Turkey, and the Sunni Saudis and Egyptians (not to mention Israel) is likely to fuel a dangerous multi-pronged nuclear arms race. Larger arsenals mean more chance of a weapon being slipped to terrorists. The collapse of the world’s non-proliferation regime also raises the chances that nuclearization will spread to Asian powers like Taiwan and Japan. And of course, possession of nuclear weapons is likely to embolden Iran, especially in the transitional period before the Saudis develop weapons of their own. Like Saddam, Iran may be tempted to take control of Kuwait’s oil wealth, on the assumption that the United States will not dare risk a nuclear confrontation by escalating the conflict. If the proliferation optimists are right, then once the Saudis get nukes, Iran would be far less likely to make a move on nearby Kuwait. On the other hand, to the extent that we do see conventional war in a nuclearized Middle East, the losers will be sorely tempted to cancel out their defeat with a nuclear strike. There may have been nuclear peace during the Cold War, but there were also many “hot” proxy wars. If conventional wars break out in a nuclearized Middle East, it may be very difficult to stop them from escalating into nuclear confrontations. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 84/212 HUMAN RIGHTS GOOD (TERRORISM) Human Rights Credibility is critical to fighting international terrorism Arriaga 2002 [Alexandra, Director of Government Relations, Amnesty International USA, FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, March 6, 2002, p. online] Madame Chair, we recognize the challenges the Administration confronts as it seeks justice for the victims of September 11. The Reports do acknowledge that "only through the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms can the international community be secure from the scourge of terrorism." Amnesty International also believes that national security can best be guaranteed through the promotion of and respect for human rights. But we remain convinced that we cannot achieve security by sacrificing the very values that the United States has embraced and championed for so many years. Human Rights credibility gives us the influence to start modern movements and ensure necessary cooperation to stop terrorist attacks Tom Malinowski, Washington Advocacy Director, 7-7, 2004, Promoting Human Rights and Democracy, Human Rights Watch, p. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/07/usint9009_txt.htm Having an effective and principled American strategy to promote democratic freedoms around the world has never been more important to America’s national security. Indeed, I strongly believe that promoting human rights is central to America’s central national security imperative of defeating terror, for three reasons. First, the aims of Al Qaeda and its allies are advanced by the actions of repressive regimes in the Muslim world, which stretches from Africa to the Middle East to Central, South and Southeast Asia. The terrorists’ primary aim, we should remember, is to turn the hearts and minds of the people of this region against their governments and against the West, and to seize upon that anger to transform the region politically. When governments in countries like Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan shut down political dissent, lock up non-violent dissidents, torture opponents, abuse the rule of law, and deny their people fair justice, they are contributing to the radicalization of their people, thus playing right into the hands of terrorist movements. And when ordinary people in the region associate the United States with their repressive governments, Al Qaeda’s aim of painting the United States as the enemy is also advanced. Second, in the long run, the only viable alternative to the rise of violent, extremist movements in this region is the development of moderate, non-violent political movements that represent their peoples’ aspirations, speaking out for economic progress and better schools and against corruption and arbitrary rule. But such movements can only exist under democratic conditions, when people are free to think, speak, write and worship without fear, when they can form political organizations, and when their rights are protected by independent courts. Without a doubt, more radical organizations can also exploit democratic freedoms to express their views, and they will be part of the political landscape as societies in the Middle East become more open. But as for terrorists, they do not need human rights to do what they do. They have thrived in the most repressive societies in the world. It is the people who don’t use violence who need democratic freedoms to survive. Third, promoting human rights and democracy is important because America’s moral authority partly depends on it. American power in the world is more likely to be respected when it is harnessed to goals that are universally shared. People around the world are more likely to aid the United States in the fight against terrorism and other important goals if they believe the United States is also interested in defending their rights and aspirations. When America is seen to be compromising the values it has long preached, its credibility and influence are diminished. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 85/212 HUMAN RIGHTS GOOD (HEG) Human rights credibility is key to heg Richardson 08 Governor of New Mexico, former candidate for democratic prez nomination (Bill, A New Realism A Realistic and Principled Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb) To cope with this new world, we need a New Realism in our foreign policy -- an ethical, principled realism that harbors no illusions about the importance of a strong military in a dangerous world but that also understands the importance of diplomacy and multilateral cooperation. We need a New Realism based on the understanding that what goes on inside of other countries profoundly impacts us -- but that we can only influence, not control, what goes on inside of other countries. A New Realism for the twenty-first century must understand that to solve our own problems, we need to work with other governments that respect and trust us. To be effective in the coming decades, America must set the following priorities. First and foremost, we must rebuild our alliances. We cannot lead other nations toward solutions to shared problems if they do not trust our leadership. We need to restore respect and appreciation for our allies -- and for the democratic values that unite us -- if we are to work with them to solve global problems. We must restore our commitment to international law and to multilateral cooperation. This means respecting both the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and joining the International Criminal Court (ICC). It means expanding the United Nations Security Council to include Germany, India, Japan, a country from Latin America, and a country from Africa as permanent members. We must be impeccable in our own respect for human rights. We should reward countries that live up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as we negotiate, constructively but firmly, with those who do not. And when genocide or other grave human rights violations begin, the United States should lead the world to stop them. History teaches that if the United States does not take the lead on ending genocide, no one else will. The norm of absolute territorial sovereignty is moot when national governments partner with those who rape, torture, and kill masses of people. The United States should lead the world toward acceptance of a greater norm of respect for basic human rights -- and toward enforcing that norm through international institutions and multilateral measures. We need to start taking human rights in Africa particularly seriously, because the two worst genocides in recent history have taken place there, in Rwanda and now in Darfur. We failed to stop the killing in Rwanda, and for years we have failed to stop the killing in Darfur. America must hold itself to a higher standard of leadership. The United States should have sent a special envoy as soon as the mass killings began in Darfur. We could still do more to mobilize multilateral pressure on the Sudanese government and on China, which has great influence over Sudan. It is shameful that the Bush administration continues to wring its hands over Darfur when it is within our power to do something Hegemony prevents nuclear war. Zalmay Khalizhad, RAND Analyst, "Losing the Moment?”, Washington Quarterly, spring, 1995 p. ln. Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 86/212 IRAN STRIKES BAD (EXTINCTION) Iran strike causes extinction Jorge Hirsch, 11/21/05, Physics Professor at UC San Diego, “Can A Nuclear Strike on Iran Be Averted,” Anti-War, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8089 In a worst-case scenario, the attack will cause a violent reaction from Iran. Millions of "human wave" Iranian militias will storm into Iraq, and just as Saddam stopped them with chemical weapons, the U.S. will stop them with nuclear weapons, resulting potentially in hundreds of thousands of casualties. The Middle East will explode, and popular uprisings in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with pro-Western governments could be overtaken by radical regimes. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, and a nuclear conflict could even lead to Russia's and Israel's involvement using nuclear weapons. In a best-case scenario, the U.S. will destroy all nuclear, chemical, and missile facilities in Iran with conventional and low-yield nuclear weapons in a lightning surprise attack, and Iran will be paralyzed and decide not to retaliate for fear of a vastly more devastating nuclear attack. In the short term, the U.S. will succeed, leaving no Iranian nuclear program, civilian or otherwise. Iran will no longer threaten Israel, a regime change will ensue, and a pro-Western government will emerge. However, even in the best-case scenario, the long-term consequences are dire. The nuclear threshold will have been crossed by a nuclear superpower against a non-nuclear country. Many more countries will rush to get their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. With no taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, they will certainly be used again. Nuclear conflicts will occur within the next 10 to 20 years, and will escalate until much of the world is destroyed. Let us remember that the destructive power of existing nuclear arsenals is approximately one million times that of the Hiroshima bomb, enough to erase Earth's population many times over. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 87/212 IRAN STRIKES BAD (TURKISH RELATIONS) Strikes collapse Turkish Relations REUTERS in 2005 [December 30, http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392783,00.html] Still, Erdogan has been demonstrably friendly towards Israel recently -- as evidenced by Erdogan's recent phone call to Ariel Sharon, congratulating the prime minister on his recent recovery from a mild stroke. In the past, relations between Erdogan and Sharon have been reserved, but recently the two have grown closer. Nevertheless, Turkey's government has distanced itself from Sharon's threats to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon on his own if nobody else steps up to the task. The Turkish government has also repeatedly stated that it opposes military action against both Iran and Syria. The key political motivation here is that -- at least when it comes to the Kurdish question -- Turkey, Syria and Iran all agree on one thing: they are opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Turkish relations are key to central Asian stability Bagci and Kardas in ‘03 (Huseyin and Saban, Middle East Technical University, “Post-September 11 Impact: The Strategic Importance of Turkey Revisited”, Prepared for the CEPS/IISS European Security Forum, Brussels, May 12, http://www.eusec.org/bagci.htm#ftnref112) In developing this relationship, Turkey's special ties with the region again appeared to be an important asset for U.S. policy. Turkey had a lot to offer: Not only did Turkey have strong political, cultural and economic connections to the region, but it had also accumulated a significant intelligence capability in the region. Moreover, the large experience Turkey accumulated in fighting Terrorism would be made available in expanding the global war on Terrorism to this region.[43] As a result, after the locus of interest shifted to a possible operation against Afghanistan, and then to assuring the collaboration of the countries in Central Asia, Turkish analysts soon discovered that Turkey's geo-strategic importance was once again on the rise. It was thought that, thanks to its geography's allowing easy access to the region, and its strong ties with the countries there, Turkey could play a pivotal role in the conduct of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, and reshaping the politics in Central Asia: "Turkey is situated in a critical geographic position on and around which continuous and multidimensional power struggles with a potential to affect balance of power at world scale take place. The arcs that could be used by world powers in all sort of conflicts pass through Turkey. Turkish territory, airspace and seas are not only a necessary element to any force projection in the regions stretching from Europe and Asia to the Middle East, Persian Gulf, and Africa, but also make it possible to control its neighborhood... All these features made Turkey a center that must be controlled and acquired by those aspiring to be world powers... In the new process, Turkey's importance has increased in American calculations. With a consistent policy, Turkey could capitalize on this to derive some practical benefits... Turkey has acquired a new opportunity to enhance its role in Central Asia. "[44] Central Asian war escalates globally Blank 98 Stephen Blank, MacArthur Professor of Research at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College, Jane’s Intelligence Review, 5-1-98 Many of the conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict in which third parties intervene are present in the Transcaucasus. For example, many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have a great potential for unintended escalation. Big powers often feel obliged to rescue their lesser proteges and proxies . One or another big power may fail to grasp the other side's stakes, since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. Hence commitments involving the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a client's defeat are not well established or clear as in Europe. Clarity about the nature of the threat could prevent the kind of rapid and almost uncontrolled escalation we saw in 1993 when Turkish noises about intervening on behalf of Azerbaijan led Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear war in that case. Precisely because Turkey is a NATO ally but probably could not prevail in a long war against Russia - or if it could, would trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small possibility given the erratic nature of Russia's declared nuclear strategies) - the danger of major war is higher here than almost everywhere else . For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 88/212 IRAN STRIKES BAD (TERROR) Strikes end Muslim cooperation in the War on Terror Larrabee ‘6 [Stephen,- Corporate Chair in European Security @ RAND 3-9 “Defusing the Iranian Crisis” http://www.rand.org/commentary/030906OCR.html] Moreover, the political costs would be very high. A military strike would unleash a wave of nationalism and unite the Iranian population behind the current regime, ending any prospect of internal change in the near future and ensuring decades of enmity from the Iranian middle class and youth, who are largely opposed to the current regime. It would also provoke outrage in the Muslim world, probably making any attempt to obtain the support of moderate Muslims in the war on terror impossible. That’s the key internal link to victory AFP ‘5 [Agence France Presse. “Trust and Confidence of Muslims “Crucial” in Fight Against Terror” 2005. Lexis] The United States must use its "soft power" to gain the trust and confidence of Muslims worldwide if it is to "prevail over terrorism", Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Friday. Opening an international security conference, Lee said one reason why many moderate Muslims are reluctant to condemn and disown religious extremists was the "wide gap that separates the US from the Muslim world". He said the large-scale US assistance to Indonesia, the world's biggest Muslim nation, in the aftermath of the December 26 tsunami disaster had not completely erased the resentment many Muslims feel toward the United States. "The sources of this Muslim anger are historical and complex, but they have been accentuated in recent years by Muslim perceptions of American unilateralism and hostility to the faith," Lee told the audience, which included US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Lee cited a survey that found that in 2000 three quarters of Indonesians said they were "attracted" to the United States but that by 2003 the number had fallen to just 15 percent. Lee said US help to bring relief assistance to the tsunami victims in Indonesia had touched the hearts of many Indonesians. "But this singular event has not eliminated the antipathy that many Muslims still feel towards the US," he said. He cited demonstrations worldwide, including in Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur, following a report by the US magazine Newsweek that US interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre had flushed a copy of the Koran down the toilet. Newsweek later withdrew the report, saying they could not confirm the story with their source. "The US needs to make more use of its 'soft power' to win over international opinion, correct misperceptions and build trust and credibility, especially in the Muslim world ," Lee said. "In the long term this is vital if the US is to prevail over terrorism, and to maintain its position of global leadership." Impact’s extinction Corsi ‘5 [Jerome. PhD in Poli Sci from Harvard, Expert in Politically-Motivated Violence. Atomic Iran, Pg 176-8//] The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy –Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world – more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us . [CONTINUES} Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. Muslims around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. But for the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by the loss of New York, Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. For this there would be no effective answer. That the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by nature a politician. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 89/212 IRAN STRIKES BAD – CHINA China will defend Iran Engdahl, Global Research Contributing Editor, 06 (F. William, “Calculating the Risk of War in Iran,” January 29th, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20EN20060129&articleId=1841) The China factor in Iran China, in its increasingly urgent search for secure long-term energy supplies, especially oil and gas, has developed major economic ties with Iran. It began in 2000, when Beijing invited Iranian President Khatami for a literal red carpet reception and discussion of areas of energy and economic cooperation. Then in November 2004, curiously at the occasion of the second Bush election victory, the relation took a major shift as China signed huge oil and gas deals with Teheran. The two countries signed a preliminary agreement worth potentially $70 billion to $100 billion. Under the terms, China will purchase Iranian oil and gas and help develop Iran's Yadavaran oil field, near the Iraqi border. That same year, China agreed to buy $20 billion in liquefied natural gas from Iran over a quarter-century. Iran’s Oil Minister stated at the time, ‘Japan is our number one energy importer for historical reasons…but we would like to give preference to exports to China.’ In return China has become a major exporter of manufactured goods to Iran, including computer systems, household appliances and cars. In addition to selling Iran its computers and home appliances, Beijing has been one of the largest suppliers of military technology to Teheran since the 1980’s. Chinese arms trade has involved conventional, missile, nuclear, and chemical weapons. Outside Pakistan and North Korea, China's arms trade with Iran has been more comprehensive and sustained than that with any other country. China has sold thousands of tanks, armored personnel vehicles, and artillery pieces, several hundred surface-to-air, air-to-air, cruise, and ballistic missiles as well as thousands of antitank missiles, more than a hundred fighter aircraft, and dozens of small warships. In addition, it is widely believed that China has assisted Iran in the development of its ballistic and cruise missile production capability, and has provided Iran with technologies and assistance in the development of its clandestine chemical and nuclear weapons programs. In addition, China has supplied Iran scientific expertise, technical cooperation, technology transfers, production technologies, blueprints, and dual-use transfers. In sum, Iran is more than a strategic partner for China. In the wake of the US unilateral decision to go to war against Iraq, reports from Chinese media indicated that the leadership in Beijing privately realized its own long-term energy security was fundamentally at risk under the aggressive new pre-emptive war strategy of Washington. China began taking major steps to outflank or negate total US domination of the world’s major oil and gas resources. Iran has become a central part of that strategy. This underscores the Chinese demand that the Iran nuclear issue be settled in the halls of the IAEA and not at the UN Security Council as Washington wishes. China would clearly threaten its veto were Iran to be brought before the UN for sanctions. Extinction Straits Times 2k ( (Singapore), June 25, lexis) The high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 90/212 IRAN STRIKES GOOD (ECONOMY) War with Iran saves the economy – preparations fuel growth Huffington Post 11/1/2010: So, David Broder has concerns! The economic situation in America is presenting a "daunting situation" that could prevent President Barack Obama from "storm[ing] back to win a second term in 2012." (It also presents a "daunting situation" for millions of Americans who aren't the president, but just go with David here.) How can Obama "harness the forces that might spur new growth?" Sure, there is "the power of the business cycle," but "economists struggle to analyze this," so Broder's not going to linger too long on whatever might be done in that arena. Instead, has anyone considered maybe -- I don't know -- bombing the daylights out of Iran? What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy. Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II. Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve. Global nuclear war Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, 2-4-09, “Only Makes You Stronger,” http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2 If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 91/212 IRAN SRIKES GOOD (MID EAST PROLIF) Strikes would crush Iran’s nuclear program – our evidence assumes ALL your reasons strikes fail Edward Luttwak, military, UNSC and White House Chief of Staff consultant and Senior Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 2006. The First Post, “To bomb or not to bomb?”, http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=346 <<This brings us to the second flawed argument, which holds that an air attack against Iran's nuclear installations could not be a swift air strike, but would instead require thousands of strike and defense-suppression sorties, and is likely to fail even then because some facilities might be too well hidden or too strongly protected. Iraq’s weapon programme of 1981 was stopped by a single air strike by less than a squadron of fighter-bombers Actually this argument begins sensibly enough, by rejecting any direct comparison with Israel's 1981 air attack that stopped Saddam Hussein's first try at producing plutonium bombs, by incapacitating the Osirak reactor. Iran is evidently following a different and much larger-scale path to nuclear weapons, employing the centrifuge separation of uranium hexafluoride gas to extract a strong enough concentrate of fissile uranium 235 to make bombs. It requires a number of different plants operating in series to go from natural uranium to highly enriched uranium formed in the specific shapes needed to obtain an explosive chain reaction. Some of these plants, notably the Natanz centrifuge plant, are both very large and built below ground with thick overhead protection. It is at this point that the argument breaks down. Yes, Iraq's weapon programme of 1981 was stopped by a single air strike by less than a squadron of fighter-bombers because it was centered in a single large reactor building. But this does not mean that to stop Iran's programme all of its 100-odd buildings must be destroyed, requiring almost a hundred times as many sorties as the Israelis flew in 1981, which would strain even the US airforce. Some would even add more sorties to carry out a preliminary suppression campaign against Iran's air defences, a collection of inoperable anti-aircraft weapons and obsolete fighters with outdated missiles. An air attack is not a demolitions contract, where nothing must be left but well-flattened ground. Iran might need a 100 buildings in Good working order to make its bomb, but it is enough to demolish a few critical installations to delay its programme for years, and perhaps longer, because what Iran could still buy when its efforts were still kept secret would be much harder or impossible to buy now. Some of these installations may be thickly protected against air attack, but their architecture evidently has not kept up with the performance of the latest penetration bombs. Nor could destroyed items be easily replaced by domestic production. In spite of all the claIMS of technological self-sufficiency of its engineer-president, not even simple machined metal parts can be manufactured in Iran. More than 35 per cent of Iran's gasoline must now be imported because the capacity of its foreign-built refineries cannot be expanded without components that are under US embargo and cannot be fabricated locally; and Iran's aircraft fall out of the sky with regularity because spare parts cannot be locally machined. The bombing of Iran's nuclear installations may still be a bad idea for other reasons, but not because it would strengthen the hold of its rulers, nor because it would require a huge air offensive. On the contrary, it could all be done in a single night. One may hope that Iran's rulers are not misled by their own propaganda, and will therefore accept a diplomatic solution rather than gamble all on an irrelevant axiom, and wildly exaggerated calculations.>> Lack of trust of Iran guarantees that its nuclear acquisition will trigger proliferation throughout the region and nuclear war Nye 06 - Professor of International Politics at Harvard [Joseph S. Nye, a former Assistant US Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, “Should Iran Be Attacked?,” Monday , 29 May 2006, pg. http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2105] <<Would an Iranian bomb really be so bad? Some argue that it could become the basis of stable nuclear deterrence in the region, analogous to the nuclear standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But statements by Iranian leaders denying the Holocaust and urging the destruction of Israel have not only cost Iran support in Europe, but are unlikely to make Israel willing to gamble its existence on the prospect of stable deterrence. Nor is it likely that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others will sit passively while the Persian Shia gain the bomb. They will likely follow suit, and the more weapons proliferate in the volatile Middle East, the more likely it is that accidents and miscalculations could lead to their use. Moreover, there are genuine fears that rogue elements in a divided Iranian government might leak weapons technology to terrorist groups For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 92/212 IRAQI CIVIL WAR GOOD – IRANIAN PROLIF Chaos in Iraq is good—solves Iranian prolif, diverts resources from terrorism, and contains radical Islam SALHANI 2006 (Claude, UPI international editor, UPI, Nov 29) The second school of thought -- albeit a rather Machiavellian one -- sees a unique "opportunity" to entangle the Muslim world in a fratricidal war that would keep Islamic forces occupied for years, if not decades, to come. Should in fact the U.S. choose to remove its troops from Iraq and in the process leave that country's Sunni community in harm's way, there is no doubt Saudi Arabia will intervene, as it said it would, by sending its military in great force to protect their co-religionists. What could ensue is a protracted Shiite-Sunni war. While this could turn out to be the worst case scenario -- the worst nightmare -- for Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region, for some policymakers it could provide the answer to what they perceive as a rising threat that three years of continued all out war by the world's best armed, best trained, best equipped and most motivated army in the world could not resolve. Under this scenario Saudi troops, along with billions of Saudi petro-dollars, would be tied up for years to come fighting Iranianbacked insurgents in Iraq. Chances are that the fighting may very well spill over into neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia itself, Jordan, Iran and possibly beyond. In fact chances of this happening would be very high. The thinking among groups supporting that theory is that this would tie down fundamentalist forces on both sides for years to come. Saudi Arabia would find itself funneling large sums of money to sustain Iraq's Sunnis and their troops in that country. That would be money diverted from other Saudi projects, such as financing Islamic schools and mosques in Europe and North America. Intra-Muslim fighting would also weaken the Shiites in Iraq as well as in neighboring Iran. As a result, a weakened Iran would be less inclined -- and certainly less financially inclined -- to pursue its nuclear program or to foment revolts beyond its borders. Or even be to preoccupied by what is going on its own front yard to continue its active support for Lebanon's Hezbollah party. Iran proliferation causes arms race, terrorism, and nuclear war Kurtz, 6 (Stanley, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, “Our Fallout-Shelter Future”, National Review Online, 8/28, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWU4MDMwNmU5MTI5NGYzN2FmODg5NmYyMWQ4YjM3OTU=) Proliferation optimists, on the other hand, see reasons for hope in the record of nuclear peace during the Cold War. While granting the risks, proliferation optimists point out that the very horror of the nuclear option tends, in practice, to keep the peace. Without choosing between hawkish proliferation pessimists and dovish proliferation optimists, Rosen simply asks how we ought to act in a postproliferation world. Rosen assumes (rightly I believe) that proliferation is unlikely to stop with Iran. Once Iran gets the bomb, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are likely to develop their own nuclear weapons, for self-protection, and so as not to allow Iran to take de facto cultural-political control of the Muslim world. (I think you’ve got to at least add Egypt to this list.) With three, four, or more nuclear states in the Muslim Middle East, what becomes of deterrence? A key to deterrence during the Cold War was our ability to know who had hit whom. With a small number of geographically separated nuclear states, and with the big opponents training satellites and specialized advance-guard radar emplacements on each other, it was relatively easy to know where a missile had come from. But what if a nuclear missile is launched at the United States from somewhere in a fully nuclearized Middle East, in the middle of a war in which, say, Saudi Arabia and Iran are already lobbing conventional missiles at one another? Would we know who had attacked us? Could we actually drop a retaliatory nuclear bomb on someone without being absolutely certain? And as Rosen asks, What if the nuclear blow was delivered against us by an airplane or a cruise missile? It might be almost impossible to trace the attack back to its source with certainty, especially in the midst of an ongoing conventional conflict. More Terror We’re familiar with the horror scenario of a Muslim state passing a nuclear bomb to terrorists for use against an American city. But imagine the same scenario in a multi-polar Muslim nuclear world. With several Muslim countries in possession of the bomb, it would be extremely difficult to trace the state source of a nuclear terror strike. In fact, this very difficulty would encourage states (or ill-controlled elements within nuclear states — like Pakistan’s intelligence services or Iran’s Revolutionary Guards) to pass nukes to terrorists. The tougher it is to trace the source of a weapon, the easier it is to give the weapon away. In short, nuclear proliferation to multiple Muslim states greatly increases the chances of a nuclear terror strike. Right now, the Indians and Pakistanis “enjoy” an apparently stable nuclear stand-off. Both countries have established basic deterrence, channels of communication, and have also eschewed a potentially destabilizing nuclear arms race. Attacks by Kashmiri militants in 2001 may have pushed India and Pakistan close to the nuclear brink. Yet since then, precisely because of the danger, the two countries seem to have established a clear, deterrence-based understanding. The 2001 crisis gives fuel to proliferation pessimists, while the current stability encourages proliferation optimists. Rosen points out, however, that a multi-polar nuclear Middle East is unlikely to follow the South Asian model. Deep mutual suspicion between an expansionist, apocalyptic, Shiite Iran, secular Turkey, and the Sunni Saudis and Egyptians (not to mention Israel) is likely to fuel a dangerous multi-pronged nuclear arms race. Larger arsenals mean more chance of a weapon being slipped to terrorists. The collapse of the world’s non-proliferation regime also raises the chances that nuclearization will spread to Asian powers like Taiwan and Japan. And of course, possession of nuclear weapons is likely to embolden Iran, especially in the transitional period before the Saudis develop weapons of their own. Like Saddam, Iran may be tempted to take control of Kuwait’s oil wealth, on the assumption that the United States will not dare risk a nuclear confrontation by escalating the conflict. If the proliferation optimists are right, then once the Saudis get nukes, Iran would be far less likely to make a move on nearby Kuwait. On the other hand, to the extent that we do see conventional war in a nuclearized Middle East, the losers will be sorely tempted to cancel out their defeat with a nuclear strike. There may have been nuclear peace during the Cold War, but there were also many “hot” proxy wars. If conventional wars break out in a nuclearized Middle East, it may be very difficult to stop them from escalating into nuclear confrontations. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 93/212 IRAQI CIVIL WAR GOOD – TERRORISM Civil war in Iraq is good—it enhances the Sunni-Shi’ite split and solves terrorist attacks against the U.S. KURTH 2005 (James, Claude Smith Professor of Political Science at Swarthmore College, The American Conservative, Sept 26) Iraq represents a test case and potential crucible for the Sunni-Shi’ite split. It is easy to imagine the current sectarian suspicion and violence in Iraq descending into an actual civil war between the Sunni and the Shi’ite communities—more accurately, between the Sunni Arabs and the Shi’ite Arabs, since the Sunni Kurds are trying to separate themselves from both Arab groups. What would the global Islamist movement look like then? It would have a rather different meaning and attraction than it does today. An Islamist identity might still appeal to some Muslims, but it might well become less salient than the warring Sunni and Shi’ite identities. This would be even more likely to be the case if the Sunni-Shi’ite conflict in Iraq spread to its neighbors. Indeed, if the Sunni-Shi’ite conflict became not only intense and widespread but also prolonged, perhaps as much so as the Sino-Soviet conflict during the last three decades of the Cold War, the global Islamist movement might have almost no meaning or attraction at all. In the Muslim world there might be Sunni Islamists and Shi’ite Islamists, but each might consider their greatest enemy to be not the United States, but each other. Impact’s extinction Corsi ‘5 [Jerome. PhD in Poli Sci from Harvard, Expert in Politically-Motivated Violence. Atomic Iran, Pg 176-8//] The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy –Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world – more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us. [CONTINUES} Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. Muslims around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran. But for the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by the loss of New York, Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. For this there would be no effective answer. That the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by nature a politician. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 94/212 MIDDLE EAST WAR BAD (ECON) Middle Eastern instability collapses the oil industry before alternatives come online—the impact is world economic collapse Primakov, 09[ September, Yevgeny, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation; Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; member of the Editorial Board of Russia in Global Affairs. This article is based on the scientific report for which the author was awarded the Lomonosov Gold Medal of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2008, “The Middle East Problem in the Context of International Relations”] The Arab-Israeli conflict has one more important dimension, as it has a destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East region, which has 68 percent of world oil reserves (not including Arab North Africa, which has also been affected by the Middle East conflict). One will hardly see a recurrence of the events of 1973 when Arab states stopped oil supplies to the West. Yet the U.S. military operation against Iraq, which accounts for almost 10 percent of the world’s oil resources, has already placed this country outside the list of major oil exporters for years . Despite the development of alternative energy sources, oil and gas will continue to be primary energy resources for the next few decades. Therefore, stability in the Middle East is and will be of paramount importance, especially at a time when the main consumers of Middle East oil start overcoming the present recession. The jocular saying “The energy crisis has made the light at the end of the tunnel go off” is in fact not that jocular. I would also like to emphasize that the Middle East region, which has been least hit by the global economic crisis, will be of special value in the post-crisis period as an object of foreign investment. Huge financial resources accumulated in the Gulf area provide good prerequisites for that. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 95/212 MIDDLE EAST WAR BAD (TERROR AND DEMOCRACY) Middle East war emboldens terrorist recruits and halts the spread of democracy Forest 7 – director of terrorism studies at the U.S. Military Academy and the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point (James, “War is a No-Win Scenario,” September 2007, http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices/5523341-1.html) A regional war in the Middle East would bring a variety of negative consequences for the United States. First, and most obvious, the global security environment would shift in a most unfavorable direction. The death and destruction would transcend geopolitical boundaries and possibly spill over into neighboring regions. The humanitarian crisis would overwhelm the unprepared regimes throughout the Middle East. Calls for intervention and relief could result in allies of the United States becoming involved. Meanwhile, the asymmetric nature of much of the fighting will offer new opportunities for many young, motivated men and women to acquire the skills of guerrilla warfare, making them attractive recruits for al-Qaeda and affiliate terrorist organizations. Wars bring an enabling environment for arms trafficking and other sorts of criminal activity, as well as human rights abuses--in some cases, even atrocities like genocide. It is also highly doubtful that, should such a war take place, the victors of the bloodshed will be inclined to establish the sort of liberal, open democratic societies that were fostered and nurtured in Europe and Asia following World War II. The impact of a regional war on the world's increasingly interdependent economy would go beyond the price we pay to heat our homes and fuel our cars, which will increase dramatically. (Of course, this could force more serious private and personal investment in alternative energy sources, which is not a bad thing.) Key shipping lanes, like the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Suez, will become hazardous for all types of commercial vessels. We have already witnessed how instability in the Middle East--punctuated by brief skirmishes like the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in 2006--negatively affects global commodity prices, foreign exchange rates, and other facets of the global economy. A full-blown regional war would naturally exacerbate this. Some observers have suggested that a regional war might actually benefit the United States in some way. For example, it has been suggested that a regional war would compel America to get serious about energy independence, thus helping us cut oil imports and reduce the trade deficit. Others have suggested that a regional war would give the United States an excuse to abandon our commitments in the entire region. And there are the conspiracy advocates who claim that America's defense industrial sector--the world's leading arms exporter--would benefit from a regional war. On a personal level, as someone who over the past several years has watched some of his recent students return from Iraq and Afghanistan in body bags, I find these perspectives incredibly difficult to comprehend or digest. On a more pragmatic level, the unstoppable power of globalization means that the fortunes of nations and people in the Middle East are, and will remain, inextricably intertwined with America's own. Overall, to suggest that war benefits the citizens or institutions of a civilized nation-state raises a variety of moral, ethical, philosophical and pragmatic issues for academic or political debate. However, at the end of the day there is little evidence to indicate that U.S. security, economic growth, or position of leadership in the world could benefit from a regional war in the Middle East. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 96/212 MIDDLE EAST WAR BAD (NUCLEAR WAR) Middle east war goes nuclear John Steinbach, Hiroshima/Nagasaki Peace Committee, March 2002, http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.03/0331steinbachisraeli.htm Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration. Middle East conflict triggers nuclear warfare—end of the Cold War increased the risk of escalation Primakov, 09 [September, Yevgeny, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation; Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; member of the Editorial Board of Russia in Global Affairs. This article is based on the scientific report for which the author was awarded the Lomonosov Gold Medal of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 2008, “The Middle East Problem in the Context of International Relations”] The Middle East conflict is unparalleled in terms of its potential for spreading globally. During the Cold War, amid which the Arab-Israeli conflict evolved, the two opposing superpowers directly supported the conflicting parties : the Soviet Union supported Arab countries, while the United States supported Israel. On the one hand, the bipolar world order which existed at that time objectively played in favor of the escalation of the Middle East conflict into a global confrontation. On the other hand, the Soviet Union and the United States were not interested in such developments and they managed to keep the situation under control. The behavior of both superpowers in the course of all the wars in the Middle East proves that. In 1956, during the Anglo-French-Israeli military invasion of Egypt (which followed Cairo’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal Company) the United States – contrary to the widespread belief in various countries, including Russia – not only refrained from supporting its allies but insistently pressed – along with the Soviet Union – for the cessation of the armed action. Washington feared that the tripartite aggression would undermine the positions of the West in the Arab world and would result in a direct clash with the Soviet Union. Fears that hostilities in the Middle East might acquire a global dimension could materialize also during the Six-Day War of 1967. On its eve, Moscow and Washington urged each other to cool down their “clients.” When the war began, both superpowers assured each other that they did not intend to get involved in the crisis militarily and that that they would make efforts at the United Nations to negotiate terms for a ceasefire. On July 5, the Chairman of the Soviet Government, Alexei Kosygin, who was authorized by the Politburo to conduct negotiations on behalf of the Soviet leadership, for the first time ever used a hot line for this purpose. After the USS Liberty was attacked by Israeli forces, which later claimed the attack was a case of mistaken identity, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson immediately notified Kosygin that the movement of the U.S. Navy in the Mediterranean Sea was only intended to help the crew of the attacked ship and to investigate the incident. The situation repeated itself during the hostilities of October 1973. Russian publications of those years argued that it was the Soviet Union that prevented U.S. military involvement in those events. In contrast, many U.S. authors claimed that a U.S. reaction thwarted Soviet plans to send troops to the Middle East. Neither statement is true. The atmosphere was really quite tense. Sentiments both in Washington and Moscow were in favor of interference, yet both capitals were far from taking real action. When U.S. troops were put on high alert, Henry Kissinger assured Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin that this was done largely for domestic considerations and should not be seen by Moscow as a hostile act. In a private conversation with Dobrynin, President Richard Nixon said the same, adding that he might have overreacted but that this had been done amidst a hostile campaign against him over Watergate. Meanwhile, Kosygin and Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko at a Politburo meeting in Moscow strongly rejected a proposal by Defense Minister Marshal Andrei Grechko to “demonstrate” Soviet military presence in Egypt in response to Israel’s refusal to comply with a UN Security Council resolution. Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev took the side of Kosygin and Gromyko, saying that he was against any Soviet involvement in the conflict. The above suggests an unequivocal conclusion that control by the superpowers in the bipolar world did not allow the Middle East conflict to escalate into a global confrontation . After the end of the Cold War, some scholars and political observers concluded that a real threat of the Arab-Israeli conflict going beyond regional frameworks ceased to exist. However, in the 21st century this conclusion no longer conforms to the reality . The U.S. military operation in Iraq has changed the balance of forces in the Middle East. The disappearance of the Iraqi counterbalance has brought Iran to the fore as a regional power claiming a direct role in various Middle East processes. I do not belong to those who believe that the Iranian leadership has already made a political decision to create nuclear weapons of its own. Yet Tehran seems to have set itself the goal of achieving a technological level that would let it make such a decision (the “Japanese model”) under unfavorable circumstances. Israel already possesses nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles. In such circumstances, the absence of a Middle East settlement opens a dangerous prospect of a nuclear collision in the region, which would have catastrophic consequences for the whole world. The transition to a multipolar world has objectively strengthened the role of states and organizations that are directly involved in regional conflicts, which increases the latter’s danger and reduces the possibility of controlling them. This refers, above all, to the Middle East conflict. The coming of Barack Obama to the presidency has allayed fears that the United States could deliver a preventive strike against Iran (under George W. Bush, it was one of the most discussed topics in the United States). However, fears have increased that such a strike can be launched Yevgeny Primakov 1 3 2 RUSSIA IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS VOL. 7 • No. 3 • JULY – SEPTEMBER• 2009 by Israel, which would have unpredictable consequences for the region and beyond. It seems that President Obama’s position does not completely rule out such a possibility. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 97/212 MIDDLE EAST WAR BAD – NUCLEAR WAR Conflict in the Middle East escalates to a nuclear holocaust London, professor emeritus of New York University, 6/23/10 [Herbert, “The Coming Crisis in the Middle East”, http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=7101&pubType=HI_Opeds] The gathering storm in the Middle East is gaining momentum. War clouds are on the horizon and like conditions prior to World War I all it takes for explosive action to commence is a trigger. Turkey’s provocative flotilla - often described in Orwellian terms as a humanitarian mission has set in motion a flurry of diplomatic activity, but if the Iranians send escort vessels for the next round of Turkish ships, it could present a casus belli. It is also instructive that Syria is playing a dangerous game with both missile deployment and rearming Hezbollah. According to most public accounts Hezbollah is sitting on 40,000 long, medium and short range missiles and Syrian territory has served as a conduit for military material from Iran since the end of the 2006 Lebanon War. Should Syria move its own scuds to Lebanon or deploy its troops as reinforcement for Hezbollah, a wider regional war with Israel could not be contained. In the backdrop is an Iran with sufficient fissionable material to produce a couple of nuclear weapons. It will take some time to weaponize missiles, but the road to that goal is synchronized in green lights since neither diplomacy nor diluted sanctions can convince Iran to change course. Iran is poised to be the hegemon in the Middle East. It is increasingly considered the “strong horse” as American forces incrementally retreat from the region. Even Iraq, ironically, may depend on Iranian ties in order to maintain internal stability. From Qatar to Afghanistan all political eyes are on Iran. For Sunni nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia regional strategic vision is a combination of deal making to offset the Iranian Shia advantage and attempting to buy or develop nuclear weapons as a counter weight to Iranian ambition. However, both of these governments are in a precarious state. Should either fall, all bets are off in the Middle East neighborhood. It has long been said that the Sunni “tent” must stand on two legs, if one, falls, the tent collapses. Should that tent collapse and should Iran take advantage of that calamity, it could incite a Sunni-Shia war. Or feeling its oats and no longer dissuaded by an escalation scenario with nuclear weapons in tow, war against Israel is a distinct possibility. However, implausible it may seem at the moment, the possible annihilation of Israel and the prospect of a second holocaust could lead to a nuclear exchange. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 98/212 MIDDLE EAST WAR GOOD – CHECHEN WAR Middle East war prevents a Chechen war Cetron 07 - president of Forecasting International (Marvin, The Futurist, “Worst-case scenario: the Middle East: current trends indicate that a Middle Eastern war might last for decades”, 9/1, http://www.mywire.com/pubs/TheFuturist/2007/09/01/4296533?page=1) Russia clearly benefits from a Middle Eastern war. In any such scenario, Europe must become even more dependent on Russian oil than it is today, and Russia grows rich. This does not represent a significant change, of course; the trends are going in that direction already. In addition, by drawing Muslim extremists to the Middle East, a war between the Sunni and Shi'ite lands is likely to bring relative stability to Chechnya and the "stans" for so long as it draws terrorist attention away from local goals. Russia can only welcome this development. Chechnya war goes nuclear Blank 01 - (Stephen, Demokratizatsiya, “Russia's Ulster: The Chechen War and its consequences”, Winter, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200101/ai_n8951462/pg_10) Russian military officials and analysts also told me in June 1999 that NATO's Kosovo campaign led doctrine writers to include provisions for deploying tactical nuclear weapons in unspecified conventional threat scenarios.62 In December 1999, Moscow confirmed this when the commander in chief of the Strategic Nuclear Forces, General Vladimir Yakovlev, admitted that Moscow had to lower the threshold of conflict wherein it might launch a first-strike nuclear attack because it could not otherwise defend against local wars and conflicts, a category that could be stretched to include Chechnya.63 The security concept reiterated his statements, overtly expressing Russia's strategy of deterrence and nuclear warfighting for limited and unlimited nuclear war.64 Other authoritative statements by Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Mikhailov confirm the trend toward nuclear warfighting for limited and unlimited nuclear war scenarios and announce Moscow's belief that it can control such situations despite forty years of Soviet argument that no such control was feasible.65 Indeed, the national security concept openly advocated limited nuclear war.66 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 99/212 MIDDLE EAST WAR GOOD – CHINESE DE-DEV Middle East war causes Chinese energy crisis – kills Chinese growth Cetron 07 - president of Forecasting International (Marvin, The Futurist, “Worst-case scenario: the Middle East: current trends indicate that a Middle Eastern war might last for decades”, 9/1, http://www.mywire.com/pubs/TheFuturist/2007/09/01/4296533?page=1) OTHER INTERNATIONAL IMPACTS OF A MIDDLE EASTERN WAR China is well supplied with oil from Africa, which it has on longterm contracts. However, it is even more dependent on Iranian oil, which it would be unlikely to receive. This deficit would lead Beijing to develop its own oil shale, but its reserves are modest. China is likely to find its economic growth--and its global power--reduced for many years. Chinese economic growth leads to war over Taiwan Lei 7 (David; Assoc Prof SMU; Winter 07 Orbis; Outsourcing and China’s Rising Economic Power; p. 38) BHB Chinese economic growth will complicate the strategic balance in East Asia. The ongoing war of words with Taiwan represents an enduring dilemma for U.S. policymakers, especially as Chinese missile strength expands each year on its side of the Taiwan strait. From the prism of U.S. containment, Chinese military planners tend to view U.S.-based Pacific forces as a threat.13 Conversely, Pentagon war-fighting scenarios acknowledge mounting Chinese force-projection capabilities beyond the Taiwan strait into the western Pacific. Some military planners feel that U.S. carrier battle groups face a rising danger of saturated Chinese missile and air attacks from newly developed air-to-ship missiles.14 Taiwan war causes extinction Strait Times 2k (The Straits Times (Singapore), “No one gains in war over Taiwan”, June 25, 2000, L/N) The doomsday scenario THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. MajorGeneral Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 100/212 MIDDLE EAST WAR GOOD – ISRAELI SECURITY Middle East war reduces risk of attack on Israel CETRON AND DAVIES SEPTEMBER 1 2007 (Marvin, president of Forecasting International Ltd.; Owen, former senior editor at Omni magazine and freelance writer, The Futurist) There are implications here for Israel as well. If Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah are invigorated by the chaos of regional war, they will also be divided by it. Some of their partisans may remain focused on Israel, but many will be drawn away by the larger conflict. There aredangers here for Israel, such as that Muslim radicals will gain still more influence in the region, but on balance the problems of a Middle Eastern war seem unlikely to be much greater than the ones Israel faces today. Impact is nuke war BERES 1997 (Louis Rene, Prof of International Law at Purdue, Armed Forces and Society, Summer) Should Israel absorb a massive conventional attack by enemy states, a nuclear retaliation could not be ruled out, especially if the aggressor were perceived to hold nuclear or other unconventional weapons in reserve, or Israel's leaders were to believe that nonnuclear retaliations could not prevent destruction of the Third Commonwealth. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 101/212 MIDDLE EAST WAR GOOD (NUCLEAR POWER) 1/2 Middle east instability and war will fuel the development of new nuclear reactors in the United States Marvin Cetron (President of Forecasting International) and Owen Daniels (Former Senior Editor of Omni Magazine) 2007 “WorstCase Scenario: the Middle East,” The Futurist That leaves the matter of oil. The Middle East produces nearly 31 percent of the world’s oil and consumes only one-fifth of its own output. About two-thirds of the petroleum used in the United States is imported. Perhaps one-fourth of that—around one-sixth of total consumption—comes from the Middle East. Japan imports all its oil, most of from the Middle East. Europe, India, and China all depend, to greater or lesser degrees, on Middle Eastern oil. If something disrupts the flow of almost one-third of the world’s oil, as a major war in the Middle East inevitably would, the cost of energy in the throughout the world will soar. This is a recipe for prolonged recession, and perhaps even depression, in the United States and most of its trading partners. In the short run, healing the American economy would mean accepting measures that many Americans would prefer to avoid. The United States could wind up competing with China for oil in totalitarian states that Washington currently shuns. It also might use its intelligence agencies to promote more favorable policies in Venezuela. Tapping the oil reserves beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve becomes a given in this scenario. To prevent needless environmental damage, drilling would be limited to the winter, when the ground is rock-hard. In addition, the oil would be transported through double-walled pipelines to prevent spills. The pristine Alaskan environment still would suffer, but this concern would no longer prevent drilling. The West Coast also would be opened to drilling, though at distances beyond 20 miles from the beaches, not 10, as the law currently requires. The risk of environmental damage here too would be considered an acceptable price for economic survival. Less controversially, the U.S. surely would buy still more oil from Canada, where a significant new field has recently been discovered, and would develop the deep-water deposits under the Gulf of Mexico much faster than anyone now plans. The United States also needs at least seven new atomic power plants to meet its current and future demand for electricity. An energy crisis finally would break the country’s de facto ban on new reactors, allowing the construction of at least those seven. These first generating stations would use safe hot- water reactors. Even safer technologies lie further in the future, and they are likely to be adopted once they become available. Expanding the use of atomic energy of course means finding somewhere to put still more nuclear waste. This is not a technological problem, so much as a political one. The ideal hiding place for atomic waste was recognized almost as soon as anyone considered the problem. The salt domes of Louisiana have been geologically stable and free of water for hundreds of millions of years; if they had not been, water would long since have washed the salt away. Nuclear waste could safely be stored in one of them until it decayed to the level of background radiation. However, thanks to Louisiana’s political power decades ago, the law forbids consideration of any depository other than the Yucca Mountain site now being developed by the Atomic Energy Agency. In an energy emergency, that law is likely to be rescinded and the country will finally do the obvious. Nuclear waste will be buried in salt domes and forgotten. We can expect a much stronger push for alternative energy as well. Given the proper incentives —and a world oil shortage seems likely to qualify—solar, wind, and other renewable power technologies already have proved useful. Germany, where cloudy days are common, is home to 15 of the world’s largest photovoltaic power plants. The American Southwest would be a much more costefficient place to collect solar power. Add in expanded use of wind power where it is most available, perhaps some wave energy on the coasts, and a much stronger effort to develop biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, and alternative energy stands a good chance of helping out if Middle Eastern oil suddenly becomes unavailable. Yet it will not be available immediately, and it will replace all the energy now coming from the Middle East . For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 102/212 MIDDLE EAST WAR GOOD (NUCLEAR POWER) 2/2 Nuclear power expansion across the globe is inevitable, it risk a new round of nuclear proliferation, ONLY a US renaissance in the nuclear industry can prevent a new round of nuclear proliferation Shaun Waterman (UPI Homeland and National Security Editor) 7/8/2008 “Report urges U.S. to embrace nuclear power growth, despite risks”, UPI WASHINGTON, July 8 (UPI) -- A report from a State Department advisory panel says a coming large expansion in global nuclear power generation poses proliferation risks, but the United States must embrace it to ensure that nuclear supplier nations build safeguards into the growing market. The report highlights division among experts about the future of civil nuclear power across the globe, the risks it poses, and the degree to which U.S. policy should support its spread. Some critics of the report say the expansion of nuclear power is not inevitable and should be resisted. A task force of the International Security Advisory Board -- chaired by former Pentagon and World Bank official Paul Wolfowitz -- produced the report, titled "Proliferation Implications of the Global Expansion of Civil Nuclear Power," in response to a request from Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph. The task force, led by former Reagan and Bush I arms negotiator and government scientist C. Paul Robinson, produced their relatively brief (10 pages, with about twice that in appendices and introductory material) report in just two months earlier this year. A copy was posted recently on the State Department Web site. The report says global demand for power is likely to rise by 100 percent by 2030. "Nuclear energy is likely to be in great demand because of the large price increases for oil and natural gas and the fact that nuclear power produces no carbon (or other) emissions." Robinson bluntly says the expansion of civil nuclear energy generation is not just inevitable, it is already under way. "You just have to read the newspapers to see that this is the case ," he told United Press International. The report cites a list prepared by the State Department in 2007 of a dozen countries planning to join the nuclear power club, or "giving serious consideration" to it, within the next 10 years -- including the former Soviet Central Asian nations of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan; Islamic giants Indonesia, Egypt and Turkey; and Poland and the Baltic states. Fifteen other nations -- including Algeria, Ghana, Libya, Malaysia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen -- have "longerterm plans or studies under way," according to the State Department list. While wealthier countries "can try to buy their way out" of the looming energy crunch, "the Third World does not have that option," and there are few real alternatives to nuclear power for many countries. "There has proved to be no silver bullet in renewable or other alternative energy sources." The report says there are currently 435 nuclear reactors operating around the world, with 28 new ones currently under construction. It says 222 more are being planned. "It's a pretty depressing prospect," Robinson concluded. One of the key concerns is the two principal ways of making nuclear fuel -- the enrichment of uranium, for instance, in huge installations of centrifuges; and the reprocessing of spent fuel into plutonium -- can too easily be used to make weapons-grade material for nuclear bombs. So the panel recommends the United States -- in partnership with other countries that already have the capacity to make fuel, the "supplier nations" -- volunteer to "provide reliable, economical supplies of fuel to nations undertaking new or additional nuclear energy plants" with tough safeguards to prevent them developing their own capacities. But critics challenge their premise, saying the idea that the growth of nuclear power generation is inevitable is a canard. Many of those 435 reactors currently operating are due to be retired in the next 20 to 30 years, points out Henry Sokolski, a proliferation expert who worked for Wolfowitz in the Bush I administration and now sits on the congressionally mandated blue-ribbon panel examining the threat of terrorist attacks using nuclear material or other weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear energy is too expensive and too risky to be a commercially viable venture without government support, he told UPI. "There's a reason no one in the private sector wants to do this with their own money," Sokolski said. "Nuclear power is a hard sell, literally. ... What the (U.S.) nuclear industry is doing is asking for government handouts, in the form of tax credits, loan guarantees and insurance caps." Reprocessing is also not economically feasible without government financial support. "Working with plutonium requires special safety measures which are very expensive," Sokolski said. The idea that new technologies could help make generation or reprocessing economical is "atomic pie in the sky. The advances required are as far off as making fusion-generation practical, in terms of technology." Expansion is "not inevitable, it is contingent" on U.S. policy changes. "Maybe nuclear power won't expand. It shrank by 2 percent last year," he said. Sokolski called the report "disappointing." He said its authors "seem to be in the business of promoting the expansion of nuclear power, rather than examining the risks associated with its expansion. ... They should have explained in more detail why we should be concerned." But the report does make a bald statement, that the expansion of civil nuclear generating capacity "particularly within Third World nations, inevitably increases the risks of proliferation. What the United States must do," it concludes, "is find ways to mitigate those risks." "Something is afoot, and we can't put on blinkers and pretend it's not happening," said Robinson. Nuclear proliferation results in extinction Utgoff 2002 [Victor A., Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions”, pgs. 87-90] In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 103/212 MIDDLE EAST WAR GOOD (RUSSIAN ECONOMY) Middle East conflict won’t escalate to all-out war but tensions sustain demand for arms imports Neumann 1995 (Robert, Journal of International Affairs, Summer) More important for Middle East security are political considerations. The reality of U.S. domestic politics dictates the continuation of the very high level of U.S. assistance to Israel. Even though the new Republican majority The Israeli military doctrine requires that Israel remain qualitatively superior not only to its individual Arab neighbors, but to any combination of Arab states, and this is unlikely to change. In view of these considerations, a war between some or all Arab states and Israel has now become a practical and rational improbability. Even irrational attacks , in light of such odds, are most unlikely, unless suicidal policies are to be assumed.(18) Of in Congress may try to reduce the overall level of U.S. foreign assistance, the quantity and sophistication of U.S. arms exports to Israel are not likely to suffer greatly in the foreseeable future. course wars are not always started to be won. Anwar al-Sadat began his war against Israel in 1973 without any expectation of victory in the usually accepted form. He hoped for tactical, if not strategic, surprise--which he achieved--and he aimed at shaking up both the Israeli and the U.S. establishments. The eventual result was the Camp David Agreement. Today such a situation is unlikely.(19) Yet the arms race in conventional weapons is bound to continue for other reasons . That’s key to the Russian economy Rivlin 5 – Senior Research Fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Tel Aviv University (Dr. Paul, “The Russian Economy and Arms Exports to the Middle East,” The Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies) In the years 1994-98, Russian arms exports to the Middle East exceeded $2 billion and those of the US totaled $17.6 billion.2 Russia’s arms exports to the Middle East increased rapidly in the second half of the 1990s, at a much faster rate than those of other suppliers, and in 2003 alone they totaled almost $1.5 billion. Since 2000, the Middle East has accounted for 18 percent of Russian arms exports and Russia sees the region as an important market for arms and nuclear equipment, one that it is determined to retain. Yet these exports, and especially sales of nuclear materials to Iran, are highly controversial on the international scene and therefore have exacted a political price for Russia in the West and in Israel. This study examines why Russia persists in these sales nonetheless, and why it is likely to do so in the future. Three principal explanations can be posited to account for the controversial export policy. The first is economic necessity: Russia has little to sell abroad except oil and arms, and the latter provides a vital source of employment for Russian scientists, technicians, and engineers who might otherwise emigrate in search of better professional opportunities. The second explanation is political: Russia has important political interests in the Middle East that are advanced by selling arms and nuclear materials. The third is what might be called “chaos theory”: the Russian government lost control and the result was that different public and private sector bodies followed their own interests rather The state of the Russian economy is a function of its Soviet past, and the structure that the Soviets built was a response to their geo-political position, strongly influenced by Marxist thinking (appendix1). This pattern of development isolated the Soviet Union from world markets and resulted in Soviet goods being uncompetitive on international markets. The Soviet economy developed on the basis of exploiting raw materials, together with heavy industry and large-scale production. The communist system, dominated by an archaic central planning mechanism, was unable to respond to changes in demand, and the economy did not diversify sufficiently. As a result its exports were mainly confined to raw materials and arms. When Russia became an independent state in 1991, it had little to sell abroad except oil, gas, and arms, and it was forced to rely heavily on fluctuating income from oil and gas sales. than those of the state.3 This study contends that the first two explanations are the key to understanding Russia’s Middle East arms export policy. Russian economic collapse causes nuclear war David 99 (Steven, Professor of Political Sciences at John Hopkins University, Foreign Affairs, Proquest AT NO TIME since the civil war of 1918-Zo has Russia been closer to bloody conflict than it is today. The fledgling government confronts a vast array of problems without the power to take effective action. For 70 years, the Soviet Union operated a strong state apparatus, anchored by the KGB and the Communist Party. Now its disintegration has created a power vacuum that has yet to be filled. Unable to rely on popular ideology or coercion to establish control, the government must prove itself to the people and establish its authority on the basis of its performance. But the Yeltsin administration has abjectly failed to do so, and it cannot meet the most basic needs of the Russian people. Russians know they can no longer look to the state for personal security, law enforcement, education, sanitation, health care, or even electrical power. In the place of government authority, criminal groups-the Russian Mafia-increasingly hold sway. Expectations raised by the collapse of communism have been bitterly disappointed, and If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause Moscow's inability to govern coherently raises the specter of civil unrest. . From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 5o percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundation-personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet If these rebellions spread civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia-even though in decline-does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China . Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. and Moscow responds with force, easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,ooo nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much materiel. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of antiAmerican groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 104/212 MIDDLE EAST WAR GOOD (TERRORISM) Middle East war distracts and moderates terrorists- prevents current and future terrorism Cetron and Davies 7 – *president of Forecasting International Ltd. and **reader in Social History at the University of Hertfordshire (Marvin J. Cetron and Owen Davies, “Worst-case scenario: the Middle East: current trends indicate that Middle Eastern war might last for decades. Here is an overview of the most critical potential impacts,” The Futurist, 9/1/07, http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices/5523341-1.html) Terrorism, quelling the threat. Terrorism is fundamentally a separate issue from the U.S. relationship with Israel. Al-Qaeda and its allies object to any U.S. presence in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia, the location of Mecca. For al-Qaeda, supporting the Palestinian cause is little more than an opportunity to curry favor among moderate Muslims. As things stand, a sustained and convincing display of even-handedness toward the Palestinians by the United States could weaken moderates' support for al-Qaeda, and this can only be beneficial for the West. However, a Middle Eastern war changes that equation. In any credible future, we can expect to see much the same level of terrorism we already are accustomed to. Hotels owned or patronized by Americans will be bombed all too often. The United States and its allies will lose the occasional embassy. There may even be another attack on the scale of the World Trade Center every decade. But will a regional war bring more terrorism against the West or less ? We see two possibilities. An all-out war between the Sunni and Shi'ite lands could reduce the amount of anti-Western terrorism. In. this scenario, extremists throughout the Muslim world would rush toward the Middle East to fight for whichever side of the conflict holds their allegiance. Most are likely to be Sunnis, as they form a large majority in most of the Muslim world. These extremists will be too busy killing their fellow Muslims to bother much with the United States and its allies. Eventually, they could turn the training and experience won in the Middle East against the West. But it is at least possible that a long internal conflict might finally slake the extremists' appetite for slaughter. And two or three decades is long enough for the West to demonstrate good will toward Islam and reduce the appeal of jihad. Impact’s extinction Corsi ‘5 [Jerome. PhD in Poli Sci from Harvard, Expert in Politically-Motivated Violence. Atomic Iran, Pg 176-8//] The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom. The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy –Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world – more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us. [CONTINUES} Or the president might decide simply to launch a limited nuclear strike on Tehran itself. This might be the most rational option in the attempt to retaliate but still communicate restraint. The problem is that a strike on Tehran would add more nuclear devastation to the world calculation. Muslims around the world would still see the retaliation as an attack on Islam, especially when the United States had no positive proof that the destruction of New York City had been triggered by radical Islamic extremists with assistance from Iran . But for the president not to retaliate might be unacceptable to the American people. So weakened by the loss of New York, Americans would feel vulnerable in every city in the nation. "Who is going to be next?" would be the question on everyone's mind. For this there would be no effective answer. That the president might think politically at this instant seems almost petty, yet every president is by nature a politician. The political party in power at the time of the attack would be destroyed unless the president retaliated with a nuclear strike against somebody. The American people would feel a price had to be paid while the country was still capable of exacting revenge. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 105/212 MIDDLE EAST WAR GOOD (WARMING) Middle East instability directly causes transition to renewable energy Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House) July 24 2006 “Winning the Argument About the Third World War,” Eagle Publishing Moreover, I agree with you that we must find alternatives to oil by investing in new technologies to produce safe, clean, reliable, efficient and inexpensive fuels here at home. The recent high cost of oil and the instability in the Middle East should provide the political will and financial incentive to do just that. In fact, just this week, I sent my policy director Vince Haley on a bio-renewable fuels fact-finding mission in the Midwest. Renewable shift because of high oil prices solves climate change Steve Yetiv (professor of political science and international studies at Old Dominion University) February 6 2006 “America benefits from high oil prices,” San Diego Union-Tribune, http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060206/news_mz1e6yetiv.html In particular, what can high oil prices do that America's energy policy fails to do? First, sooner or later, high oil prices spur the development of alternative energy resources because they make it more profitable to produce them. The higher prices go, the more entrepreneurs and companies around the world work to move us beyond the hazardous petroleum era. Second, the higher oil prices go, the more likely automakers will mass-produce more efficient, less pricey vehicles. That is precisely what we need to shift the current oil-guzzling paradigm. A joint report by the Transportation Research Institute's Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation at the University of Michigan and the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that higher oil prices will hurt America's top automakers by decreasing sales of SUVs and pickup trucks. The report calls on them to make fuel efficient vehicles their top priority to better the country and their bottom line. Most automakers are experimenting with fuel cell vehicles that run on hydrogen rather than oil. They are also selling 2005 hybrid vehicles that run on an internal combustion engine, as do conventional cars, plus an electric motor. Depending on the car, they yield between 10 percent and 50 percent better gas mileage than regular vehicles, and far better mileage than the ubiquitous SUV. But hybrids represent a drop in the market bucket, because automakers have so far made their profits by mass-producing less efficient, money-making vehicles. And fuel cell vehicles aren't expected to reach the market until 2010. High oil prices are an incentive for making efficient vehicles on a mass, affordable scale, and sooner rather than later. Third, high oil prices make consumers less likely to waste gas and more likely to buy hybrids. In Europe, high gas prices – roughly double that in the United States – have led to mass adoption of hybrids. Investment banking firm Goldman Sachs predicts that gas prices would have to hit $4.30 a gallon in the United States to change the gas-guzzling culture. But it is better to see the impact as relative to price. Fourth, high oil prices benefit the environment. Indeed, one study has shown that a broad energy tax on carbon content in fuels would reduce oil use and carbon emissions by over 10 percent. For that matter, vehicles that run on fuel cells emit only water and heat as waste, and hybrids emit more limited emissions than conventional vehicles. Since carbon emissions cause global warming – a scientific fact rather than science fiction – we should tip our hats to high oil prices, in this respect. Fifth, high oil prices are raising consciousness about the hazards of the oil era. Ninety-three percent of Americans believe that oil dependence is a serious problem. Although they still act like oil is an entitlement, pricey oil may lead them eventually to put pressure on politicians to move toward greater oil independence, as reflected perhaps in President Bush's speech. Of course, higher oil prices are painful. But, over time they can serve the environment, decrease our dependence on Middle East oil, especially from countries like Iran which uses oil money to build nuclear capability and force us to take actions that make us less vulnerable when oil starts to dwindle in the future. Warming causes extinction Oliver Tickell (Climate Researcher) August 11 2008 “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange) We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable , bringing long-term sea level rises of 7080 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die . Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 106/212 NANOTECH BAD – ARMS RACE A. Rapid nanotech development leads to an uncontrolled arms race – creates a cycle of competition and confrontation Mark Avram Gubrud, Superconductivity Researcher – University of Maryland, 1997. “Nanotechnology and International Security,” Foresight Institute, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/ * The prospect of revolutionary advances in military capabilities will stimulate competition to develop and apply the new technologies toward war preparations, as falling behind would imply an intolerable security risk. Indeed, it is plausible that a nation which gained a sufficient lead in molecular nanotechnology would at some point be in a position to simply disarm any potential competitors. * If two or more technologically advanced nations or blocs exist in de facto confrontation, regardless of political differences or other substantial conflicts of interest, then competition to apply the advanced technologies could segue directly into an uncontrolled arms race — unless restraints have been put in place before the new technologies can be applied. * A race to develop early military applications of molecular manufacturing could yield sudden breakthroughs, leading to the abrupt emergence of new and unfamiliar threats, and provoking political and military reactions which further reinforce a cycle of competition and confrontation. B. Militarized nanotechnology would lead to war and genocide. McCarthy in ’95 (Tom, nanotechnology writer, “War in the Age of the Invisible Machines,” http://www.mccarthy.cx/WorldSystem/) Weapons have a history of becoming more deadly over time. Much of the evolution of weapons has been driven by the need to overcome defenses built to counter a previous generation of offensive weapons; the crossbow, for instance, was developed to pierce the plate armour that had been invented to defend against arrows and swords. Other weapons have followed a different path, a path of growing destructiveness that aims for more "bang for the buck." The bomb is the clearest example of this type of weapon, and its history has a clear path from the bombs of the Second World War (the "Blockbuster") to the Due to the small scale it works on, molecular manufacturing will allow for the creation of invisible weapons, dreadful and insidious in the same way as biological and chemical warfare. But nanoweapons will also be more precise than biological and chemical weapons because of how they are made. Nanoweapons will be made with an atomic precision that will allow the creation of actual robots smaller than the agents used in biological weapons, and as robots they will be programmable. This will mean weapons that can evade defenses and strike predetermined targets, much as cruise missiles do, but on an invisible scale. Biological and chemical weapons have, and deserve, an atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb and finally today's breed of thermonuclear bombs that pack the equivalent of hundreds of Hiroshima bombs. Nanoweapons will advance the state of the art in weaponry in both ways. ignominious reputation. It is hard to think of them as tools of honest warfare because they cannot be controlled once they are released. They travel with the wind, killing everything they come in contact with, soldier and citizen alike; one cannot surrender before them, and they take no prisoners. They do not even discriminate between "enemy" and "friend." They have only one purpose: to kill. Most other weapons can also be used to bring wars to end through means other than killing: factories can be shelled or bombed, tanks can be crippled, bridges can be brought down with dynamite, missile silos can be blown from the ground. But chemical and biological MNT may extend the capabilities of such "dirty" weapons, making total genocide a matter of programming, rather than favorable wind conditions. The possibilities for genocidal weapons are not hard to conceive. It may be possible, for example, to program a release of nanoweapons to move steadily from all sides of the border of an enemy country to the center (taking positional readings from Global Positioning satellites), killing everything they come in contact with, and thus effecting the elimination of an entire nation. weapons reek of genocide, of wiping an enemy from existence rather than simply defeating him. C. Nanotech conflict is the only scenario for extinction—it outweighs nuclear war. Bailey in ‘8 (Ronald, science editor for Reason magazine “The End of Humanity,” July 22, http://www.reason.com/news/show/127676.html) While nuclear war and nuclear terrorism would be catastrophic, the presenters acknowledged that neither constituted existential risks; that is, a risk that they could cause the extinction of humanity. But the next two risks, self-improving artificial intelligence and nanotechnology, would. D. Our scenario is the most likely for extinction - regulating military nanotech is impossible—a nanoevent would be inevitable – prefer our evidence Marlow, 4 (John Robert, nanotechnology author, “Interview with John Robert Marlow on the Superswarm Option,” Nanotechnology Now, http://www.nanotech-now.com/John-Marlow-Superswarm-interview-Feb04.htm) First, there's the issue of enforcement: who's in charge here-and who will watch the watchers? Who's going to tell the United States: "Hey-you can't do that…?" Self-regulation may be a bit optimistic when dealing with something which can destroy the planet if mishandled. Active shields might be one approach; the superswarm option is another. A second potential problem is the prohibition on independently-functioning subassemblies, which are crucial to superswarm implementation. Lastly, there are the proposed prohibition on self-replication in open environments, the proposed restriction on self-evolution, and the requirement that replicating nanites be dependent upon one of three things: a) an artificial energy source; b) an artificial vitamin, or; c) a broadcast transmission. All of these seem quite rational at first glance-though such restrictions would make superswarm implementation (as currently envisioned) impossible. The problem is that wars do not take place in sealed laboratories, and no military establishment is going to pay much attention to these guidelines because following them renders nanoweapons useless. If nanites cannot replicate on the battlefield, they will be less effective than those which can, and become vulnerable to destruction; if they rely upon an artificial vitamin or energy source, their battlefield usefulness is compromised or destroyed, and they will be inferior to those operating with no such hindrance; if they depend upon a broadcast signal, that signal can be duplicated or jammed. Further, the development of such safeguards, even if desired, would slow deployment-for which reason they're not likely to be implemented. So the military-ours as well those of other nations-is basically going to throw this guidebook out the window. Which is not to say it doesn't have its uses; it does. But the most likely source of a large-scale nanoevent is nanoweaponry-and the institutions developing it are precisely those which are least likely to concern themselves with cumbersome safeguards. They are also those most likely to be conducting research and development activities under the all-concealing cloak of national security. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 107/212 NANOTECH BAD (ECONOMY) Nanotechnology would collapse multiple major sectors of the economy Mike Treder, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 1-17-2005 http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/what_we_believe/index.html Josh Wolfe of Lux Capital, editor of the Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report, says, "Quite simply, the world is about to be rebuilt (and improved) from the atom up. That means tens of trillions of dollars to be spent on everything: clothing, food, cars, housing, medicine, the devices we use to communicate and recreate, the quality of the air we breathe, and the water we drink—all Nanotechnology will shake up just about every business on the planet." Low-cost local manufacturing and duplication of designs could lead to economic upheaval, as major economic sectors contract or even collapse. To give one example, the global steel industry is worth over $700 billion. What will happen to the millions of jobs associated with that industry -- and to the capital supporting it -- when materials many times stronger than steel can be produced quickly and cheaply wherever they are needed ? Advanced nanotechnology could make solar power a realistic and preferable are about to undergo profound and fundamental change. And as a result, so will the socio and economic structure of the world. alternative to traditional energy sources. Around the world, individual energy consumers pay over $600 billion a year for utility bills and fuel supplies. Commercial and industrial use drives the figures higher still. When much of this spending can be permanently replaced with off-grid solar energy, many more jobs will be displaced. The worldwide semiconductor industry produces annual billings of over $150 billion. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the industry employs a domestic workforce of nearly 300,000 people. Additionally, U.S. retail distribution of electronics products amounts to almost $300 billion annually. All of these areas will be significantly impacted if customized electronics products can be produced at home for about dollar a pound, the likely cost of raw materials. If molecular manufacturing allows any individual to make products containing computing power a million times greater than today’s PCs, where will those jobs go? Other nations will be affected as well. For example, the Chinese government may welcome the advent of exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing for several reasons, including its potential to radically reduce poverty and reduce catastrophic environmental problems. But at the same time, China relies on foreign direct investment (FDI) of over $40 billion annually for much of its current economic strength. When those dollars to purchase Chinese manufactured goods stop flowing in, the required adjustments may not be easy and could result in violent struggles. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 108/212 NANOTECH BAD (GREY GOO) Development of nanotech leads to the creation of self-replicating nanobots, which will replicate out of control Sean Howard, British political scientist and editor of Disarmament Diplomacy, 2002. “Nanotechnology and Mass Destruction: The Need for an Inner Space Treaty,” Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue 65 Processes of self-replication, self-repair and self-assembly are an important goal of mainstream nanotechnological research. Either accidentally or by design, precisely such processes could act to rapidly and drastically alter environments, structures and living beings from within. In extremis, such alteration could develop into a 'doomsday scenario', the nanotechnological equivalent of a nuclear chain-reaction an uncontrollable, exponential, self-replicating proliferation of 'nanodevices' chewing up the atmosphere, poisoning the oceans, etc. While accidental mass-destruction, even global destruction, is generally regarded as unlikely -equivalent to fears that a nuclear explosion could ignite the atmosphere, a prospect seriously investigated during the Manhattan Project - a deliberately malicious programming of nanosystems, with devastating results, seems hard to rule out. As Ray Kurzweil points out, if the potential for atomic self-replication is a pipedream, so is nanotechnology, but if the potential is real, so is the risk: "Without self-replication, nanotechnology is neither practical nor economically feasible. And therein lies the rub. What happens if a little software problem (inadvertent or otherwise) fails to halt the self-replication? We may have more nanobots than we want. They could eat up everything in sight. ... I believe that it will be possible to engineer self-replicating nanobots in such a way that an inadvertent, undesired population explosion would be unlikely. ... But the bigger danger is the intentional hostile use of nanotechnology. Once the basic technology is available, it would not be difficult to adapt it as an instrument of war or terrorism. ... Nuclear weapons, for all their destructive potential, are at least relatively local in their effects. The self-replicating nature of nanotechnology makes it a far greater danger."15 Self-replicating nanotech destroys the entire universe – outweighs all other extinction impacts Howard Rheingold, (Appointed lecturer at Stanford, Editor Emeritus of Whole Earth Review, Utne Magazine Independent Press Award, widely recognized as a leading authority on social implications of technology), Fall, 1992, Whole Earth Review, www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_n76/ai_12635777 It looks as if something even more powerful than thermonuclear weaponry is emanating from that same, strangely fated corner of New Mexico where nuclear physicists first knew sin. Those who follow the progress of artificial-life research know that the effects of messing with the engines of evolution might lead to forces even more regrettable than the demons unleashed at Alamogordo. At least nuclear weaponry and biocidal technologies only threaten life on Earth, and don't threaten to contaminate the rest of the universe. That's the larger ethical problem of a-life. The technology of self-replicating machines that could emerge in future decades from today's a-life research might escape from human or even terrestrial control, infest the solar system, and, given time, break out into the galaxy. If there are other intelligent species out there, they might not react benevolently to evidence that humans have dispersed interstellar strip-mining robots that breed, multiply, and evolve. If there are no other intelligent species in existence, maybe we will end up creating God, or the Devil, depending on how our minds' children evolve a billion years from now. The entire story of life on earth thus far might be just the wetware prologue to a longer, larger, drier tale, etched in silicon rather than carbon, and blasted to the stars -- purposive spores programmed to seek, grow, evolve, expand. That's what a few people think they are on the verge of inventing. Scenarios like that make the potential for global thermonuclear war or destruction of the biosphere look like a relatively local problem. Biocide of a few hundred thousand species (including ourselves) is one kind of ethical problem; turning something like the Alien loose on the cosmos is a whole new level of ethical lapse. The timeframe is amazingly fast, self-replicating nanoassemblers would destroy all life on earth in 72 hours – gray goo would smother everything Mark Pesce, BS Candidate at MIT, October, 1999, “Thinking Small,” FEED Magazine, http://hyperreal.org/~mpesce/ThinkingSmall.html The nanoassembler is the Holy Grail of nanotechnology; once a perfected nanoassembler is available, almost anything becomes possible – which is both the greatest hope and biggest fear of the nanotechnology community. Sixty years ago, John Von Neumann – who, along with Alan Turing founded the field of computer science – surmised that it would someday be possible to create machines that could copy themselves, a sort of auto-duplication which could lead from a single instance to a whole society of perfect copies. Although such a Von Neumann machine is relatively simple in theory, such a device has never been made – because it’s far easier, at the macromolecular scale, to build a copy of a machine than it is to get the machine to copy itself. At the molecular level, this balance is reversed; it’s far easier to get a nanomachine to copy itself than it is to create another one from scratch. This is an enormous boon – once you have a single nanoassembler you can make as many as you might need – but it also means that a nanoassembler is the perfect plague. If – either intentionally or through accident – a nanoassembler were released into the environment, with only the instruction to be fruitful and multiply, the entire surface of the planet – plants, animals and even rocks - would be reduced to a “gray goo” of such nanites in little more than 72 hours. This “gray goo problem”, well known in nanotechnology acts as a check against the unbounded optimism which permeates scientific developments in atomic-scale devices. Drexler believes the gray goo problem mostly imaginary, but does admit the possibility of a “gray dust” scenario, in which replicating nanites “smother” the Earth in a blanket of sub-microscopic forms. In either scenario, the outcome is much the same. And here we encounter a technological danger unprecedented in history: If we had stupidly blown ourselves to kingdom come in a nuclear apocalypse, at least the cockroaches would have survived. But in a gray goo scenario, nothing – not even the bacteria deep underneath the ground – would be untouched. Everything would become one thing: a monoculture of nanites. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 109/212 NANOTECH BAD (PROLIF) Nanotech development increases nuclear proliferation – countries would want to defend themselves from nanotechnic aggression Mark Avram Gubrud, Superconductivity Researcher – University of Maryland, 1997. “Nanotechnology and International Security,” Foresight Institute, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/ * An increase of nuclear arsenals, deployment in more secure, covert basing modes, and development of new delivery systems designed to penetrate defenses , would prolong the reign of nuclear deterrence and postpone the day of possible vulnerability to nanotechnic aggression. Thus a nuclear power or potential nuclear power, especially one that was behind in the technology race, might want to retain its nuclear options or even expand its nuclear arsenal. Advanced nanotechnology should also facilitate a possible nuclear rearmament to levels manyfold higher than those of the Cold War. Thus it is possible that the result of a nanotechnic arms race will be rampant nuclear proliferation and the expansion of major nuclear arsenals to warhead counts in the hundred thousands or millions — A new "balance of terror," but note that a balance is not necessarily stable. Nuclear proliferation results in extinction Utgoff 2002 [Victor A., Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions”, pgs. 87-90] In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 110/212 NANOTECH GOOD (ARMS RACES) Nanotech depresses the motivations for arms races and arms racing is born out of psychology and not technology Jim Logajan Co-director of the MOD Business Newsgroup, 7-6-2004 http://venusia.golgothe.net/pipermail/sci.nanotech/2004July/001210.html Since nanotechnology will make irrelevant many of the motivations that drive national antagonisms, the more fundamental question is "Are nanotech arms races ever likely to arise?" - not "Are they unstable?" Furthermore, an objective list would have included those aspects of nanotechnology that lent stability to any ensuing arms race as well as those that caused instability. As a result, the list appears subjective, making it an inaccurate assessment of probable futures, and therefore of little value in determining policy. It needs to be redone with more objectivity, IMHO. 1) Cheaper to develop and test That is an odd claim to make since history has already invalidated it: An understanding of the physical laws needed to develop nuclear technology, microtechnology, and nanotechnology were all in place at the end of the 1930s. Nuclear reactors and bombs now exist, as do microelectronic devices, yet no MNT device yet exists. And Feynman spoke of MNT-like capabilities and their great promise back in 1959 - and yet they still don't exist. Therefore I simply can't reconcile your claim with reality. Furthermore, even when the first MNT assembler or nanofactory arrives on the scene, the design and development problems do not go away. The . And of course, it isn't clear why this makes a nanotech arms race "unstable". The "stability" of said race eventually rests on the psychology and motivations of the participants. If the intent of one side is to use the arms once they believe they have superiority, then a subsequent arms race is potentially unstable - but the technology involved is irrelevant. technology will be in virgin territory and there will be teething problems in the design of products and in each generation of device. Each of these problems will takes months and possibly even years to work out For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 111/212 NANOTECH GOOD (DISEASES) Continued nanotechnology development is key to solve new diseases that result in extinction Mike Treder, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 1-17-2005 http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/what_we_believe/index.html The second major reason to favor early development is -- if it's done right -- molecular manufacturing could save millions of lives per year and greatly decrease the environmental damage we're already doing. The costs of delay (opportunity costs) are significant, and may even outweigh the risks of development. This issue of potential humanitarian benefits is highlighted by the current concerns over a feared pandemic of an especially deadly avian flu virus. "We at WHO [World Health Organization] believe that the world is now in the gravest possible danger of a pandemic," states Dr. Shigeru Omi, the WHO’s Western Pacific regional director. He says the world is "now overdue" for an influenza pandemic, since mass epidemics have occurred every 20 to 30 years. It has been nearly 40 years since the last one. For many reasons, including thronging urban populations and high rates of overseas travel, health and government officials fear that an imminent flu pandemic could kill many millions. New diseases such as the avian flu continue to be a threat to the human race. Naturally occurring diseases could be more devastating than any pandemic in decades, and an engineered disease could conceivably wipe out most of the human race. It is becoming increasingly important to have a technology base that can detect new diseases even before symptoms appear, and create a cure in a matter of days. Molecular manufacturing will enable such a rapid response. With complete genomes and proteomes for humans and for all known pathogens, plus cheap, highly parallel DNA and protein analysis and sufficient computer resources along with new MM-based monitoring and diagnostic tools, it will be possible to spot any new pathogen almost immediately and begin aggressive countermeasures. This isn't a guarantee that diseases and epidemics won't occur, but clearly it could save millions of lives and untold human suffering. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 112/212 NANOTECH GOOD (ECONOMY) Nanotech is key to the economy Ronald Bailey, Science Correspondent for Reason and former FERC analyst, 12-1-2004. “The smaller the better: the limitless promise of nanotechnology--and the growing peril of a moratorium.” http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3334354/The-smaller-thebetter-the.html Nanotechnology cuts across every business and industry, from information processing, telecommunications, and computers to industrial materials and pharmaceuticals. Every industry can benefit from smaller, more efficient products. At an April conference sponsored by the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Mihail Roco, the nanotech guru at the National Science Foundation, noted, "Developments in nanotechnology are going much faster than expected; in fact, development time is less than half that we expected." Roco also flatly declared, "If a company does not enter nanotechnology now--in five years it will be too late--it will be out of business." The NanoBusiness Alliance's Modzelewski estimates there are already 1200 nanotechnology startups in the United States alone, and he predicts that number will double in the next 18 months. Roco, who chairs the National Science mad Technology Council's Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, points out that 75 percent of the 7,000 or so nanotechnology patents are held by Americans. The budget for the National Nanotechnology Initiative has grown from $270 million in 2000 to $774 million in 2003 and is expected to rise to $850 million next year. According to Roco, private nanotech R&D funding is at least three times the government's spending. The National Science Foundation projects that global markets for nanotech products will exceed $1 trillion annually sometime between 2010 and 2015. This will include markets for novel nanoscale materials ($340 billion), new nanotech-enabled pharmaceuticals ($180 billion), and new electronics ($300 billion). For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 113/212 NATO BAD (TERROR) NATO creates backlash and sparks terrorism Koster, researcher for the Socialist Party, 2009 (karil, march and april, NATO – Abolition or Reform? , http://www.basicint.org/pubs/natoshadow.pdf,PG.18, accessed: 6/26/10) There is a fourth problem which may well flow from the intervention wars waged elsewhere, which is that in the modern globalised world with its rapid communication and transportation methods and massive population displacements, ‘blowback’ has become more likely. Although NATO governments argue that operations in, for example, Afghanistan, are necessary to prevent terrorist assault on the soil of member states, the reverse process is seldom mentioned: namely that the operations are themselves the driving force behind jihadi operations in the industrialised world. That is, the assumption that one can wage war elsewhere without consequences for one’s own population is no longer valid. This is all the more so if ethnic or religious minorities who sympathise with the inhabitants of the country where the war is waged, live in the NATO member states involved in such a conflict. Extinction Sid-Ahmed Mohamed, Egyptian Political Analyst, Al-Ahram Newspaper, 8/26/04, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm | SWON What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 114/212 NATO BAD (US RUSSIAN WAR) NATO is useless military and actually risks the US being drawn into a nuclear war with Russia Carpenter 9 (Ted Galen Carpenter, Ph.D., is the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, CATO http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/ pa635.pdf accessed 7/8) CM Although NATO has added numerous new members during the past decade, most of them possess minuscule military capabilities. Some of them also have murky political systems and contentious relations with neighboring states, including (and most troubling) a nuclear-armed Russia. Thus, NATO’s new members are weak, vulnerable, and provocative—an especially dangerous combination for the United States in its role as NATO’s leader. There are also growing fissures in the alliance about how to deal with Russia. The older, West European powers tend to favor a cautious, conciliatory policy, whereas the Central and East European countries advocate a more confrontational, hard-line approach. The United States is caught in the middle of that intra-alliance squabble. Perhaps most worrisome, the defense spending levels and military capabilities of NATO’s principal European members have plunged in recent years. The decay of those military forces has reached the point that American leaders now worry that joint operations with U.S. forces are becoming difficult, if not impossible. The ineffectiveness of the European militaries is apparent in NATO’s stumbling performance in Afghanistan. NATO has outlived whatever usefulness it had. Superficially, it remains an impressive institution, but it has become a hollow shell—far more a political honor society than a meaningful security organization. Yet, while the alliance exists, it is a vehicle for European countries to free ride on the U.S. military commitment instead of spending adequately on their own defenses and taking responsibility for the security of their own region. American calls for greater burden-sharing are even more futile today than they have been over the past 60 years. Until the United States changes the incentives by withdrawing its troops from Europe and phasing out its NATO commitment, the Europeans will happily continue to evade their responsibilities. Today’s NATO is a bad bargain for the United States. We have security obligations to countries that add little to our own military power. Even worse, some of those countries could easily entangle America in dangerous parochial disputes. It is time to terminate this increasingly dysfunctional alliance. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 115/212 NATO CREDIBILITY GOOD – WAR NATO credibility is key to an effective European nuclear deterrent – collapse leads to global nuclear war. O’Sullivan 1998 [John, editor of the National Review, founder of the New Atlantic, June, American Spectator] Some of those ideas--notably, dissolution and "standing pat"--were never likely to be implemented. Quite apart from the sociological law that says organizations never go out of business even if their main aim has been achieved (the only exception being a slightly ominous one, the Committee for the Free World, which Midge Decter closed down after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact), NATO's essential aim has not been permanently achieved. True, the Soviet threat is gone; but a nuclear-armed and potentially unstable Russia is still in the game; a major conflict has just been fought in the very Balkans which sparked the First World War; and there are a number of potential wars and civil wars lurking in such regions as the Tyrol, the Basque country, Northern Ireland (not yet finally settled), Corsica, Belgium, Kosovo, and Eastern Europe and the Balkans generally where, it is said, " every England has its Ireland, and every Ireland its Ulster." If none of these seems to threaten the European peace very urgently at present, that is in part because the existence of NATO makes any such threat futile and even counter-productive. No nation or would-be nation wants to take NATO on. And if not NATO, what? There are international bodies which could mediate some of the lesser conflicts: the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe is explicitly given that responsibility, and the European Union is always itching to show it can play a Big Power role. But neither body has the military heft or the prestige to deter or repress serious strife. The OSCE is a collective security organization, and as Henry Kissinger said of a similar body: "When all participants agree, there is no need for it; when they split, it is useless." And the EU only made itself look ridiculous when it attempted to halt the Bosnian conflict in its relatively early stages when a decisive intervention might have succeeded. As for dealing with a revived Russian threat, there is no military alliance in sight other than NATO that could do the job. In a sense, NATO today is Europe's defense. Except for the American forces, Western armies can no longer play an independent military role. They are wedded to NATO structures and dependent on NATO, especially American, technology. (As a French general admitted in the Gulf War: "The Americans are our eyes and ears.") If NATO were to dissolve--even if it were to be replaced by some European collective defense organization such as a beefed-up Western European Union--it would invite chaos as every irredentist faction sought to profit from the sudden absence of the main guarantor of European stability. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 116/212 NEOLIBERALISM GOOD (DEMOCRACY) Globalization solves democracy – political climate, multinational corporations, NGOs. Chen, 2K, Jim, Professor of Law University of Minnesota Law School, November/December, 2000 Fordham International Law Journal, PAX MERCATORIA: GLOBALIZATION AS A SECOND CHANCE AT "PEACE FOR OUR TIME, 24 Fordham Int'l L.J. 217, Lexis Globalization advances democracy not only by raising overall wealth, but also by improving the political climate within nations. The ability of multinational corporations and skilled workers to adopt "fight or flight" strategies encourages governments to adopt transparent policies and to broaden political participation. Businesses and nongovernmental organizations respond by cooperating with the government to form "transnational epistemic communities." Even where they are despised as scourges against local businesses, multinational corporations introduce moral values in countries that have yet to realize globalization's full benefits. At the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, even as unstable governments plunge into kleptocracy and anti-Western terrorists flourish, nongovernmental organizations have stepped into the resulting power vacuum in order to help police the morals of globalized society. Democracy is key to prevent extinction. Diamond, 95, Larry, Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute, 1995, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, Online Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 117/212 NEOLIBERALISM GOOD (ENVIRONMENT) Neoliberalism solves environmental collapse. Christmann and Taylor 01 American businessman and the head of a privately held multinational company, Professor Christmann specializes in research of the global economy (Petra and Glen, Globalization and the environment: Determinants of firm selfregulation in China. Journal of International business studies, 32(3), 439-458, ABI/INFORM) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=277452] In contrast, globalization proponents contend that lower barriers to trade and foreign investment encourage firms to transfer environmental technologies and managemement systems from countries with stricter environmental standards to developing countries, which lack access to environmental technologies and capabilities (Drezner, 2000). Governmental failure to protect the environment, it is suggested in this line of argument, might also be ameliorated through self-regulation of environmental performance by firms in developing countries. Self-regulation refers to a firm’s adoption of environmental performance standards or environmental management systems (EMS) beyond the requirements of governmental regulations. Globalization can increase self-regulation pressures in several ways. First, globalization increases MNEs’ investment in developing countries where their subsidiaries can be expected to self-regulate their environmental performance more than domestic firms do. MNEs can transfer the more advanced environmental technologies and management systems developed in response to more stringent regulations in developed countries to their subsidiaries. MNEs also face pressures from interest groups to improve their worldwide environmental performance. Second, globalization might contribute to environmental performance as a supplier-selection criterion, which also pressures domestic firms in developing countries to self-regulate environmental performance…Globalization does not necessarily have negative effects on the environment in developing countries to the extend suggested by the pollution-haven and industrial-flight hypotheses. Our study suggests that globalization increases institutional and consumer pressures on firms to surpass local requirements, even when they may be tempted by lax regulations and enforcement in countries offering themselves as pollution havens (Hoffman, 1999; Rugman and Verbeke, 1998). Environment collapse leads to extinction. Diner ‘94—Major David, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review, Winter, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161 Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 118/212 NEOLIBERALISM GOOD (GENOCIDE) Neoliberalism solves extinction and genocide. Teune, 02, Henry, Political Science Department at the University of Pennsylvania, May, 2002 “Global Democracy”, The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science, 581 Annals 22, Lexis During the past three decades, social scientists and professional observers described an emerging global political economy, but without democracy. It took most of the 1990s to grasp that without democracy, globalization could not continue in a peaceful, orderly fashion. Democracy began to become the bedrock of the prosperity promised by globalization. It may well turn out to be the best invention for human survival and the betterment of everyday living. Indeed, in time, democracy in large-scale societies may be judged the most important discovery of the twentieth century since vaccines. Governments systematically killing their own peoples and nearly nonstop international wars of scale marked the first half of the twentieth century (Rummel 1996). The killing of masses of people by legitimate authorities may be the most important international fact of the first half of the twentieth century. But the most important fact of this era of globalization is that almost all governments, save one or two, stopped doing that around the century's end, following the spread of democracy. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 119/212 NEOLIBERALISM GOOD (HUMAN RIGHTS) Neoliberalism solves human rights – international coalitions. Shelton, 02, Dinah, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School, Spring, 2002 GLOBALIZATION & THE EROSION OF SOVEREIGNTY IN HONOR OF PROFESSOR LICHTENSTEIN: Protecting Human Rights in a Globalized World”, 25 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 273, Lexis The Article concludes that responses to globalization are significantly changing international law and institutions in order to protect persons from violations of human rights committed by non-state actors. To the extent that these changes have brought greater transparency to and participation in international organizations, globalization has produced unintended benefits and further challenges to the democratic deficit in global governance. At the same time, an emphasis on subsidiarity and a strengthening of weak states and their institutions may be necessary to ensure that globalization does not mean a decline in state promotion and protection of human rights. To ensure that such strengthening does not lead to further human rights violations, the international community should make concerted multilateral efforts to enhance its ability to respond to human rights violations, rather than unleashing each state to control what it views as the sins of the private sector. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 120/212 NEOLIBERALISM GOOD (POVERTY) Neoliberalism solves global poverty. Bandow 01 senior fellow at the CATO Institute [Doug Bandow, , March 25th, 2001 Globalization Serves the World's Poor, http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-25-01.html] Indeed, the problems of globalization must always be "compared to what?" Yes, factories pay low wages in Third World countries. But workers in them have neither the education nor the skills to be paid at First World levels. Their alternative is not a Western university education or Silicon Valley computer job, but an even lower-paying job with a local firm or unemployment. The choice is clear: according to Edward Graham of the Institute of International Economics, in poor countries, American multinationals pay foreign citizens an average of 8.5 times the per capita GDP. Overall, the process of globalization has been good for the poor. During the 1980s, advanced industrialized countries grew faster than developing states. In the 1990s, as globalization accelerated, poor nations grew at 3.6 percent annually, twice that of their richer neighbors. Despite the illusion of left-wing activists that money falls from the sky, poverty has been the normal condition of humankind throughout most of history. As even Marx acknowledged, capitalism is what eliminated the overwhelming poverty of the pre- industrial world. That remains the case today. Resource endowment, population level and density, foreign aid transfers, past colonial status none of these correlate with economic wealth. Only economic openness does. The latest volume of the Economic Freedom in the World Report, published by the Cato Institute and think tanks in 50 other countries, finds that economic liberty strongly correlates with economic achievement. Policies that open economies strongly correlate with economic growth. By pulling countries into the international marketplace, globalization encourages market reforms. With them comes increased wealth. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 121/212 NEOLIBERALISM GOOD (TERROR) Globalization solves terrorism – discourages the bandwagon effect. Barber, 04, U.S. Managing Editor, Financial Times, International Economy Publications, Gale Group, “Is continued globalization of the world economy inevitable?” 2004, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2633/is_3_18/ai_n6276708/print For all its merits, globalization must never be taken for granted. The continued integration of the world economy depends on support not only from rich beneficiaries in the west but increasingly from the still disadvantaged in Africa, India, and Latin America. Cultural barriers also pose increasingly powerful obstacles to globalization. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism offers an alternative vision of society, one which will appeal to all those left behind in countries with exploding populations and persistent high unemployment among young people. Yet there are still plenty of reasons for optimism. The benefits of globalization in terms of investment, jobs, and competition are there for all to see, on cable television screens as well as in the shops and soukhs. The forces in favor of globalization are far stronger than those pitted against. Terrorism causes extinction. Sid-Ahmed, 04, Mohamed, Al-Ahram Weekly Online, August 26-September 1, 2004 http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive.But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 122/212 NEOLIBERALISM GOOD (U.S. EU RELATIONS) Neoliberalism is key to US-EU relations Cafruny, 08 (Alan, International Relations professor, “The ‘Imperial Turn’ and the Future of US Hegemony: ‘Terminal’ Decline or Retrenchment?.” March 25th, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/2/1/0/pages252105/p2521053.php) By proclaiming the limited utility of military force and the advantages of “soft power” in the contemporary era proponents of this concept seek to rescue the thesis of a “European challenge.” (Nye, 2003, 2004; McCormick, 2007). Yet, the dual track enlargements of NATO and the EU have entrenched the position of political elites and transnational business interests across Europe linked to the United States and to neoliberalism. Indeed, even if one grants the limited utility arising from “soft power,” the bargaining position that might, in principle, derive from the sheer weight of the European economy is compromised by the neoliberal context in which a (selflimiting) socio-economic project demands adherence to Washington and Wall Street. Europe’s geopolitical predicament precludes attempts to establish an autonomous EU power and marginalizes forces in “core Europe” that favor alternatives to U.S.-led neoliberalism. Strong European relations key to sustainable multilateralism Prodi, Verhofstadt, et al, 10 (Romano and Guy, co-chairs of Notre Europe, a think tank, former prime minister of Italy and former prime minister of Belgium, “Reshaping EU-US Relations: A Topic Paper”, http://www.notreeurope.eu/uploads/tx_publication/Etude75-EU-US_Relations-en.pdf) On the contrary: the United States and the European Union are in a position to guide the process, and as leading players they have a special responsibility to do so: their policies, agendas and decisions will be as crucial to the course of globalization as those of the other players – Asia, international financial institutions, the private sector and civil society – if not more so. There is thus no more important goal for the Euro-American partnership, at the start of the 21st century, than to agree on the best possible way to manage globalisation. The US and the EU must cooperate to make it a success and achieve positive outcomes… In its 2003 Security Strategy, the European Union cited “effective multilateralism” as one of the vital prerequisites for future world security and prosperity. The challenges facing the planet and the simultaneous occurrence of three major crises – the financial crisis, the environmental crisis and the geopolitical crisis in the Middle East – at the start of this century make the invention of multilateral governance urgent and necessary. In his speeches and in his diplomatic overtures, President Barack Obama has indicated that recourse to multilateral forums such as the G20 (on the economic crisis) and the UN (on the Iranian issue) is in the interest of the United States. The time has therefore come to make the promotion of a multilateral world order a primary goal of the Euro-American partnership For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 123/212 NEOLIBERALISM GOOD (WAR) Neoliberalism checks war through interdependence and democracy Griswold 06 director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute [Daniel T. Griswold, , 2006 CATO Institute, Peace on earth? Try free trade among men, http://www.freetrade.org/node/282)] First, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies don't pick fights with each other. Freedom to trade nurtures democracy by expanding the middle class in globalizing countries and equipping people with tools of communication such as cell phones, satellite TV, and the Internet. With trade comes more travel, more contact with people in other countries, and more exposure to new ideas. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies -- a record high. Second, as national economies become more integrated with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. Third, globalization allows nations to acquire wealth through production and trade rather than conquest of territory and resources. Increasingly, wealth is measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Those are assets that cannot be seized by armies. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. Global conflict leads to nuclear war. Copley News Service, 99, Lexis For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 124/212 NMD BAD (SPACE) Turn Space – A)Missile defense is a trojan horse for the deployment of space weapons Mitchell,Assoc. Prof., Communication, Univ. of Pittsburgh, 7-‘1 (Gordon R., “ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense #6”, www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.html) As defense analyst Daniel Gonzales notes, a prerequisite to deployment of space control weaponry '… may well be a determined effort to develop a national ballistic missile defense system and a related decision to renegotiate key elements of the ABM Treaty or to abrogate the treaty entirely. Until then, it is difficult to see how robust anti-ASAT weapon systems could be developed, tested and fielded'.31 Since any US attempt to overtly seize military control of outer space would likely stir up massive political opposition both home and abroad, defence analyst James Oberg anticipates that 'the means by which the placement of space-based weapons will likely occur is under a second US space policy directive — that of ballistic missile defense… This could preempt any political umbrage from most of the world's influential nations while positioning the US as a guarantor of defense from a universally acclaimed threat'. 32 In this scenario, ABM Treaty breakout, conducted under the guise of missile defence, functions as a tripwire for unilateral US military domination of the heavens . B)Space weaponization ensures the most destructive accidental and intentional wars ever seen Mitchell, 7-‘1 (Gordon R., Assoc. Prof., Communication, Univ. of Pittsburgh, ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense #6, www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.html) A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationale glosses over the tendency that '… the presence of space weapons…will result in the increased likelihood of their use'.33 This drift toward usage is strengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank Barnaby: when it comes to arming the heavens, 'anti-ballistic missiles and antisatellite warfare technologies go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking nature of offense and defense in military space technology stems from the inherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UN Conference on Disarmament, explains: 'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use the same capability to target something on land'. 35 To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, such interceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's atmosphere. The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre of splitsecond attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation would enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out of human hands and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial systems such as space weapons, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawless performance. According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. As Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normal accident" is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36 Deployment of space weapons with pre -delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable, given the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to contemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage — even more than would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size !'. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'.38 Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by a computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 125/212 NMD BAD (INF) Turn INF – A.NMD would mean a withdrawl from the INF setting a precident for proliferation Gottemoeller, Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, 3-5-‘7 (Rose , “The INF Conundrum” , http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19054&prog=zgp&proj=znpp&zoom_highlight=nati onal+missile+defense) Ivanov and Baluyevsky each had his reasons to declare an end to INF, saying that other countries around the world, and principally in Eurasia, were acquiring such missiles while Russia was constrained from doing so. Ivanov’s list included North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and Israel. Baluyevsky, in addition, complained about U.S. deployments of missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, saying that if the Pentagon does not cancel its plans, then Russian withdrawal from INF would become inevitable. “The world will again begin to slide into an arms race,” he said. B. Proliferation Risks Extinction Stuart Taylor Jr., journalist, LEGAL TIMES, September 16, 2002, LN. The truth is, no matter what we do about Iraq, if we don't stop proliferation another five or ten potentially unstable nations may go nuclear before long, making it ever more likely that one or more bombs will be set off on our soil by terrorists or terrorist governments. Even an airtight missile defense will be useless against a nuke hidden in a truck, a shipping container, or a boat. Unless we get serious about stopping proliferation, we are headed for "a world filled with nuclear-weapons states where every crisis threatens to go nuclear," where "the survival of civilization truly is in question from day to day," and where "it would be impossible to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists, religious cults, and criminal organizations," So writes Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., a moderate Republican who served as a career arms-controller under six presidents and led the successful Clinton administration effort to extend the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Note: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 126/212 NMD GOOD (DETERENCE) A.Only Missile Defense’s defensive deterrence solves Spring 2k8 (Baker, Baker Spring is F. M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, “Europe, Missile Defense, and the Future of Extended Deterrence,” pg online @ http://www.heritage.org/Research/BallisticMissileDefense/wm2080.cfm //ghs-ef) The missile defense agreements between the U.S. and the Czech Republic and Poland represent a new basis for the traditional U.S. policy of extended deterrence. The new approach will place less emphasis on U.S. retaliation for an attack and more emphasis on protecting and defending the ally . It will also rely less on a single commitment to alliance security and more on concurrent commitments, for two reasons. First, the agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland are focused on fielding missile defenses . These defensive systems are designed to protect both the U.S. and its European allies against attack. During the Cold War, deploying U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe signaled to the Soviet Union that even a conventional attack in Europe carried the prospect of a nuclear response by the U.S. Defensive measures were assumed to be incompatible with deterrence. In today's multi-polar world, the U.S. and its allies are becoming less certain that unpredictable leaders will be deterred by the threat of retaliation . In today's context, they see defensive measures as compatible with deterrence and reinforcing its effectiveness. Second, the U.S. pursued its extended deterrence policy for Europe during the Cold War through NATO. (The only significant exception to this was the special relationship between the U.S. and the United Kingdom.) Today's complex multi-polar world is driving the U.S. and its allies to adopt a more flexible system of concurrent and overlapping security commitments. The Declaration of Strategic Cooperation between the U.S. and Poland in particular demonstrates that both nations will use NATO structures and a close bilateral relationship to strengthen security. These changes are timely because a retaliation-based extended deterrence policy is prone to breakdowns in today's complex and multi-polar world. This is why the agreements include steps for bilateral reinforcement of NATO commitments. The relative clarity of the bipolar world permitted carefully designed signals about which actions by a potential aggressor would result in retaliatory and escalatory steps by the U.S. The multi-polar world makes sending these signals much more difficult, because the signals must apply to multiple actors operating in different contexts and with different perceptions of the U.S and its allies. The emerging structure is better able to handle multiple potential threats and contribute to security in ways that go beyond the limited capabilities of the missile defense systems that they support. B.That causes loss of confidence in the nuclear umbrella which causes conflict and CBW attacks Senator Kyl 2K (Jon, “Maintaining "Peace Through Strength": A Rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,” Harvard Journal on Legislation, Summer, 37 Harv. J. on Legis. 325) Since the end of the Cold War, some have argued that nuclear deterrence is an outdated concept and that the United States no longer needs to retain a substantial nuclear weapons capability. Deterrence, however, is not a product of the Cold War . It has been around since the beginning of statecraft. Over 2,500 years ago, the Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu confirmed the value of deterrence, observing: "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." n1 In 1780, President Washington said: "There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet an enemy." n2 "Peace through Strength" was not invented by Ronald Reagan. n3 The West's victory in the Cold War does not mean national security threats to the United States have evaporated. James Woolsey, President Clinton's first CIA director (and an opponent of the CTBT), aptly described the current security environment when he said: "We have slain a large n4 Rogue nations like North Korea, Iran, and Iraq have programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and are hostile to the United States. China is an emerging power whose relationship with the dragon [the Soviet Union], but we live now in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety [*327] of poisonous snakes." United States is rocky at best. Furthermore, Russia retains significant military capabilities, including over 6000 strategic nuclear warheads, which former Russian President Boris Yeltsin once The Gulf War is a good example of the continuing importance of nuclear deterrence in the post-Cold War world. In that conflict, America's nuclear capability--coupled with the understanding that it might draw on that capability if allied troops were attacked with other weapons of mass destruction—saved lives. Saddam Hussein had a large arsenal of chemical weapons at his disposal. The 1925 Geneva Protocol outlaws the use of these weapons, but Saddam had violated this international protocol before, unleashing chemical ominously warned President Clinton that the United States should keep in mind. n5 agents against Iraq's Kurdish population and against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. n6 In 1991, President Bush told the Iraqi leader: "The United States will not tolerate the use of chemical or biological weapons. . . . You and your country will pay a terrible price if you order unconscionable acts of this sort." n7 Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz Iraq did not attack the forces of the United States-led coalition with chemical weapons during the Gulf War because Washington's threats of devastating retaliation were interpreted as meaning nuclear retaliation. n8 The credibility of the United States nuclear stockpile is a precious, if intangible, commodity. Our actions on the international stage, and the obligations we take on, must be assessed in terms of their effect on the credibility of our deterrent. This is especially [*328] important given the failure of the United States thus acknowledged in 1995 that far to deploy a defense against missile-delivered weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, it will remain critical because no missiledefense system currently contemplated could defend against (and, thus, deter) an attack of the kind that could be launched by countries like Russia and China. C.The impact is human extinction Steinbruner, Senior Fellow & Chair of International Security at the Brookings Institution, 1997 (John, “Biological weapons: a plague upon all houses,” Foreign Policy, December 22) Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 127/212 NMD GOOD (HEG) A.NMD key to Heg Lowell Sun, Mass. Newspaper , 6-27-‘9 ( “Ballistic missile defense dependence day” , P.Nexis) The first decade of the 21st century has made it clear that we are engaged in a global battle between the constructive and the destructive -- constructive nations desiring peace and economic development confronted by destructive, extortionist rogue states and transnational terror syndicates. Ballistic missiles carrying nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are marquee weapons, militarily and politically, in the bad guys' arsenal. Missile defense thus plays a key military, political and psychological role in this global battle. Defending American citizens is the missile defense system's first priority. However, the ability to protect allies and neutrals generates diplomatic power in the grandest sense. The system's very existence serves as a psychological counter to thug intimidation and thus creates political space for other diplomatic endeavors to counter the rogue state threat. Extending a U.S.-sponsored missile defense beyond North America isn't a new idea. In the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan offered to share anti-missile technology with the Russians, his leftist critics laughed, mocked and jeered. But the great intuitive politician got it right: America has no interest in an Armageddon anywhere on the planet. B.Nuclear War Khalilzad 95, (Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND analyst, “Losing the Moment,” WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Spring 1995, LN.) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 128/212 NORTH KOREAN CONFLICT BAD (NUCLEAR WAR) A Korean Conflict Causes global thermonuclear exchange killing all life Chol, Director Center for Korean American Peace 2002 10-24, http://nautilus.org/fora/security/0212A_Chol.html Any military strike initiated against North Korea will promptly explode into a thermonuclear exchange between a tiny nuclear-armed North Korea and the world's superpower, America. The most densely populated Metropolitan U.S.A., Japan and South Korea will certainly evaporate in The Day After scenario-type nightmare. The New York Times warned in its August 27, 2002 comment: "North Korea runs a more advanced biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program, targets American military bases and is developing missiles that could reach the lower 48 states. Yet there's good reason President Bush is not talking about taking out Dear Leader Kim Jong Il. If we tried, the Dear Leader would bombard South Korea and Japan with never gas or even nuclear warheads, and (according to one Pentagon study) kill up to a million people." Continues… The first two options should be sobering nightmare scenarios for a wise Bush and his policy planners. If they should opt for either of the scenarios, that would be their decision, which the North Koreans are in no position to take issue with. The Americans would realize too late that the North Korean mean what they say. The North Koreans will use all their resources in their arsenal to fight a full-scale nuclear exchange with the Americans in the last war of mankind. A nuclear-armed North Korea would be most destabilizing in the region and the rest of the world in the eyes of the Americans. They would end up finding themselves reduced to a second-class nuclear power. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 129/212 NPT BAD – PROLIF/NUKE TERROR The NPT ensures covert proliferation that is uniquely worse and causes nuclear terrorism Wesley 5 [Michael Wesley, Director of the Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University, 2005, 'It's time to scrap the NPT', Australian Journal of International Affairs, 59:3, 283 — 299, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357710500231230] By prohibiting proliferation, without the capacity or moral authority to enforce such a prohibition, the NPT makes opaque proliferation the only option for aspiring nuclear weapons states.4 Opaque proliferation is destabilising to regional security. It breeds miscalculation—both overestimation of a state's nuclear weapons development (as shown by the case of Iraq), and underestimation (in the case of Libya)—that can force neighbouring states into potentially catastrophic moves. Even more dangerous, argues Lewis Dunn, is the likelihood that states with covert nuclear weapons programs will develop weak failsafe mechanisms and nuclear doctrine that is destabilising: In camera decision making may result in uncontrolled programs, less attention to safety and control problems and only limited assessment of the risks of nuclear weapon deployments or use. The necessary exercises cannot be conducted, nor can procedures for handling nuclear warheads be practised, nor alert procedures tested. As a result, the risk of accidents or incidents may rise greatly in the event of deployment in a crisis or a conventional conflict. Miscalculations by neighbours or outsiders also appear more likely, given their uncertainties about the adversary's capabilities, as well as their lack of information to judge whether crisis deployments mean that war is imminent (1991: 20, italics in original). And because both the NPT and the current US counter-proliferation doctrine place such emphasis on preventing and reversing the spread of nuclear weapons, states such as Pakistan, which desperately need assistance with both failsafe technology and stabilising nuclear doctrine, have been suspicious of US offers of assistance (Pregenzer 2003). As the dramatic revelations of the nature and extent of the A. Q. Khan network showed, some states undertaking opaque proliferation have been prepared to rely on transnational smuggling networks to gain vital components, materials and knowledge. Quite apart from the incapacity of the NPT regime to deal with this new form of proliferation (Clary 2004), such non-state networks raise very real risks that for the right price, criminals or other facilitators could pass nuclear materials to terrorist groups or extortionists (Albright and Hinderstein 2005). Both through its inadequacies and its obsessive focus on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, the NPT could be contributing to the ultimate nightmare: terrorists armed with nuclear or radiological weapons. Nuclear terrorism means extinction Sid-Ahmed Mohamed, Egyptian Political Analyst, Al-Ahram Newspaper, 8/26/04, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm | SWON What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 130/212 NUCLEAR TESTING GOOD (EXTINCTION) A. Testing is critical to prevent overconfidence and another Chernobyl McNally, Deputy Assistant Director for Verification & Inteligence of the U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency from 1986 to 1988, 10-13-1997 (James, “The importance of nuclear testing, Washington Times President Clinton's claim that the Comprehensive Test Ban is the "longest-sought hardest-fought prize in the history of arms control" certainly is an attention getter. I wonder if those who sought to control gun powder centuries ago would agree. However, in today's context, perhaps the exaggeration can be excused. The "hardestfought" comment may refer at least in part to the difficulties political authorities have had overcoming justified technical concerns regarding nuclear-weapon maintenance. For decades, technicians responsible for nuclear weapons, not only in the United States, have expressed their concerns over prohibitions on testing, an important part of the technical process of weapon assessment. Only actual testing can prove with certainty that judgment in modeling and extrapolating from laboratory experience works. The presence or absence of a Cold War, for instance, is irrelevant. In the past, testing has also had the important human consequence of providing a direct reminder for the technicians of the power of these explosions and the dimension of possible mistakes in judgment. Technical conservatism, not to be confused with political conservatism. Certainly mistakes in judgment are more likely with passing time as the realities of test experience become more remote. Lacking realistic testing, will the next laboratory-bound generation charged with the care and feeding of aging weapons become more prone to overconfidence, resulting in Chernobyl-like mistakes? Some may claim the so-called escape clause in the treaty provides protection from declining technical confidence. Beyond the fact that this declining confidence may not be recognized without testing, U.S. disavowal of a ratified treaty has no precedent in recent times. The technicians are presented with another major problem. If a stockpile problem is suspected, how do they make the case that testing must be resumed at once - as opposed to resumption a year or two later, say? Political authorities work within short time horizons; postponement for a year at a time for a few years means the decision will likely be someone else's problem. The British faced this problem during the 1960s and early '70s with a nine-year testing hiatus. Confidence within the UK weapons program concerning UK warhead technology and deterrence declined with passing time. But the case for prompt testing resumption could not be made since an unambiguous, politically credible argument could not be constructed. The problem was resolved and testing resumed only after the Soviet-U.S. ABM Treaty made it clear politically that UK deterrence might be jeopardized by anti-ballistic missiles protecting national capitals. Note well that this had only been a unilateral suspension of testing on the British part; international pressures against treaty withdrawal or abrogation were absent. We cannot anticipate a more favorable outcome under the U.S. system; human nature and governmental decision processes are too similar. There is additional confusion regarding nuclear-weapon proliferation and its relationship to a Comprehensive Test Ban. The five so-called nuclear-weapon nations have developed nuclear weapons that are the product of a complex blend of technologies. B. Extinction Wasserman, 01 - Senior Editor – Free Press (Harvey, “America's Terrorist Nuclear Threat to Itself”, October, http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2001/10/00_wasserman_nuclear-threat.htm) Even heightened wartime standards cannot guarantee protection of the vast, supremely sensitive controls required for reactor safety. Without continous monitoring and guaranteed water flow, the thousands of tons of radioactive rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those fragile pools would rapidly melt into super-hot radioactive balls of lava that would burn into the ground and the water table and, ultimately, the Hudson. Indeed, a jetcrash like the one on 9/11 or other forms of terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and the river. Striking water they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Prevailing winds from the north and west might init ially drive these clouds of mass death downriver into New York City and east into Westchester and Long Island. But at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, winds ultimately shifted around the compass to irradiate all surrounding areas with the devastating poisons released by the on-going fiery torrent. At Indian Point, thousands of square miles would have been saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created or imagined, depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. In nearby communities like Buchanan, Nyack, Monsey and scores more, infants and small children would quickly die en masse. Virtually all pregnant women would spontaneously abort, or ultimately give birth to horribly deformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin of millions. Emphysema, heart attacks, stroke, multiple organ failure, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinance, sterility and impotence, asthma, blindness, and more would kill thousands on the spot, and doom hundreds of thousands if not millions. A terrible metallic taste would afflict virtually everyone downwind in New York, New Jersey and New England, a ghoulish curse similar to that endured by the fliers who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaskai, by those living downwind from nuclear bomb tests in the south seas and Nevada, and by victims caught in the downdrafts from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Then comes the abominable wave of cancers, leukemias, those who survived the initial wave of radiation would envy those who did not. Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die trying. Bridges and highways would become killing fields for those attempting to escape lymphomas, tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented, and new dimensions of agony will beg description. Indeed, to destinations that would soon enough become equally deadly as the winds shifted. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. At Chernobyl, pilots flying helicopters that dropped boron on the fiery core died in the molten cores rage uncontrolled for days, weeks and years, spewing ever more devastation into the eco-sphere. More than 800,000 Soviet draftees were forced through Chernobyl's seething remains in a futile attempt to clean it up. They are droves. At Indian Point, such missions would be a sure ticket to death. Their utility would be doubtful as dying in droves. Who would now volunteer for such an American task force? The radioactive cloud from Chernobyl blanketed the vast Ukraine and Belarus landscape, then carried over Europe and into the jetstream, The radioactive clouds from Indian Point would enshroud New York, New Jersey, New England, and carry deep into the Atlantic and up into Canada and across to Europe and around the globe again and again. The immediate damage would render thousands of the world's most populous and expensive square miles permanently uninhabitable. All five boroughs of New York City would be an apocalyptic wasteland. The World Trade Center would be rendered as unusable and even more lethal by a jet crash at surging through the west coast of the United States within ten days, carrying across our northern tier, circling the globe, then coming back again. Indian Point than it was by the direct hits of 9/11. All real estate and economic value would be poisonously radioactive throughout the entire region. Irreplaceable trillions in human capital would be forever lost. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, and as at Chernobyl, where soil, water and plant life have been hopelessly irradiated, natural eco-systems on which human and all other life depends would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed, Spiritually, psychologically, financially, ecologically, our nation would never recover . This is what we missed by There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the a mere forty miles near New York City on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. Apocalypse now operating in the United States. They generate just 18% of America's electricity, just 8% of our total energy. As with reactors elsewhere, the two at Indian Point have both been off-line for long periods of time with no appreciable impact on life in New York. Already an extremely expensive source of electricity, the cost of attempting to defend these reactors will put nuclear energy even further off the competitive scale. Since its deregulation crisis, California---already the nation's second-most efficient state---cut further into its electric consumption by some 15%. Within a year the US could cheaply replace virtually with increased efficiency all the reactors now so much more expensive to operate and protect. Yet, as the bombs fall and the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking a form of legal immunity to protect the operators of reactors like Indian Point from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Why is our nation handing its proclaimed enemies the weapons of our own mass destruction, and then shielding from liability the companies that insist on continuing to operate them? Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation? If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 131/212 NUCLEAR WAR BAD – EXTINCTION Nuclear war would lead to extinction - no one could survive the destruction IPPNW, 04/’04, The Human Tragedy of Proliferation and Nuclear Rearmament, [http://www.ippnw.org/ResourceLibrary/NPTPrepCom2004.pdf] We know what almost 60 years under the nuclear shadow have done to the hundreds of thousands of victims, whether they be hibakusha, downwinders, nuclear industry workers, or communities in the Global South and elsewhere who have been deprived of true health and security because of the enormous amount of resources squandered on acquiring, testing, and developing nuclear weapons. In a more general sense, we are all victims of the preparations for nuclear war, because we are all held hostage to the ever present threat of extinction. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastating and cruel. In an instant they created many tens of thousands of fatalities and several hundred thousand surviving victims whose terrible injuries have extended over generations. To achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, those victims have told their stories of terror and suffering, believing that this is the only way to save human beings from the crisis of extinction. We wish to honor the lives and the voices of the hibakusha here and now. Even more important, we urge the nuclear weapon states and the nonnuclear States Parties to the NPT to listen to their experiences, to learn from them, and to embrace continued human survival by abandoning nuclear weapons and the ambition to acquire them. Such effects certainly warrant characterizing chemical and biological weapons as "weapons of mass destruction." Nevertheless, the consequences of nuclear weapons are exponentially greater. Moreover, there is no medical response to nuclear war something that is not universally true of chemical and biological attacks. The explosion of a single modern nuclear warhead over a major city could cause hundreds of thousands -- even millions -- of deaths in a matter of moments. Blast, burn, and radiation injuries among the survivors would overwhelm any possible medical response. Long term health consequences, including leukemias and other cancers would affect the survivors and their children throughout entire lifetimes. Other genetic effects would persist across generations. Hospitals and other medical infrastructure would be destroyed in the overall carnage, rendering the kind of medical response that would be available in the aftermath of a chemical or biological attack virtually inconceivable. Vast areas of land stretching out from the epicenter of a nuclear explosion would remain uninhabitable for years, while contamination from radioactive fallout would persist in some places for hundreds, or even thousands of years, causing new illnesses in future generations. An all-out nuclear war involving a significant number of the weapons that are currently held by the nuclear weapon states could initiate a nuclear winter, threatening the extinction of human and countless non-human species. Nuclear war would lead to extinction – Famine, environmental destruction, and toxic chemicals Alan Philips, Dr. with Physicians for Global Survival, 10/2000 “Nuclear War Revisited,” http://www.peace.ca/nuclearwinterrevisited.htm Deaths from world-wide starvation after the war would be several times the number from direct effects of the bombs, and the surviving fraction of the human race might then diminish and vanish after a few generations of hunger and disease, in a radioactive environment. Bombs directed at missile silos would burst at ground level and throw a huge amount of dust into the atmosphere, as the explosion of a volcano does. It is as much as a million tonnes from a large nuclear bomb bursting at ground level. Bombs bursting over cities and surface installations, like factories or oil stores and refineries, would cause huge fires and fire-storms that would send huge amounts of smoke into the air. The 1980's research showed that the dust and the smoke would block out a large fraction of the sunlight and the sun's heat from the earth's surface, so it would be dark and cold like an arctic winter. It would take months for the sunlight to get back to near normal. The cloud of dust and smoke would circle the northern hemisphere quickly. Soon it could affect the tropics, and cold would bring absolute disaster for all crops there. Quite likely it would cross the equator and affect the southern hemisphere to a smaller degree. While the temperature at the surface would be low, the temperature of the upper part of the troposphere (5-11 km) would rise because of sunlight absorbed by the smoke, so there would be an absolutely massive temperature inversion. That would keep many other products of combustion down at the levels people breathe, making a smog such as has never been seen before. PYROTOXINS is a word coined for all the noxious vapours that would be formed by combustion of the plastics, rubber, petroleum, and other products of civilization. It is certain that these poisons would be formed, but we do not have quantitative estimates. The amount of combustible material is enormous, and it would produce dioxins, furans, PCB's, cyanides, sulphuric and sulphurous acids, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in amounts that would make current concerns about atmospheric pollution seem utterly trivial. There would also be toxic chemicals like ammonia and chlorine from damaged storage tanks. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 132/212 NUCLEAR WAR BAD – ECOSYSTEMS Nuclear war would irreversibly destroy ecosystems. Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford University, et al, 1983, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 25 and 26 April 1983, Science, New Series, Vol. 22, No. 4630, Dec. 23, 1983, pg 1293-1300 , “Biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide Biological Consequences of Nuclear War,” JSTOR The 2 billion to 3 billion survivors of the immediate effects of the war would be forced to turn to natural ecosystems as organized agriculture failed. Just at the time when these natural ecosystems would be asked to support a human population well beyond their carrying capacities, the normal functioning of the ecosystems themselves would be severely curtailed by the effects of nuclear war. Subjecting these ecosystems to low temperature, fire, radiation, storm, and other physical stresses (many occurring simultaneously) would result in their increased vulnerability to disease and pest outbreaks, which might be prolonged. Primary productivity would be dramatically reduced at the prevailing low light levels; and, because of UV-B, smog, insects, radiation, and other damage to plants, it is unlikely that it would recover quickly to normal levels, even after light and temperature values had recovered. At the same time that their plant foods were being limited severely, most, if not all, of the vertebrates not killed outright by blast and ionizing radiation would either freeze or face a dark world where they would starve or die of thirst because surface waters would be frozen and thus unavailable. Many of the survivors would be widely scattered and often sick, leading to the slightly delayed extinction of many additional species. Natural ecosystems provide civilization with a variety of crucial services in addition to food and shelter. These include regulation of atmospheric composition, moderation of climate and weather, regulation of the hydrologic cycle, generation and preservation of soils, degradation of wastes, and recycling of nutrients. From the human perspective, among the most important roles of ecosystems are their direct role in providing food and their maintenance of a vast library of species from which Homo sapiens has already drawn the basis of civilization (27). Accelerated loss of these genetic resources through extinction would be one of the most serious potential consequences of nuclear war. Wildfires would be an important effect in north temperate ecosystems, their scale and distribution depending on such factors as the nuclear war scenario and the season. Another major uncertainty is the extent of fire storms, which might heat the lower levels of the soil enough to damage or destroy seed banks, especially in vegetation types not adapted to periodic fires. Multiple airbursts over seasonally dry areas such as California in the late summer or early fall could burn off much of the state's forest and brush areas, leading to catastrophic flooding and erosion during the next rainy season. Silting, toxic runoff, and rainout of radio- nuclides could kill much of the fauna of fresh and coastal waters, and concentrated radioactivity levels in surviving filter-feeding shellfish populations could make them dangerous to consume for long periods of time. Other major consequences for terrestrial ecosystems resulting from nuclear war would include: (i) slower detoxification of air and water as a secondary result of damage to plants that now are important metabolic sinks for toxins; (ii) reduced evapotranspiration by plants contributing to a lower rate of entry of water into the atmosphere, especially over continental regions, and therefore a more sluggish hydrologic cycle; and (iii) great disturbance of the soil surface, leading to accelerated erosion and, probably, major dust storms (28). Revegetation might superficially resemble that which follows local fires. Stresses from radiation, smog, erosion, fugitive dust, and toxic rains, however, would be superimposed on those of cold and darkness, thus delaying and modifying postwar succession in ways that would retard the restoration of ecosystem services (29). It is likely that most ecosystem changes would be short term. Some structural and functional changes, however, could be longer term, and perhaps irreversible, as ecosystems undergo qualitative changes to alternative stable states (30). Soil losses from erosion would be serious in areas experiencing widespread fires, plant death, and extremes of climate. Much would depend on the wind and precipitation patterns that would develop during the first postwar year (4, 5). The diversity of many natural communities would almost certainly be substantially reduced, and numerous species of plants, animals, and microorganisms would become extinct. Nuclear war would destroy all hope of biosphere recovery. Jennifer Leaning, Editor in Chief, PRS Quarterly: A Journal of Medicine and Global Survival, 19 91, ““A Venture and a New Beginning”, Volume 1, Issue 1, March, http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/PSRQV1N1LeaningEd.html There are three key elements to this consensus. Nuclear war, once begun, whether by accident or intent, would not remain "limited." The imponderables of command and control and the inextricably linked escalation strategies would entrain many countries after the first use of nuclear weapons. Second, nuclear war cannot be described solely in terms of short-term effects deriving from the physics of the weapons themselves. Because it would destroy our biological networks and social relationships, nuclear war would inflict thorough and extensive devastation on all aspects of world existence for a very long time. Third, nuclear war cannot be understood in conventional terms. It is neither a disaster we have seen, nor a war we have fought. Unlike previous disasters, nuclear war, in its instantaneousness and totality, wipes out the potential for outside response and social recovery. Past wars have been fought with the rational objective of winning. The notion of winning included, as a minimum, the notion of surviving. After nuclear war, neither notion has much reality. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 133/212 NUCLEAR WAR GOOD (ENVIRONMENT) Massive nuclear war is the only way to stop industrial civilization from completely destroying the environment and causing total extinction Caldwell ‘3, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics, (Joseph, “The End of the World,” 6 March, http://foundation.bw/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm#_Toc34744202) And war. War could wipe out mankind. Not small wars, such as the scores of small conflicts that continue year after year. Not even big wars, such as the First and Second World Wars. But a really big war, involving thousands of nuclear weapons. That can make a real difference. Furthermore, it can bring an immediate halt to the high level of industrial activity that is destroying the planet. It can reduce human numbers to the point where they no longer have a significant impact on the planet’s ecology. The famous astronomer and writer Sir Fred Hoyle once observed that mankind will have only one chance to do something worthwhile with the energy from fossil fuel and the minerals at the Earth’s surface: if it ends up destroying the planet it will never have a second chance. Global industrialization is causing the destruction that Hoyle referred to. Global nuclear war could bring that process to a halt. This section has identified a number of phenomena that might bring a halt to mankind’s destruction of the biosphere. Some of them, such as asteroids or volcanoes, are beyond mankind’s control, and their occurrence has nothing to do with its large numbers and high industrial production / energy use. Of the anthropogenic factors that might reduce mankind’s destruction of the biosphere – famine, plague, and war – it appears that famine and plague would have little effect on stopping the mass species extinction. They may cause a temporary reduction in human numbers, but the population would rebound, and high levels of industrial production would continue, and damage to the biosphere would continue. The industrial nations of the world, which account for most of the global energy use, would likely continue in numbers and in industrial activity pretty much as before. These eventualities would do little to stop the destruction of the biosphere and the mass species extinction. But war is different. The main difference is not that it may reduce human numbers faster or to a greater degree than famine or plague, but that it can cause a catastrophic decrease in the level of industrial production, which is the major cause of environmental destruction. Also, it can occur at any time – it does not have to wait until fossil fuels run out, after many more species have been destroyed. It can occur tomorrow, and prevent the species loss that would otherwise occur over the last half century of the petroleum age. By reducing industrial activity by a large amount, it could reduce the current horrific rate of consumption of fossil fuels, leaving some for many future generations to take advantage of – to use for mankind’s benefit, rather than for a few generations’ mindless pleasure. (Of course, economics does not distinguish between production spent on war or video games or tourism or religion or art or philosophy, and the discounted “present value” of things in the far distant future is negligible, so this argument is of little consequence in today’s world.) And the likelihood of its occurrence is increasing fast. The next two sections will discuss the likely damage from global nuclear war, and the likelihood of its occurrence. And 30,000 species are dying a year because of human industrialization, which causes extinction – War solves CALDWELL ‘1. “On Saving the Environment, and the Inevitability of Nuclear War.” www.foundation.bw. The destruction of the planet's environment and biodiversity may coincidentally be halted by global war, but saving biodiversity or the environment will not be the cause of global war. Less and less of nature remains with each passing year of the current "global peace" of global industrialization. The longer global war is delayed, the less of nature (species, biodiversity) will remain after its occurrence. The large human population has been made possible because of access to fossil fuel. The planet can support only a small fraction of its current human population on recurrent solar energy (which includes hydroelectric, biomass, and wind power). Global petroleum and natural gas deposits will not be exhausted until about 2050 (and coal somewhat later), so the world's current fossil-fuel-driven economy can hypothetically continue for some time to come. If industrialized human society continues to destroy other species at the current rate (estimated 30,000 per year) until fossil fuels are exhausted, little will remain of the planet's natural environment as we know it. Mankind is hurtling toward disaster -- the biosphere's and its own -- and there is nothing that will be done to stop it. Industrial development has sewn the seeds of its own destruction. The situation is out of control. The human population explosion has already occurred, and the resultant destruction -- first of the environment and then of industrial society and then, perhaps, of the human race itself -- is at hand. Mankind has chosen its destiny, and is well along the path to its realization. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 134/212 OIL DEPENDENCE BAD (HEG) Oil dependence kills heg- petropolitics and axis of oil Leverett and Noel 06 Flynt Leverett is senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy and has been appointed visiting professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Pierre No'l is research fellow at the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI) in Paris. He will join the Electricity Policy Research Group at Cambridge University's Judge Business School in September. [Flynt and Pierre, “The New Axis of Oil” The National Interest Lexis] While Washington is preoccupied with curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, avoiding policy failure in Iraq and cheering the "forward march of freedom", the political consequences of recent structural shifts in global energy markets are posing the most profound challenge to American hegemony since the end of the Cold War. The increasing control that state-owned companies exercise over the world's reserves of crude oil and natural gas is, under current market conditions, enabling some energy exporters to act with escalating boldness against U.S. interests and policies. Perhaps the most immediate example is Venezuela's efforts to undermine U.S. influence in Latin America. The most strategically significant manifestation, though, is Russia's willingness to use its newfound external leverage to counteract what Moscow considers an unacceptable level of U.S. infringement on its interests. At the same time, rising Asian states, especially China, are seeking to address their perceived energy vulnerability through state-orchestrated strategies to "secure" access to hydrocarbon resources around the world. In the Chinese case, a statist approach to managing external energy relationships is increasingly pitting China against the United States in a competition for influence in the Middle East, Central Asia and oil-producing parts of Africa. We describe these political consequences of recent structural shifts in global energy markets by the shorthand "petropolitics." While each of these developments is challenging to U.S. interests, the various threads of petropolitics are now coming together in an emerging "axis of oil" that is acting as a counterweight to American hegemony on a widening range of issues.2 At the center of this undeclared but increasingly assertive axis is a growing geopolitical partnership between Russia (a major energy producer) and China (the paradigmatic rising consumer) against what both perceive as excessive U.S. unilateralism. The impact of this axis on U.S. interests has already been felt in the largely successful Sino-Russian effort to rollback U.S. influence in Central Asia. But the real significance is being seen in the ongoing frustration of U.S. objectives on the Iranian nuclear issue. This will likely be a milestone in redefining the post-Cold War international order--not merely because Iran is likely to end up with at least a nuclear-weapons option, but because of what that will imply about the efficacy of America's global leadership. Nuclear War Khalilzad 95, (Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND analyst, “Losing the Moment,” WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Spring 1995, LN.) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 135/212 OIL DEPENDENCE BAD (MID EAST INSTABILITY) Oil dependence kills Middle East stability Cohen 07 [Ariel "The National Security Consequences of Oil Dependency" Heritage Lecture #1021 3/22/07 http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl1021.cfm] The Middle East's Persian Gulf is the richest and most important oil province in the world. Forty per-cent of the daily shipment of oil passes through the Gulf. Approximately 20 percent of U.S. oil comes from the Gulf. Currently, the security and stability of Middle East oil is threatened by ongoing conflicts in Iraq; an aggressive and nuclear Iran; and radical Islamist movements, with their terrorist arms, whose goals include toppling regimes throughout the Gulf, including the swing producer of oil, Saudi Arabia. Islamist movements, nurtured to a great extent by oil revenues from Gulf states, aim to eventually create a global Islamic empire--the Caliphate. These movements ultimately strive to subjugate and convert non-Islamic countries to their brand of Islam. This is a very long-term project, and ulti-mately, it will hopefully be a futile one. However, in the meantime, the existence and the goals of these movements pose an immediate threat to the securi-ty of some of the most crucial sectors of the world oil supply. Middle East conflict will escalate – causes worldwide nuclear war Steinbach 02 [Steinbach, “Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A threat to peace,” March 2002 www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.03/0331steinbachisraeli.htm] Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44) For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 136/212 OIL DEPENDENCE BAD (TERROR) Dependence on foreign oil fuels terrorism- funding IAGS 04 (Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, non-profit public educational organization focusing on energy security. “Fueling Terror”) <http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html> It is no coincidence that so much of the cash filling terrorists' coffers come from the oil monarchies in the Persian Gulf. It is also no coincidence that those countries holding the world's largest oil reserves and those generating most of their income from oil exports, are also those with the strongest support for radical Islam. In fact, oil and terrorism are entangled. If not for the West's oil money, most Gulf states would not have had the wealth that allowed them to invest so much in arms procurement and sponsor terrorists organizations. Consider Saudi Arabia. Oil revenues make up around 90-95% of total Saudi export earnings, 70%-80% of state revenues, and around 40% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). In 2002 alone, Saudi Arabia earned nearly $55 billion in crude oil export revenues. Most wealthy Saudis who sponsor charities and educational foundations that preach religious intolerance and hate toward the Western values have made their money from the petroleum industry or its subsidiaries. Osama bin Laden's wealth comes from the family's construction company that made its fortune from government contracts financed by oil money. It is also oil money that enables Saudi Arabia to invest approximately 40% of its income on weapons procurement. In July 2005 undersecretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey testifying in the Senate noted “Wealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda. Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing, including for the insurgency in Iraq." If Saudi Arabia is the financial engine of radical Sunni Islam, its neighbor Iran is the powerhouse behind the proliferation of radical Shiite Islam. Iran, OPEC’s second largest oil producer, is holder of 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and has the world’s second largest natural gas reserve. With oil and gas revenues constituting over 80 percent of its total export earning and 50 percent of its gross domestic product, Iran is heavily dependent on petrodollars. It is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism and supporter of some of the world’s most radical Islamic movements such as the Lebanese Hizballah. Iran’s mullahs are fully aware of the power of their oil. Its supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned in 2002: “If the West did not receive oil, their factories would grind to a halt. This will shake the world!” As the world’s demand for oil increases, Iran grows richer --Iran’s oil revenues have jumped 25 percent in 2005—and more than able to snub the U.S. and its allies in their efforts to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. The line between the barrel and the bomb is clear. It is oil wealth that enables dictatorial regimes to sustain themselves, resisting openness, progress and power sharing. Some semi-feudal royal families in the Gulf buy their legitimacy from the Muslim religious establishment. This establishment uses oil money to globally propagate hostility to the West, modernity, non-Muslims, and women. This trend is likely to continue. Both the International Energy Agency and the Energy Information Agency of the U.S. Department of Energy currently project a steady increase in world demand for oil through at least 2020. This means further enrichment of the oil-producing countries and continued access of terrorist groups to a viable financial network which allow then remain a lethal threat to the U.S. and its allies. Drying the swamp There are many strategies proposed by counter-terrorism experts to obstruct terrorist financing. Many of them are effective and, indeed, some of the steps that have been taken since September 11, such as freezing bank accounts and improving the scrutiny over international monetary transfers, contributed to a reduction in Al-Qaeda's financial maneuverability. But the only way to deal with the problem strategically is to reduce the disposable income and wealth generation capacity of terrorist supporters. Hence, America's best weapon against terrorism is to decrease its dependency on foreign oil by increasing its fuel efficiency and introducing next-generation fuels. If the U.S. bought less oil, the global oil market would shrink and price per-barrel would decline. This would invalidate the social contract between the leaders and their people and stem the flow of resources to the religious establishment. It will likely increase popular pressure for political participation, modernity and reformed political and social institutions. Nuclear terrorism means extinction Sid-Ahmed Mohamed, Egyptian Political Analyst, Al-Ahram Newspaper, 8/26/04, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm | SWON What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 137/212 OIL DEPENDENCE GOOD (HEG) Dependence on oil maintains US heg and deters conflict Deutch & Schlesinger October 2006 [John (Former Director of Central Intelligence and Undersecretary of Energy) & James R. (Former Defense and Energy Secretary), “national security consequences of u.s. oil dependency”,Council on Foreign Relations Press, http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/EnergyTFR.pdf] Sixth, some observers see a direct relationship between the dependence of the United States on oil, especially from the Persian Gulf, and the size of the U.S. defense budget. Such a relationship invites the inference that if it were not dependent on this oil, the United States and its allies would have no interest in the region, and hence it would be possible to achieve significant reductions in the U.S. military posture. In the extreme, this argument says that if the nation reduced its dependence, then the defense budget could be reduced as well. U.S. strategic interests in reliable oil supplies from the Persian Gulf are not proportional with the percent of oil consumption that is imported by the United States from the region. Until very low levels of dependence are reached, the United States and all other consumers of oil will depend on the Persian Gulf. Such low levels will certainly not be reached during the twenty-year time frame of this study. Even if the Persian Gulf did not have the bulk of the world’s readily available oil reserves, there would be reasons to maintain a substantial military capability in the region. The activities of Iran today and Iraq, especially prior to 1991, underline the seriousness of threats from weapons of mass destruction. Combating terrorism also requires a presence in the Gulf. In addition to military activities, a U.S. presence in the region can help to improve political stability. At least for the next two decades, the Persian Gulf will be vital to U.S. interests in reliable oil supply, nonproliferation, combating 30 terrorism, and encouraging political stability, democracy, and public welfare. Accordingly, the United States should expect and support a strong military posture that permits suitably rapid deployment to the region, if required. It is worthwhile to explain what should and should not be expected from this military force, and how it serves U.S. interests. Most importantly, the conventional force of the United States deters aggression in the region. Any nation (or subnational group) that contemplates violence on any scale must take into account the possibility of U.S. preemption, intervention, or retaliation. Deterrence is powerful, but it does not always work (especially if the possibility of a military response is not raised). For example, deterrence did not prevent the Iran-Iraq war of the early 1980s. Because no clear and credible signal was sent of a possible response in 1990, Saddam Hussein was not deterred from invading Kuwait. Nevertheless, the U.S. military posture with its capacity to intervene, if managed wisely, can play a role in stabilizing this highly fragile region and make many countries in the region more secure from hostile action by their neighbors. Nuclear War Khalilzad 95, (Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND analyst, “Losing the Moment,” WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Spring 1995, LN.) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 138/212 OIL DEPENDENCE GOOD (IRAQ STABILITY) Foreign oil dependency would lead to multilateral efforts to stabilize Iraq Waller & Gerson, The Globe and Mail, 04 [HAROLD WALLER, professor of political science at McGill University, HOWARD GERSON, practises law in Toronto, “Warning: Don't count on Saudi Arabia”, December 17, 2004, lexis] Assumptions about the kingdom's oil reserves have recently been questioned. The Saudis are renowned for their reserves, generally estimated to be from 260 billion barrels to as much as 400 billion. The perception of vast proven reserves fosters belief in the country's ability to ramp up production to substantially higher levels than today's nine million barrels a day to meet increased world demand. But Houston-based oil analyst Matthew Simmons recently concluded that the reserves are only 108 billion barrels and that production could decline substantially and dramatically in the future. When questions of productive capacity are coupled with the succession issue, there is a pressing need to plan for contingencies. In the longer term, the petroleum-based economy will have to change, even if there are significant reserves outside the Middle East. But there are few short-term options because energy policy cannot be turned around overnight. Policy-makers have to be prepared for reduced or even interrupted Saudi oil production. Rationally, any group controlling Saudi Arabia would want to sell its oil on the market; but internal fighting could damage the oil-field infrastructure or a radical group could gain power and withhold oil to punish industrialized nations. If Iraq descends further into chaos, Iran will continue to make headway among the Shiites of southern Iraq and might then try to extend its influence down the western shore of the Persian Gulf and into the oil-producing areas of Saudi Arabia, where the population is also Shiite. The United States and its allies went to war in 1991 to check the extension of Iraqi influence to Kuwait and beyond. Iranian control would be equally threatening. Military action to prevent world economic decline or a strategic threat has to be considered. After the Iraq experience, the U.S. would not likely favour unilateral military intervention in another Arab country. But a sufficiently grave situation might leave little choice. Also, before the Iraq war, there were sharp policy divergences between the U.S. and the continental Europeans, who perceived that it was not in their interests to go to war. But if faced with the prospect of the economic calamity threatened by a suspension of Saudi oil production, Europe's interests would converge with those of the United States, paving the way for multilateral action. Moreover, this scenario is different from that existing before the Iraq war, when ties between the Russian, German and French oil industries and Saddam Hussein's regime militated against European intervention with the Americans. Indeed, the destabilization of the Saudi regime might also promote multilateral efforts to stabilize Iraq as a key alternative source of oil. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 139/212 OVERPOPULATION BAD (EXTINCTION) Population growth wrecks the atmosphere – extinction Barter 2K (Joseph, “Global War and the Human Population Problem” The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, Vol. 25, Issue 2, pg 241, proquest)/tamar The current threat to life in the biosphere is of overwhelming dimensions.1 The planet is currently experiencing the greatest mass extinction of species since the time of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, and it is being caused solely by mankind's massive numbers and industrial activity.2 Most of the species extinction is being caused by rampant destruction of wildlife habitat, such as forests and wetlands. In other cases, species are being deliberately singled out for destruction, as in the case of rhinoceros horn (for Yemeni dagger handles), or tigers and leopards (for traditional medicine in China, Japan, and other East Asian countries), or whales (for Japanese whale-meat shops). Apart from causing the extinction of thousands of other species by depriving these life forms of their natural habitat, mankind's increasing numbers and industrial activity are causing such great changes to the atmosphere that numbers of concerned scholars are today warning that it is conceivable that all advanced forms of life on the planet's surface could be extinguished in a relatively short time.3 Industrial gasses are poisoning the atmosphere to such an extent that the ozone layer that protects all biological life from extreme radiation is being destroyed. These gasses are contributing to global warming. Signs of global warming are dramatic and ubiquitous.4 And as the masses of Asia increase in number and industrialize, the rate of ecological damage is rising rapidly. Without denying the possibility that the ongoing explosion of the human population, exacerbated by increasing industrial activity, may result in the catastrophic destruction of the planet's biosphere, it has to be admitted that the human species is at the very least causing a tremendous and irreversible changes in global biodiversity. Of the 5-30 million species on the planet's surface, an estimated 30,000 are currently being exterminated every year. With each passing year the world becomes a less and less varied and interesting place to be. Mankind is in the process of destroying, in an instant of evolutionary time, the global environment in which it evolved and on which it depends. At the very least, human overpopulation and increasing industrial activity are causing the extinction of large numbers of other species, and could potentially lead to the biological death of the planet. This destruction began with the advent of modern technology several centuries ago, and accelerated tremendously with the advent of the petroleum age. The human population continues to grow by about 1.3 percent a year, and economic activity (industrial production) is increasing by about three percent per year. With ecologically diverse forests being destroyed at the rate of 16 million hectares per year, the pace of destruction is relentless. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 140/212 OVERPOPULATION BAD (FORESTS) Overpopulation crowds out forests Barter 2K (Joseph, “Global War and the Human Population Problem” The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, Vol. 25, Issue 2, pg 241, proquest)/tamar History offers no cause for optimism that the human population explosion will spare any portion of the world. Underdeveloped nations continue to grow in population until they simply run out of natural resources and cause total destruction of their forests and wildlife. The overpopulated regions then seek to export their excess population to the more developed industrial nations, where, as a result, population currently continues grow at about one-half of one percent per year. Everywhere, it seems, mankind is striving for maximum economic growth, regardless of consequences to the local environment or to the planet's ecological well-being. The world's forests, in which many of the current plant and animal species reside, are being destroyed as a direct result of the expanding human population. The destruction of the forests is currently the prime cause of much of the ongoing species extinction. Around 94 percent of the forest that existed just sixty years ago, circa 1940, has already been destroyed (60 billion hectares then, 3.6 billion now). In the past 20 years, forests have disappeared altogether in 25 countries? At these rates, most of Earth's natural forest cover will soon be gone. As human population continues to increase, the demand for land and aged timber will increase, so that the destruction of the shrinking forests will accelerate. From the point of view of the exploitation of the world's natural resources, the U.S. population is the most destructive nation on Earth, since its industrial activity is the largest. Its population is large and its industrial production per person is one of the highest in the world. Its per capita commercial energy consumption is one of the highest in the world. Although birth rates in the U.S. fell to replacement level years ago, U.S. population growth now soars by about three million a year, due mainly to immigration and the higher birth rates of recent immigrants. For each new immigrant added to the country, about an acre of land is taken permanently out of wildlife habitat or agricultural production. Despite the damage that its growing population and industrial activity are causing to the planet's environment and its own natural resources, the U.S. has no plans to reduce its per capita energy consumption, to reduce its industrial production per capita, or to reduce its population. Its policy, quite the contrary, is to increase both the population and the per capita industrial production, as rapidly as possible, regardless of the consequences to the planet's biosphere. As global population size, industrial production, and consumption rise, an ever-greater pressure is placed on the environment, polluting the planet's biosphere and driving more species into extinction as their natural habitat is polluted or literally taken away from them. Independently, forests are key to human survival NRDC 7 – largest US environmental action group of over a million members (Good Wood: How Forest Certification Helps the Environment, http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/qcert.asp) Forests are more than a symbolic ideal of wilderness, more than quiet places to enjoy nature. Forest ecosystems -- trees, soil, undergrowth, all living things in a forest -- are critical to maintaining life on earth. Forests help us breathe by creating oxygen and filtering pollutants from the air, and help stabilize the global climate by absorbing carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. They soak up rainfall like giant sponges, preventing floods and purifying water that we drink. They provide habitat for 90 percent of the plant and animal species that live on land, as well as homelands for many of the earth's last remaining indigenous cultures. Forests are commercially important, too; they yield valuable resources like wood, rubber and medicinal plants, including plants used to create cancer drugs. Harvesting these resources provides employment for local communities. Healthy forests are a critical part of the web of life. Yet more than half of the earth's original forest cover has been destroyed due to human activity such as agriculture, development and logging. Much of the loss has occurred within the past three decades. Protecting the earth's remaining forest cover is now an urgent task. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 141/212 OVERPOPULATION BAD (NUCLEAR WAR) Overpopulation makes nuclear war inevitable Barter 2K (Joseph, “Global War and the Human Population Problem” The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, Vol. 25, Issue 2, pg 241, proquest)/tamar And war? Small wars, such as the scores of small conflicts that continue year after year, are no match for the ongoing population explosion, especially as the average age of the population continues to decline and the percentage of the population of reproductive age increases each year. Not even major wars, such as the First and Second World Wars, have had a long-term impact on the growth of the human population. But a really big war, involving thousands of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction could make a real difference. Such a war could destroy huge numbers of people and bring an immediate halt to the large-scale industrial activity that is causing so much environmental degeneration. It could reduce human numbers to the point where they no longer have a significant impact on the planet's ecology. Many species other than man would also be adversely affected, but in many cases they are doomed to eventual extinction by human industrial activity even in the absence of such warfare. Nuclear proliferation is taking place, as also the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. No matter how hard the U.S. strives to prevent it, as population pressures exacerbate political tensions, a future war employing unprecedented quantities of weapons of mass destruction seems virtually assured at some time in the twenty-first century. An attack involving 1,000 nuclear bombs can destroy about three quarters of the total urban population of the world, and an attack using 1,000 such weapons is of modest size. One thousand nuclear bombs could be produced, for example, with just the amount of plutonium that the nuclear powers have lost track of. At the present time, the U.S. possesses about 12,000 nuclear warheads and the former states of the USSR possess 22,500, of which about 7,000 on each side are classified as "strategic." Under the START II arms reduction treaty, the number of strategic nuclear weapons would be halved, to about 3,500 deployable warheads each for the US and Russia by the end of 2007. Either of these stockpiles is sufficient to destroy all 3,385 cities with a population of 100,000 people or more. Meanwhile, China is rapidly building its own arsenal, and other countries such as Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea are following suit.6Scenario for the Post-Nuclear War Age It would appear that catastrophic nuclearage war is inevitable, for several reasons. A major factor is the "politics of envy" - the desire for the "have-nots" of the world to destroy what the "haves" have, even if it does not improve their situation. The gap between the industrialized "West" and the rest of the world is widening, and the hatred and envy are growing as the poorer nations realize that they will never catch up. With the proliferation of plutonium from nuclear reactors, terrorists and rogue nations will soon have the capability to produce thousands of suitcase-sized nuclear bombs, and deliver them to any cities in the world. No missiles or airplanes are required. In terms of feasibility, likelihood, and effectiveness, global nuclear war or some other form of conflict utilizing weapons of mass destruction appears to "dominate" all other likely solutions to human overpopulation and man-made ecological destruction. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 142/212 OVERPOPULATION GOOD (ENVIRONMENT) Overpopulation doesn’t cause environmental damage—it solves it PADP 06 - Population and Development Program at Hampshire College ["10 Reasons to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’" http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/40] 4. Population growth is not the driving force behind environmental degradation. Blaming environmental degradation on overpopulation lets the real culprits off the hook. In terms of resource consumption alone, the richest fifth of the world’s people consume 66 times as much as the poorest fifth. The U.S. is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming—and the least willing to do anything about it. And just who is destroying the rain forest? While poor peasants sometimes play a role , corporate ranching, mining and logging operations are chiefly responsible for tropical deforestation. Worldwide militaries are major agents of environmental destruction. War ravages natural landscapes and military toxics pollute land, air and water . Nuclear weapons, reactors and waste pose the most deadly environmental threat to the planet. Imagine what a different world it would be if all the resources invested in producing deadly armaments went instead to environmental restoration and the development of cleaner, greener energy sources and technologies. Focusing on population also blinds us to the positive role many poor people play in protecting the environment. In many parts of the world, small farmers, especially women, are the main preservers of plant biodiversity through cultivating local crop varieties, preserving seeds, and forest stewardship. Recent research in Africa reveals that increasing population densities, if combined with sound agricultural practices, can actually stimulate environmental improvements. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 143/212 OVERPOPULATION GOOD (HUMAN RIGHTS) Trying to control populations legitimizes human rights abuses PADP 06 - Population and Development Program at Hampshire College ["10 Reasons to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’" http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/40] 8. Population alarmism encourages apocalyptic thinking that legitimizes human rights abuses. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich’s famous book The Population Bomb warned that the world was on the brink of massive famine and that in the 1970s “hundreds of millions” of people would starve to death. Though not borne out in reality, such dire predictions have long been popular in the population field. Today, population funding appeals still play on fears of future apocalypse. Fear does more than sell, however. It convinces many otherwise well-meaning people that it is morally justified to curtail the basic human and reproductive rights of poor people in order to save ourselves and the planet from doom. This sense of emergency leads to an elitist moral relativism, in which ‘we’ know best and ‘our’ rights are more worthy than ‘theirs.’ Politically, it legitimizes authoritarianism. Nowhere is the negative effect of apocalyptic thinking more dramatic than in the case of China. The decision to implement the draconian one-child policy was greatly influenced by the 1972 Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth, a deeply flawed computer simulation that incorrectly predicted impending economic and environmental collapse due to population growth. A successful human rights agenda is key to human survival Copelan, Professor at NYU Law School, 1999 (Rhonda, “The Indivisible Framework of International Human Rights: A Source of Social Justice in the U.S.” New York City Law Review) The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to truncate it in the international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority [*72] of the U.S. version of rights, to rebuild popular expectations, and to help develop a culture and jurisprudence of indivisible human rights. Indeed, in the face of systemic inequality and crushing poverty, violence by official and private actors, globalization of the market economy, and military and environmental depredation, the human rights framework is gaining new force and new dimensions. It is being broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women, who understand the protection of human rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and betterment. Also emerging is a notion of third-generation rights, encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-state basis and that call for new mechanisms of accountability, particularly affecting Northern countries. The emerging rights include humancentered sustainable development, environmental protection, peace, and security. n38 Given the poverty and inequality in the United States as well as our role in the world, it is imperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on both domestic and foreign policy. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 144/212 OVERSTRETCH GOOD – MIDDLE EAST WARS Overstretch is key to hard power needed for Middle East Donnelly 2005 Thomas The Top Ten Questions for the Post-9/11 World AEI online < http://www.aei.org/outlook/20965> Aug. 05 The need to fight on multiple fronts has been a basic tenet of American military strategy since the United States became a world power at the beginning of the twentieth century, and this remains a core premise today. Fortunately, recent experience has clarified the nature of potential conflict in the greater Middle East and in East Asia. The upcoming 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review can now be crafted to solve a more specific geopolitical puzzle, rather than having to base its assessments on generic “capabilities.” It is also reasonably clear that U.S. strategies in the Middle East and East Asia are distinct, and thus require distinct forces. The military containment of China is fundamentally a job for firepower, naval, and air forces. The transformation of the political order in the Middle East is principally a task of manpower, specifically land forces. While this is a radical simplification—of course, the superior accuracy, firepower, and mobility of U.S. forces are themselves transforming traditional calculations of military balances, and essential elements of American military power, like space forces, are applicable globally— it does lend a necessary clarity to force planning. Hard power is key to U.S. leadership. Global Security, (no author given) 427-05, < http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/1/ch2.htm> America is a strong Nation. It has abundant resources and a dynamic and productive population. It wields enormous political power and has the world’s strongest economy. But without a strong military to protect its enduring interests, America’s strength would soon wither. Since the end of the Cold War, the world has been in a state of significant transition. This transition is marked by increased uncertainty and potential vulnerability. The strategic environment is less stable than in the past, and threats to American interests are less predictable. National power remains relative and dynamic, and as such, the military must provide the National Command Authorities with flexible forces that can operate across the range of military operations and spectrum of conflict to achieve national security objectives. The Army operates as part of the joint force, and The Army constitutes the preponderance of the land component of that force. Acting as part of joint and multinational teams, The Army provides sustained land power capabilities to combatant commanders for engagement, crisis response, and warfighting in support of our national interests. Middle East conflict will escalate – causes worldwide nuclear war Steinbach 02 [Steinbach, “Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A threat to peace,” March 2002 www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.03/0331steinbachisraeli.htm] Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44) For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 145/212 POVERTY BAD This leads to pooricide- endless genocide against the poor, a cycle that degrades human beings, disintegrates life support systems, and acts as a slow-pace silent holocaust Udayakumar, director of the South Asian Community Center for Education and Research, 95(S.P Udayakumar, “The Futures of the Poor,” Futures Vol. 27, no. 3 pp 339-351, 1995) Although race, ethnicity, gender, generation and political powerlessness all contribute to poverty, the ‘economic worth’ factor forms the basis in ‘poorcide,’ the genocide of the poor. It is an economic group (or class) discriminated against in poorcide. A particular group of people is massacred in genocide, but poverty kills indiscriminately, irrespective of the group. Genocide just kills you, but poverty tortures and condemns you to a slow and painful death. Poverty degrades human beings, negates human dignity and wastes human resources, genocide prompts physical elimination, but poverty causes physical pain, mental agony, moral degradation and spiritual dissipation. Extending the analysis of physical violence and structural violence to genocide, we can distinguish between direct and indirect or physical and structural, genocide. Genocide means not just massive killing (which we can call direct or physical genocide) but also includes calculated attacks on and constant efforts at undermining the basic human dignity and life-support systems of a particular group of people (which may be described as the indirect or structural genocide). Poorcide may not be actual physical elimination of the poor in a massive scale, but it’s a slow-pace silent holocaust. Genocide takes place in pockets of human polity, but poverty afflicts humanity all over the world. Unlike genocide, poverty is widespread, systematically rooted and popularly accepted. However fickle and fragile, the victims, or potential victims, of genocide may be able to take some precautions. But the victims of poverty can only watch themselves being taken for granted, or even worse, being taken advantage of by the privileged. In a genocidal act, only those with prejudices and biases participate, but we are all complicit in the poverty crime. Leading a ‘rich lifestyle; or letting the problem persist is the definite complicity in the crime of poorcide. We have an obligation to solve one of the worst forms of violence in the status quo John Edwards, former US Senator, 6-22-06, “Ending Poverty: The Great Moral Issue of Our Time” Yale Law & Policy Review, http://www.yale.edu/ylpr/pdfs/Edwards.pdf I long have talked about the “Two Americas”: one for those families who have everything they need and then one for everybody else. Katrina showed us the Two Americas. Those images of men and women at the Superdome without food, water, or hope— simply because they did not have a car or the cash to escape—are something the American people will never forget. These people have become the face of poverty in America—a symbol of the poor and forgotten families that live in big cities like New Orleans and in small towns and rural America too. But if Katrina showed us the Two Americas, it also showed us something else. It showed us the American people want to live in one America. In the months after the hurricane, millions opened their hearts, their homes, and their wallets to this cause.7 It is clear the American people want to do the right thing on poverty, but it is also clear there are a couple things holding us back. Many of our families are struggling too much themselves to focus on those in need, while others do not want to repeat the failures of the past and throw money at a problem with the hope that it will magically disappear. These are very real concerns, but they are issues we can overcome, if our ideas about alleviating poverty are based on the values that made our country great—that we expect people who are capable of working to work, expect them to be responsible, and expect them to make smart choices. We also must make it clear that ending poverty is not something we are doing just for others but something we do for all of us. Maybe you have heard the phrase “It’s expensive to be poor”; well, it is also expensive for America to have so many poor. We all pay a price when young people who could someday find the cure for AIDS or design a fuel cell don’t even enter in the workforce in the first place because they did not get the education they need. We all pay a price when our people turn to crime because they have no other hope. And we all pay a price when the American Dream no longer seems American. We need to restore the dream that is America, but we also need to do it in a way that all Americans will be proud of. Not just by giving handouts to the poor or pumping money into a broken government program, but by finding ways to help everyone who works hard and makes smart choices get ahead. If we are going to be the America we believe in, we cannot look the other way. It is wrong that we have 37 million Americans living in poverty, separated from the opportunities of this country by their income, their housing, and their access to education and jobs and health care, just as it was wrong that we once lived in a country legally segregated by race. Too many places today are segregated by class. Poverty, then, is the great moral issue of our time, and we all have an obligation to do something about it—not just alleviate some of the symptoms, not just find ways to help some of the people, but end it. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 146/212 POVERTY GOOD (MILITARY RECRUITMENT) A. Poverty key to troop levels Cebula, economics professor and the Shirley & Philip Solomons Eminent Scholar at Armstrong Atlantic State University, 7-2-2K9 (Richard, “The Economy & You: Health care and military enlistment”, http://new.savannahnow.com/node/746951, REQ) There are economic considerations in the enlistment decision as well. For example, the higher the net financial benefits from enlisting, the greater the incentive to do so. Some people, especially those with a background of poverty, have found the armed forces as a vehicle for escaping that poverty. However, the more prosperous the civilian sector, the less appealing military enlistment becomes. For example, if the civilian unemployment rate is low, it is more difficult to attract recruits. When private sector businesses are booming and salaries are rising rapidly, enlistment becomes a less viable option. Naturally, enlistment is more appealing when the economy weakens and job opportunities dry up. Interestingly, one of the most appealing aspects of enlistment in the U.S. armed forces is the free health care for one's family (the enlistee, spouse, and children). Yet major public policy changes are being seriously considered in Washington that could adversely affect America's military. Namely, should some form of universal health care be enacted - my previous column cautions against such a policy without great care and due consideration - one side effect would undoubtedly be a decline in military enlistment. This prospect does not appear to have caught the attention of Washington lawmakers and the president. In the short run, universal health care would at some point reduce enlistment. This could adversely affect not only the Savannah economy, but also local economies across the nation. B. Troop levels are key to hegemony Kagan, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, specializing in defense transformation, the defense budget, and defense strategy and warfare, former professor of military history at the United States Military Academy, and O’Hanlon, senior fellow and Sydney Stein Jr. Chair in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, where he specializes in U.S. defense strategy, the use of military force, and homeland security, former analyst with the Congressional Budget Office, 2K7 (Frederick, Michael, “The Case for Larger Ground Forces”, http://www3.brookings.edu/views/articles/ohanlon/2007april_kagan.pdf, REQ) We live at a time when wars not only rage in nearly every region but threaten to erupt in many places where the current relative calm is tenuous. To view this as a strategic military challenge for the United States is not to espouse a specific theory of America’s role in the world or a certain political philosophy. Such an assessment flows overseas threats must be countered before they can directly of the international system is essential to American peace and prosperity, and that no country besides the United States is in a position to lead the way in countering major challenges to the global order. Let us highlight the threats and their consequences with a few concrete examples, emphasizing those that involve key strategic regions of the world such as the Persian Gulf and East Asia, or key potential threats to American security, such as the spread of nuclear weapons and the strengthening of the global Al Qaeda/jihadist movement. The Iranian government has rejected a series of international demands to halt its efforts at enriching uranium and submit to international inspections. What will happen if the US—or Israeli—government becomes convinced that Tehran is on the verge of fielding a nuclear weapon? North Korea, of course, has already done so, and the ripple effects are beginning to spread. Japan’s recent election to supreme power of a leader who has promised to rewrite that country’s constitution to support increased armed forces—and, possibly, even nuclear weapons— may well alter the delicate balance of fear in Northeast Asia fundamentally and rapidly. Also, in the background, at least for now, Sino- Taiwanese tensions continue to flare, as do tensions between India and Pakistan , Pakistan and Afghanistan, Venezuela and the United States, and so on. Meanwhile, the world’s directly from the basic bipartisan view of American foreign policy makers since World War II that threaten this country’s shores, that the basic stability nonintervention in Darfur troubles consciences from Europe to America’s Bible Belt to its bastions of liberalism, yet with no serious international forces on offer, the bloodletting will probably, tragically, continue unabated. And as bad as things are in Iraq today, they could get worse. What would happen if the key Shiite figure, Ali al Sistani, were to die? If another major attack on the scale of the Golden Mosque bombing hit either side (or, perhaps, both sides at the same time)? Such deterioration might convince many Americans that the war Afghanistan is somewhat more stable for the moment, although a major Taliban offensive appears to be in the offing. Sound US grand strategy must proceed from the recognition that, over the next few years and decades, the world is going to be a very unsettled and quite dangerous place, with Al Qaeda and its associated groups as a subset of a much larger set of worries. The only serious response to this international environment is to develop armed forces capable of protecting America’s vital interests throughout this dangerous time. Doing so requires a military capable of a wide range of missions —including not only deterrence of great power conflict in dealing with potential hotspots in Korea, the Taiwan Strait, and the Persian Gulf but also associated with a variety of Special Forces activities and stabilization operations. For today’s US military, which already excels at high technology and is increasingly focused on re-learning the lost art of counterinsurgency, this is first and foremost a question of finding the resources to field a large-enough standing Army and Marine Corps to handle personnel intensive missions such as the ones now under way in Iraq and Afghanistan. there truly was lost—but the costs of reaching such a conclusion would be enormous. C. Nuclear war Gray, Professor and Director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Reading, 2K5 (Colin S., March 22nd, “How has war changed since the end of the cold war?”, Parameters, Pg. 14(13) Vol. 35 No. 1) Logically, the reverse side of the coin which proclaims a trend favoring political violence internal to states is the claim that interstate warfare is becoming, or has become, a historical curiosity. Steven Metz and Raymond Millen assure us that "most armed conflicts in coming decades are likely to be internal ones." (21) That is probably a safe prediction, though one might choose to be troubled by their prudent hedging with the qualifier "most." Their plausible claim would look a little different in hindsight were it to prove true except for a mere one or two interstate nuclear conflicts, say between India and Pakistan, or North Korea and the United States and its allies. The same authors also offer the comforting judgment that "decisive war between major states is rapidly moving toward history's dustbin." (22) It is an attractive claim; it is a shame that it is wrong. War, let alone "decisive war," between is enjoying an off-season for one main reason: So extreme is the imbalance of military power in favor of the United States that potential rivals rule out policies that might lead to hostilities with the superpower. It is fashionable to argue that major interstate war is major states currently yesterday's problem--recall that the yesterday in question is barely 15 years in the past--because now there is nothing to fight about and nothing to be gained by armed conflict. Would interstate war will return to frighten us when great-power rivals feel able to challenge American hegemony. If you read Thucydides, or Donald Kagan, you will be reminded of the deadly and eternal influence of the triad of that those points were true; unfortunately they are not. The menace of major, if not necessarily decisive, motives for war: "fear, honor, and interest." (23) For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 147/212 POVERTY GOOD (PORK) 1/2 Pork producers are on the brink of collapse Krohn, 7/12/09 (Tim, Free Press Staff Writer, Pork prices described as crisis: Many producers 'at the absolute edge', Mankato Free Press, http://www.mankatofreepress.com/local/local_story_193231913.html) Mitch Truebenbach, like other hog producers, was losing as much as $25 on each pig he sold for more than two years. Early this spring, things started looking a bit brighter. “Guys were just starting to break even when the ‘swine’ flu came. Then it just plummeted. The problem is CNN and the national media are all still calling it swine flu. The exports just dropped. It’s been brutal.” David Preisler, executive director of the Mankato-based Minnesota Pork Producers, said that between one-quarter and one-third of the state’s pork producers “are on the absolute edge.” On Tuesday, Truebenbach and other producers from across the Midwest are hosting a free pork feed in Mankato for the public and a meeting for producers to discuss the latest developments in the industry. Lynch Livestock will provide the lunch from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., serving pork loin, pork sausage and pulled pork outside the Mankato Harley Davidson store off Highway 169 in North Mankato. A Crisis in the Swine Industry meeting will follow at 1 p.m. at the Best Western. Truebenbach, of Aberdeen, S.D., grew up near Nicollet and operates hog operations in this area and South Dakota. He decided to help organize the Tuesday event to counter the negative publicity the industry has had because of the so-called swine flu. Many consumers in the United States and other countries have mistakenly assumed pork is unsafe or can transmit the Government and health agencies have taken pains to stop referring to the HINI virus as “swine” flu, but the label has stuck with much of the public and news outlets. Preisler said the flu publicity dried up exports to Mexico, the second largest importer of American pork. While producers expected to be near the breakeven point this year, Preisler said hog producers in Minnesota alone are now expected to lose some $500 million . Minnesota produces 15 million hogs a year, second only to Iowa. Hog and other livestock prices have been battered in recent years by high grain prices , which increased feed costs. Grain prices reached record levels because of increased world demand and more use of corn in ethanol plants. Corn and soybean prices have moderated some recently. Truebenbach said the high production prices, coupled with the flu scare, have brought the industry to the brink. “There have been quite a few (producers) going out of business. There’s a lot of them right on the edge and I think the lenders are really going to force the issue now. A lot of producers are leveraged up,” he said. virus. But the virus is not a food-borne illness. The virus contains avian and human components and no pig so far has been found ill with the disease. The poorest consume the most pork ---- the aff causes a decrease in demand Davis and Lin, 5 (Christopher G. and Biing-Hwan, Economic Research service, USDA, May, Factors Affecting US Pork Consumption, http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/?Display=1344) Lower Income Households Report More Pork Consumption In the CSFII survey, households were classified into three income brackets using the Federal poverty guideline. For reference, the Census Bureau reported that the weighted average poverty income threshold for a fourperson household was $15,961 annually during 1994-96 and 1998, derived from the U.S. Department of Commerce Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2000). The poverty guideline was developed by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services for the implementation of Federal food programs. Some of these programs, such as the Food Stamps Program, have used annual household income at 130 percent of the poverty level to determine eligibility. The present study uses 130 percent of the poverty-level threshold to define the low-income category— About 39 percent of households had income exceeding 350 percent of the poverty level (called highincome), while 42 percent of households had income falling between 130 and 350 percent of the poverty level (middle-income). The CSFII results indicate that consumers in high-income households consumed less pork per capita, both fresh and processed, than did those in low- and middle-income households (table 3 and fig. 3). Per capita consumption of fresh pork was highest among low-income consumers, and of processed pork it was about 19 percent of U.S. households. highest among middle-income consumers. Maintaining domestic pork demand is vital to the industry Jackson, 5/5/09 (Tom is a Senior Economist in IHS Global Insight's Agriculture Group, North American Flu Threatens Pork Demand, http://www.globalinsight.com/Perspective/PerspectiveDetail16606.htm) Whether bans on meat trade are legitimate or not, they will likely affect livestock markets, especially hogs. Exports account for an increasing share of annual U.S. pork production, rising from 7% of production in 2000 to 20% in 2008. Japan has been the leading foreign buyer of U.S. pork for years, and Mexico's purchases have been fairly steady as the second-highest market. Meanwhile, Russia and China have fueled the rise in U.S. pork exports with their increased purchases. China's increased purchases in 2007 and 2008 were probably based on short-term factors, such as disease in the Chinese hog herd in 2007 and increased pork demand because of the Olympics in Beijing in 2008; therefore, a decrease in China's pork purchases was already expected for 2009. Reliance on Russia as a meat export market tends to carry an element of risk, especially because it is not yet a World Trade Organization signatory. Russia maintains quota and tariff systems for meat imports, and the associated rules can be euphemistically described as "variable." Recovering from the loss of Russia as a pork export market for a the bigger risks to demand for U.S. pork probably lie closer to home sustained period would be difficult. Beyond the issue of the trade bans, . Mexican demand for U.S. pork has been partly fueled by its economic growth, and the potential damage to the Mexican economy from the flu outbreak could reduce its overall food demand. In addition, there is the danger that consumers will stay away The domestic pork market also may pose a risk if U.S. consumers shun pork. Although export demand has risen to 20% of total U.S. pork production, domestic demand still accounts for the remaining 80%. It will take a while to determine whether domestic demand for pork has been significantly damaged. So far, there has been a bit of anecdotal evidence of consumer wariness of pork in the United States, but experience from other potential meat safety issues, such as mad cow disease and avian influenza, indicates that on balance, U.S. consumer demand for pork is unlikely to suffer very much because of safety fears over "swine flu." from pork in droves if they believe that the flu is transmitted by eating pork products, even if their fears are misplaced. The flu issue is developing quickly, and IHS Global Insight will continue to monitor its effects on the entire economy, including agriculture. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 148/212 POVERTY GOOD (PORK) 2/2 The pork industry is key to the economy PST, 7 (Progressive Swine Technologies, Caring for Our Environment: Economic Impacts of the Pork Industry, http://www.pstdanbred.com/EconomicImpact.asp) Pork production is a vital and growing part of the nation's economy and the industry's economic impact on rural America is especially significant. Annual farm sales usually exceed $11 billion, with the retail value of pork totaling about $30 billion. When the economic impact of wages and profits spent in other sectors is included, pork producers are responsible for generating more than $66 billion in total domestic economic activity . Through direct, indirect, and induced effects, the pork industry supports over 600,000 jobs and adds nearly $27.4 billion of value to production inputs. Efficient production methods keep consumer pork prices in the United States among the lowest in the world. The pork industry also produces non-food items used in medicines, and cleaning agents. Pharmaceutical by-products include insulin, various hormones, materials used to dress wounds and burns, and replacement heart valves. Industrial by-products include cleaners, adhesives, proteins, dyes, insulation, crayons, chalk, lubricants, and leather. The versatility of pork products makes production an appealing and potentially profitable business . The number of hogs produced in the United States now numbers about 93 million and the number of farms with hogs is more than 157,000 (USDA, December 1996). Pork producers contribute to the economic viability of rural communities by supporting service and retail businesses from the farm gate to main street. As many small towns experience a gradual loss in population and tax base, areas that rely on pork production and related businesses often benefit from greater tax revenues, increased per capita incomes, stronger employment rates, and other factors that build economically stable communities. Economic decline risks extinction Kerpen 10/28/08 (Phil, policy director of Americans for Prosperity, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWQ3ZGYzZTQyZGY4ZWFiZWUxNmYwZTJiNWVkMTIxMmU=) It’s important that we avoid all these policy errors — not just for the sake of our prosperity, but for our survival. The Great Depression, after all, didn’t end until the advent of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the planet. In a world of nuclear and biological weapons and non-state terrorist organizations that breed on poverty and despair, another global economic breakdown of such extended duration would risk armed conflicts on an even greater scale. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 149/212 UNIQUENESS EXT Pork industry growing now: Brink --- pork producers are struggling to maintain profits post swine flu scares and high food prices ---they’ll just survive ---- that’s Kohn. b) Rising pork prices and hog investment Reuters, 7/16/09 (LIVESTOCK-U.S. hogs up 2 pct to 6-wk high on pork surge, http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN1629514020090716) .S. hog futures rose nearly 2 percent on Thursday to a six-week high amid a surge in the wholesale price of pork to the highest level in eight months. Meat packers reducing the rate of hog slaughter and a pickup in demand have helped to lift the average pork price by 18.5 percent, or $9.89, since slumping to a six-year low of $53.44 per cwt on June 24. The U.S. Agriculture Department on Wednesday reported the average pork price rising $3.28 to $63.33 per cwt, its highest since Oct. 28. "Yesterday's pork cash news was bullish for this market," said James Burns, a hog futures trader. "If they can hold it (cash pork price) over $63, maybe it will give some signs of recovery. August lean hogs 2LHQ9 closed up 1.200 cents at 65.225 cents and October 2LHV9 was up 1.375 cents at 60.475 cents. August posted a six-week high and October a five-week high. The pork market had been under a lot of pressure the past couple of months due to the weak economy and H1N1 flu reducing pork exports . The industry has been paring down the hog herd. Burns noted the advance was limited by the large premium of futures to cash prices and concern there is still a large amount of meat that has to work through the pipeline while the economy tries to recover from the recession . "We're still a little apprehensive because we are carrying such a premium to the cash market. "There's still a lot of meat out there," he said. "If this afternoon's product (price) comes out higher again or steady at worst, I think you could see a little upward continuation here in the August," Burns added. CHICAGO, July 16 (Reuters) - U c) Domestic demand and exports LMDS, 6/26/09 (Le Mars Daily Sentinel, Pork industry fighting back after H1N1 name debacle, http://www.lemarssentinel.com/story/1550574.html) The name of the recent H1N1 influenza outbreak seems like a jumble of characters, but it won't send an entire U.S. industry into a downward spiral. That's what happened to the pork industry when initial press releases about the strain of influenza gave it the name "swine flu," according to Le Mars pork producer Bill Tentinger. Tentinger, who has been in the industry for 40 years, is also a board member for the Iowa Pork Producers Association. The misnomer came about because the virus is an unique combination of swine and human flu viruses. However, the virus is not transmitted from pigs to humans, according to the Iowa Department of Public Health. But when the news broke in late April, it was the shot heard around the world for the U.S. pork industry -- already facing over-supply and a cold shoulder from some foreign markets. John Schneider, who custom feeds hogs in rural Le Mars, said the poor name choice of the H1N1 flu was "rather devastating" for pork producers. "Pork dropped about $15. That's about $40 per head of hogs," he said. "It hasn't recovered completely yet." In the United States, pork consumption dropped sharply after the April flu announcement but only stayed down a week and a half, Tentinger said. The foreign markets, however, have been a different story. China, a top U.S. pork importer, has banned pork products from the U.S. Russia, also in the top 10 for U.S. port imports, banned pork products from nearly one-third of the states. "We'd really relied heavily on exports. They were tremendous last year. When you start losing that it really hurts," Tentinger said. "This just came out of the dark," he said. "It has the U.S. market seemed to respond to media reports explaining that H1N1 flu can not be spread through pork products or from pigs to people, China and Russia reacted the opposite way. "When the CDC's original statement came out misnaming the influenza, countries took advantage of that," Tentinger really set the pork industry back." While said. These countries, he said, used the H1N1 flu scare to bolster their own domestic pork products by banning U.S. exports. Dan Casey, of Nor-Am Cold Storage, which ships pork and other meat products abroad and in the U.S., had a similar view. "It's mostly political," Casey said. "Countries sometimes flex their political muscle and ban imports to hopefully gain some concessions." The U.S., Tentinger said, is viewed as a major competitor to the industry in these countries. "In China, there's a mindset in the country that they want to be self-sufficient, and part of that is food," Tentinger said. "They won't want to be reliant on another country for their food supply." According to the Associated Press, the bans in Russia and China cost the U.S. hog industry millions of dollars weekly. Tentinger said he's heard from people who have traveled to Russia to talk about lifting the bans. "They're There is some good news. While China and Russia are standing their ground, other nations are not following suit. "Other countries are stepping up their intake of our pork products," Tentinger said. "We've put a lot of effort in getting the word out, and they're seeing that it's a good time, that pork is a real value right now . They know it's safe." Japan's import numbers for U.S. pork are up especially, he said. Taiwan is taking in more, too. "Mexico is a strong trade partner, and Mexican exports are starting to come back," Tentinger said. "They're getting near levels prior to the H1N1 outbreak." Domestically, sales of U.S. pork are also on the rise , especially in the past few weeks, he said. Casey reported the same increase. His explanation: the sun is out and it's grilling time . coming back saying the Russians are going to be tough cookies," Tentinger said. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 150/212 UNIQUENESS – AT: ALT CAUSE TO PRICES Pork exports weren’t too negatively affected by swine flu and the economy Cattle Network. 7/13/09 (USMEF: Pork, Beef Exports Weathering Influenza, Economic Crises Fairly Well, http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=329774) While May was expected to be the month in which U.S. pork exports were most affected by A-H1N1 influenza, the impact has not been as negative as some analysts had predicted, according to an analysis of USDA statistics by the U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF). At the same time, U.S. beef exports for the first five months of 2009 remain roughly on par with 2008. May pork plus pork variety meat exports totaled 143,682 metric tons (316.8 million pounds) valued at $342.6 million. This is down 9 percent in spring of 2008 was a historic high point for U.S. pork exports, and a repeat of those results was not anticipated even before A-H1N1 influenza hampered demand and led to significant market value and 9.5 percent in volume from April, and down a substantial 24 percent in value and 27 percent in volume compared to May 2008. But closures for U.S. pork. When compared to May 2007, pork exports in May 2009 actually increased 43 percent in volume and 36 percent in value, and surpassed the volume and value achieved in any single month of that year. For the first five months of 2009, exports are down 4 percent in volume to 791,745 metric tons (1.7 billion pounds) and 1 percent in value to $1.8 billion from the same period last year. It is also important to note that despite we don’t like to see a decline in pork exports for any reason,” said USMEF Chairman Jon Caspers, a pork producer from Swaledale, Iowa. “But considering the blow we were dealt by A-H1N1 influenza, on top of an already shaky global economy, the May results were not as lackluster as some had feared. But now speculation about the domestic market absorbing excess pork due to sluggish exports, the percentage of total production exported (23.3 percent) is roughly on pace with 2008. “Certainly we need to put these trade suspensions and other barriers behind us and work aggressively to ensure that these effects don’t linger.” Some countries either fully or partially closed to U.S. pork during May, and a few markets – including China – remain closed today. But Caspers was quick to praise the trading partners that lived up to their obligations by remaining open to U.S. pork and worked to dispel misinformation that attempted to connect pork “USMEF worked very closely with the governments of Mexico, Japan, Korea and many other countries to keep these markets open and to ensure that their trade policies remained science-based,” he said. “Despite considerable pressure in some of these countries, most remained fully open. Consumer demand took a hit in the early stages of the outbreak, but seems to have bounced back fairly quickly as people become better informed about the safety of U.S. pork.” Despite being regarded as the epicenter of the A-H1N1 outbreak and consumption with A-H1N1 influenza. enduring a weeklong shutdown of most commercial activity in early May, Mexico performed fairly well for the month. While pork and pork variety meat exports to Mexico declined by about 15 percent from April, volume was Mexico has increased its imports of U.S. pork by 48 percent in value and nearly 60 percent in volume over the same period last year. It has been the leading volume destination for U.S. pork (211,391 metric tons or 466 million pounds) and trails only Japan in terms of value ($315 million vs. $695 million to Japan). Japan continues to perform exceptionally well for U.S. pork, with results through the first five months of the year surpassing last year’s still 18 percent higher than in May 2008, totaling 34,227 metric tons (75.5 million pounds). For the first five months of the year, record pace by 4 percent in volume (192,050 metric tons or 423.4 million pounds) and 17 percent in value. Japan is still by far the top value destination for U.S. pork, and trails only Mexico this year in terms of volume. Other bright spots for U.S. pork during the first five months of 2009 include Taiwan ( up 75 percent in volume and 63 percent in value over January-May 2008), Australia (up 33 percent in volume and 35 percent in value), the Caribbean region (up 56 percent in volume and 53 percent in value), and Central and South America (up 25 percent in volume and 37 percent in value). Conversely, exports to the Hong Kong/China market have declined by 46 percent in volume and 48 percent in value while Russia has fallen by 34 percent in volume and 35 percent in value. These results are due in part to the trade suspensions imposed as a result of A-H1N1 influenza, but both countries have also been making concerted efforts to bolster domestic pork production and reduce their reliance on imports. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 151/212 LINK EXT Low-income individuals consume pork --- higher income persons consume chicken Guenther, 5 (Patricia M. PhD, RD, Helen H. Jensen PhD, S. Patricia Batres-Marquez MS and Chun-Fu Chen MS, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Sociodemographic, Knowledge, and Attitudinal Factors Related to Meat Consumption in the United States, Volume 105, Issue 8, August, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B758G-4GRH23B12&_user=1458830&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000052790&_version=1&_urlVersio n=0&_userid=1458830&md5=83513e3bd943a63c4ccae410d669f2d1) Individuals in higher income households consumed relatively more chicken; those in low-income households consumed more processed pork products. Those consuming no beef and smaller amounts of chicken had the lowest discretionary fat intakes. Beef and pork consumers were more likely to think that their diets were too high in fat, but less likely to believe it is important to eat a low-fat diet. Region of residence affected the probability of consuming most meats. Having a high level of education was associated with a lower likelihood of consuming beef and pork. Conclusions Sociodemographic factors are strong predictors of the probability of choosing particular types of meat and of the amounts eaten. Knowledge and attitudes about diet and meat products also influence choices. The poor eat more pork than the wealthy Davis and Lin, 5 (Christopher G. and Biing-Hwan Lin, Economic Research Service, May, Factors Affecting U.S. Pork Consumption, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/LDP/may05/ldpm13001/ldpm13001.pdf) What do consumption patterns tell us about the future of the hog industry? Although eaten less frequently than poultry or beef, pork is and will continue to be an important source of protein for Americans. Using USDA’s CSFII survey data, we described pork consumption in terms of who eats pork and pork products, along with where and how much. Such information, while useful to retailers, processors, hog producers, and others investigating the health and structure of the industry, has not been readily available. Some important findings of this study include: Most of the pork eaten by consumers was purchased at retail stores and consumed at home. The South had a higher market share of pork consumption than other regions, thanks to its large population base and its above-average consumption. However, on a per capita basis, Midwest consumers ate 58 pounds of pork, followed by 52 pounds in the South, 51 pounds in the Northeast, and 42 pounds in the West. Black consumers had the highest per capita pork consumption overall, but other ethnic groups, especially Asians, consumed more fresh pork than others on a per capita basis. White consumers ate less fresh pork but more processed pork than Hispanics. Higher income consumers ate less pork than lower income consumers. As eating out has become more popular, higher income consumers have eaten a larger portion of pork away from home than lower income consumers. Poor consume comparatively more pork Davis et al, 4 (Christopher Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May, Consumption of Pork Products: Now and to the Year 2020, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/20168/1/sp04da02.pdf) In the CSFII survey, households were classified into three income brackets using the Federal poverty guidelines. The poverty guideline was developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the implementation of Federal food programs. Some Federal food programs, such as the Food Stamp Program, have used 130 percent of the poverty level as the eligibility criterion for participation. CSFII data indicate that lower-income consumers ate more pork than their higher-income counterparts. Individuals in households with income eligible for the Food stamp program consumed about 70 pounds of pork per year, compared to 68 and 62 pounds consumed in higher income households. The poor would adopt the same pork consumption patterns of the wealthy Davis et al, 4 (Christopher Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May, Consumption of Pork Products: Now and to the Year 2020, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/20168/1/sp04da02.pdf) The estimated demand system for pork cuts and the predicted social, economic, and demographic conditions were used to predict the per capita consumption of the pork cuts. It should be noted that there are key assumptions underlying the predictions. We assumed that consumers’ preferences for pork and relative pork prices would stay the same throughout year 2020. Over time, as consumers move from one demographic group to another (such as aging), they would take on the new group’s consumption patterns. The results indicated that per capita consumption of fresh pork would rise but the consumption of processed pork would decline over the next two decades. However, the U.S. population is predicted to grow by an estimated 50 million people. As a result, between 2000 and 2020, the consumption of fresh pork was predicted to grow by 22 percent, followed by a 15 percent growth in other pork, 12 percent for smoked ham, and 9 percent for lunchmeats, hot dogs, bacon, and sausage. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 152/212 I/L – DOMESTIC DEMAND KEY Demand drop exacerbates industry’s financial difficulties Fannin, 9 (Blair, Texas A&M University, “U.S. pork industry important economic driver,” May 1, Southwest Farm Press, http://southwestfarmpress.com/news/pork-industry-0501/) Consumers hold the key to how quickly pork prices rebound from the dip they experienced following the current influenza outbreak, according to a Texas AgriLife Extension Service economist. Hog prices nationwide had dropped to an average of about $59 per 100 pounds of carcass weight Tuesday morning, down from about $62 last Thursday, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Seasonal prices for this time of year typically climb past $70 in late April and May. "(A lot of this) depends on how consumers react," Anderson said. "If demand for pork declines, they've got to cut production and it means some hog farmers will go out of business. It all depends on how consumers react and how long the trade bans go on and how widespread they are in determining if this will contribute to lower prices and how long lower prices last." Domestic demand key to industry growth Informa Economics, 5 (The Changing US Pork Industry and Implications for Future Growth, October, http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/?Display=1571) US domestic pork disappearance (i.e. total consumption) hit an historic low in 1982 but has since trended higher (Figure 1), reflecting fairly stable per capita consumption coupled with US population growth. Over the same period, domestic pork production has increased at an even faster rate, (interrupted only by the normal fluctuations of the US hog cycle) allowing the United States to become a net exporter of pork products and one of the preeminent suppliers on world markets. Over the past several decades, US meat consumption (beef, pork and poultry combined) has shown steady growth, from about 150 lbs per capita in 1960 to nearly 225 lbs per capita in 2004 (Figure 2). This reflects both US income growth and improved production techniques that have generally resulted in lower unit prices and improved quality characteristics. But domestic consumption of pork has been remarkably stable over the same period, mostly remaining between 50 lbs and 60 lbs per capita, but closer to 50 lbs per capita since about 1982. On the other hand, per capita beef and chicken consumption have trended in opposite directions, with strong growth in poultry offsetting steady, slow erosion in beef consumption over most of the same period. And, price changes alone cannot explain most of these consumption trends, as beef consumption has trended lower despite steady or modestly declining real prices of beef over much of this period, while consumption of chicken has shown almost consistent year-over-year increases regardless of price fluctuations. Hence, other factors such as health perceptions, quality and consistency, convenience of preparation, and marketing/branding strategies have contributed to changing consumption patterns among major meat groups. Pork demand has shown remarkable stability against these market dynamics. Historic consumption patterns indicate that the US consumer is willing to consume up to about 53 lbs of pork per capita within the current price range, so expanding demand beyond that level is mostly uncharted territory. This suggests that continued industry growth is likely to come mostly through domestic population growth and exports, along with some “targeted” growth in niche markets that appeal to particular consumer interests, such as perhaps, organic production, heirloom genetics, or production systems that emphasize specific traits such as antibiotic free, animal welfare concerns, or others. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 153/212 I/L – KEY TO ECONOMY Pork is critical to the economy Levy, 8 (Janet is the founder of ESG Consulting, an organization that offers project management, fundraising, promotion, event organizing and planning services for conservative political causes and issues related to terrorism and national security, Outlawing the Pig, may 2, http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30815) Pork production is a vital part of the U.S. economy, producing more than 22 billion pounds of meat annually, contributing almost $40 billion to the GNP and employing more than 500,000 workers in pork-industry related jobs. In addition, important pork co-products include heart valves, skin grafts for burn victims, gelatin, plywood, glue, cosmetics and plastics. At 28% of total world production, the U.S. is the second largest pork producer after China, which produces close to 50% of the world total. Pork ranks third in U.S. meat production behind beef and chicken and average yearly per capita consumption is about 50 pounds. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 154/212 2NC CCP STABILIY IMPACT A strong US industry is critical to Chinese pork exports ---- enables Chinese agricultural investment Hayes and Clemens, 7 (Dermot J., professor of economics and chair of agribusiness at Iowa State, Roxanne, ISU Meat Export Research Center, March, The Chinese Market for U.S. Pork Exports, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/97bp14.pdf) As China’s production costs grow within a protected environment, the U.S. advantage will increase. Although a more formal analysis of these subsidies would be required to prove a World Trade Organization (WTO) case, U.S. pork producers would benefit from a WTO entry agreement for China prohibiting direct and indirect use of export subsidies. Projections As mentioned, the Chinese government places a strong emphasis on selfsufficiency in pork. This stance means that China's negotiators at the WTO accession meetings will request permission to maintain the current de facto ban the U nited S tates is in a position to obtain some concessions from China, and one of these concessions might be to open China’s pork market. Therefore, two sets of projections—each representing one of the above outcomes—are presented. Both scenarios assume that Chinese pork exports will decrease. In the on pork imports. However, selfsufficiency (baseline) scenario, the decrease occurs because internal prices increase. In the WTO concession scenario, the decrease occurs because free trade in pork products precludes subsidized exports. Both scenarios assume that consumption and production level off for the next two years as the market responds to the current surplus of frozen pork and relatively high production costs (see Figures 1 through 4). After 1998, the WTO concession scenario shows 4 percent growth in per capita consumption and zero growth in production. (Note that the 4 percent growth figure is lower than the 6 percent figure mentioned earlier to account for the overestimate of consumption levels inherent in the USDA data.) The selfsufficiency scenario shows 2 percent annual growth in both production and consumption. By construction, the self-sufficiency scenario shows a no-trade situation The WTO scenario shows a very large import level (exceeding U.S. production). These figures make a simple point. China is in the process of building a pork industry in the wrong place. Pork that should be produced in grain-surplus countries will be produced at great expense in a graindeficit country. This misallocation of resources will cause Chinese pork prices to be much higher than would otherwise be the case and will divert Chinese investment in agriculture away from other, more lucrative, opportunities. throughout the projection period. Investment key to stability Gilmore, 9 (Yongye Biotechnology International's Larry, VP of Corporate Strategy, April 16, An Interview With Yongye: China's Agricultural Revolution, http://www.thechinaperspective.com/articles/aninterviewwithyongyechina039sagriculturalrevolution5717/index.html) Agriculture continues to be a heavily invested sector in China. The news is chalked full stories following big name investors who have confidence in China’s Agricultural strength. The market volume for agriculture products is huge, both for domestic sales and export and there is no set threshold for foreign investment into the sector as opposed to other industries, such as energy, finance, mining, and China is the world’s biggest grower and consumer of grains and yet must boost crop yields by at least 1 percent a year to ensure the country has enough food to feed its 1.3 billion people according to the Minister of Agriculture, Sun Zhengcai. Additional policy changes will include protecting farmland working to increase rural incomes to retain farming interest. The goal is to maintain self-sufficiency in food production because no other country can feed the world’s biggest population, Sun said. “Our telecommunications. This is driven by the growing demand for higher quality food products domestically and international reliance on food products from China. Currently, strategy must be based on stable farmland, and seeking ways to improve yields,” Sun said in a speech to local officials, outlining the government’s near- and long-term agriculture policy and objectives. China, which harvested more summer crops, aims also to boost grain and oilseed output this year, Sun said. To ensure next year’s crops, officials must “stabilize” area planted in winter wheat and use idle land in the off season to grow rapeseed, Sun said. armland in China is owned by the local government, but given to local farmers under 30 year use contracts. With the allure of higher incomes and better living conditions in the city, farmers have abandoned the land and no others farmers have stepped in to bring it back into production. This has created a shortage of a key raw material in the agricultural supply chain- productive land. The government has acknowledged this issue and recently enacted a new land use reform policy which liberalizes the exchange of land among the nation’s farmers. This creates a new model for China’s 730 million farmers with the idea being to create more stable farmlands by shifting the country away from the single household farm plot model to the amalgamation of larger-scale operations which should be more productive due to technology and economies of scale. Farmers will be able to transfer their Chinese authorities commented that, "Without modernizing agriculture, China cannot modernize; without stability and prosperity in rural areas, China cannot have stability and prosperity." The changes are enacted to "ensure national food security and the supply of major agricultural products, and promote increases in agricultural production, farm incomes and rural prosperity." land-use rights to others through a new market system for rural land-use rights. CCP instability causes WMD lashout and extinction Renxing, 5 (San, The Epoch Times "The CCP's Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War. Hundreds of millions of deaths proposed", 8/5, http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.html) A cornered beast is fighting desperately to survive in a battle with humanity . If you don’t passages directly from the speeches What, then, is the gist of this wild, last-ditch gamble? To put it in a few words: read believe me, some . We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack [on the US], the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the U.S. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the U.S., China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward fearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone! In any event, we, the CCP, will never step down from the stage of history! We’d rather have the whole world, or even the entire globe, share life and death with us than step down from the stage of history!!! Isn’t there a nuclear bondage theory? It means that since the nuclear weapons have bound the security of the entire world, all will die together if death is inevitable. In my view, there is another kind of bondage, and that is, the fate our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the CCP, are finished, China will be finished, and the world will be finished. It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world . We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not population would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. want deaths. But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of Since the Party’s life is above all else, it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches. our Party. That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Partys life has always been above all else! For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 155/212 2NC NORTH KOREA IMPACT 1/2 The US pork industry is the key exporter to South Korea Southern Farmer, 6 (Imports of U.S. Chilled Pork a Rising Trend, Jan 11, http://southernfarmer.com/story.aspx?s=8192&c=12) South Koreans are developing an appetite for U.S. pork. South Korea imported 236,874 metric tons (mt) of pork in the first 11 months of 2005, a 49% increase compared to the same 11 months of 2004. The U.S. pork industry had the largest share (22.5%) of the import market. The United States also provided a record quantity of U.S. chilled pork (4,131 mt), according to Korean statistics. The increase in imports of U.S. chilled pork was behind Korea’s percentage of chilled pork imports rising from 1.35% (Jan.-Nov. 2004) to 2.5%. The United States Meat Export Federation sees an expanding future for chilled pork exports to Korea and is promoting it extensively in restaurants and supermarkets. Improved packaging technology, longer shelf life and enhanced transportation methods have dramatically increased the demand for chilled U.S. pork from 2003, when negligible quantities of chilled U.S. pork were exported to Korea. Targeted marketing by USMEF to restaurants and retail stores has stimulated the rapidly increasing consumption of chilled U.S. pork. These pork exports are critical to keeping inflation low Brooks, 7 (Eric J., FEED Business Asia, Inflation, imports or adaptation: Asian hog farmers examine their options, Oct, http://www.efeedlink.com/ShowDetail/e9904c30-d349-4b1d-b109-6b28e23edce0.html ) ASIA's rising demand for animal protein is outstripping its capacity to convert feed grains into livestock. With pork rising from 30.3 percent of Asia's meat output (by quantity) in 1961 to approximately 55 percent today, this widening gap between supply and demand is felt most acutely in Asia's hog rearing industry. Even as large Asian populations and rising incomes collide with global feed grain shortages, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) states that Asia will account for two-thirds or 2 percent of this year's 3 percent rise in pork production. However, the FAO also expects that resource constraints and higher feed grain prices will soon flatten out Asia's rising hog production. This last point is particularly important because behind critical hog sector issues such as imports, feed grains or prices, supply chain problems silently lurk in the background. Consequently, Asia's rising living standards and growing populations are outracing regional swine inventories. This trend is evident in national pork import volumes. In 1980, Asia's hog trade was balanced as it accounted for 24 percent of both pork . Japan's traditionally voluminous pork imports have been joined by those of South Korea and China. According to Thomas Lee Bauer, Head, Strategic Advisory & Research at Rabobank International, "US Pork exports to Asia are increasing with Japan up 8.1 percent and China 51 percent over last year." Similarly, the South Korean government expects pork imports to rise by 50 percent over 2006's level. On the menu: Inflation or imports? These figures, however, understate the gravity of the situation. Countries with hog inventory deficits have to choose between demand-pull inflation or the problematic avenue of importing pork. For example, by refusing to cover domestic hog imports and exports. By 2007, Asia generated only 12 percent of pork exports but consumed 44 percent of global pork imports supply shortages with a sufficient quantity of imports, China is on route to pork price inflation in excess of 100 percent for this year. Furthermore, despite the strong signals higher prices usually send to hog producers, China's relatively low hog inventories are responding slowly and weakly. China remains restrictive in its meat importing policies but in an effort to stop a pork price spiral, it opted to import 70,000 tonnes of US pork shortly before , by liberalising pork imports, South Korea has achieved price stability this article's publication. On the other hand but at the cost of imperiling its domestic swine production. Indeed, China's fear that liberalising pork imports threatens domestic hog production is widely shared throughout Asia. In a public announcement made shortly after banning imports of hogs and pork, Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen cited disease concerns. However, he also stated that imported hogs and pork, "act as a barrier slowing down the development of pig farming, which plays an important role in poverty reduction." Even South Korea only liberalised pork imports after overcoming considerable political opposition and formulating a survival strategy for its hog farmers. Consequently, while Asia's swine sectors vary greatly in income, climate, land or population size, they all face key issues of unfettered demand, supply chain constraints and the specter of imports. Below, we examine how three Asian countries managed this complex set of challenges. Inflation collapses Korea’s economy Chan, 8 (John, World Socialist Website, South Korean economy faces mounting problems, july 24, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/kore-j24.shtml) Andy Xie, former chief Asia economist with Morgan Stanley, pointed out that South Korea is vulnerable to stagflation—economic slowdown combined with rising prices. “Korea may be experiencing a massive property bubble funded by debt. A decline of asset values and a rise of the consumer price index (CPI) are a deadly combination.” The country’s top business lobby, the Federation of Korean Industries (FKI), which is composed of major conglomerates such as Samsung and Hyundai, issued a statement on July 16 declaring that the South Korean economy “has already entered a period of stagflation”. Federation chairman Cho Suck-rai said: “At this point, the government has little we should not sit idle while seeing the economy collapse.” The 30 largest Korean corporations have agreed to spend 94.5 trillion won or $94 billion this year to stimulate the economy, up room to manoeuvre to overcome current economic difficulties.” The statement followed an emergency meeting of the FKI board. It passed a “Resolution to Boost the Nation’s Economy”, which stated: “We agreed that more than 25 percent from 2007. They also plan to create 39,000 jobs in the second half of the year, in addition to the 42,000 in the first half. The statement came after the release of economic data for May by the National Statistical Office on July 7, which pointed to decreasing investment and dwindling production as well as weakening domestic demand. Mining and industrial production fell by 0.6 percent from April to May. Consumer sales shrank by 0.6 percent. Capital expenditure, a key indicator of business confidence, has fallen in four out of the five months from January to May. The Chosun Ilbo pointed out that May, which has several public holidays, is traditionally a month with high demand for consumer goods. But this year, sales of durable goods such as cars, computers, telecom devices and furniture decreased by 2.2 percent compared to April, with semi-durable goods such as clothes and shoes down by 0.2 percent. “The consumption trends show that consumers spent only on essentials and refrained from spending on items that were not urgently needed.” Yoo Byung-kyu, a director of the Hyundai Economic Research Institute told Chosun Ilbo: “As the business outlook is seen as negative by businesses, apprehension took its toll and firms are unable to decide on what and when to invest.” Official statistics released on July 10 shows the consumer evaluation index in June at 61.3 (compared to a benchmark of 100). The indicator is based on a survey in which respondents are asked if their living standards have worsened compared to six months ago. The June figure is the lowest since September 2003—just before the credit card crisis that saw millions of people go into default. Inflation in June was 5.5 percent—the highest in more than nine years. The Man-soo insisted there is no stagflation in South Korea administration of President Lee Myung-bak has been trying to downplay economic fears. On July 3, Finance Minister Kang , but has admitted that the economy “may be heading in” that direction. However, Kang has been under mounting pressure to resign because of his policy of allowing the won to fall in value alongside the US dollar in a bid to keep the country’s export prices competitive. His weak currency policy has been criticised for stoking inflation via high prices for imported raw materials, especially oil. South Korea recorded its first trade deficit in 11 years in June . The combination of rising prices and a slowing economy has created a dilemma for the central bank. After much speculation of rate hikes to curb inflation, the BOK decided on July 10 to hold the rate unchanged at 5 percent for the 11th month in a row. BOK chief Lee Seong-tae told reporters: “[D]ecision-making is becoming more difficult with high inflation coinciding with an economic slowdown.” Lee warned in particular against the demands for wage rises: “We are concerned about the secondary effect of rising inflation, such as a wage price spiral, in which inflation may creep into wages and increase inflation expectation.” due to soaring oil prices, which cost an estimated record of $10 billion For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 156/212 2NC NORTH KOREA IMPACT 2/2 The impact is regional instability Ejaz, 98 (Dr. Manzur, Prof Philosophy of U Punjab, Columnist For BBC, The Nation, and The News, “Pakistan Can Learn From South Korea’s Economic Woes”, 1-5, http://users.erols.com/ziqbal/ jan_5.htm) The East Asian currencies in general and South Korean in particular have lost about half of their value in the last few months. This means that their exported goods will become much cheaper and the goods produced in Japan , to prop up the battered currencies of South Korea and other East Asian countries is vital for the survival of the industrialized world. --The collapse of South Korean and other East Asian economies will eliminate their ability to import goods from abroad . At present, the US produces high-value goods like and other industrialized countries will not be able to compete with them. Consequently, several production units in the industrialized countries will cease to produce, leading to layoffs and, hence, recession. Therefore machinery, airplanes and defense weapons etc. East Asia, having the sizeable economies and high per capita income, is one of the major markets for the US. If US exports suffer, not only its balance of trade will tilt against it-having serious economic implications-- but also its production will suffer giving rise to recession. Of course, US would like to avert such eventuality at any cost. --South Korea owes more than $160 billion to the foreign banks. If it defaults on its payments and goes bankrupt, many banks in Japan, US and other western nations will get into a serious crunch: many may burst. Although, it is claimed that US banks have not a major exposure in this US government officials are anxious to forestall a South Korean default because they fear it would cause a further loss of confidence in other emerging market economies, conceivably leading to worldwide recession. Further, US multinational corporations are major players in the world economy and a deterioration of the emerging markets can lower their profits triggering a downward spiral of the US stock and bond markets. East Asian crisis has already started showing its negative impact on the Wall Street: US stocks market has already lost about 8% to 10% of its value in the last few months. --The South Korean economy has to be propped up because North Korea is still conceived to be a potential threat to American interests. Commenting on this aspect US Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin argued, "If you have economic instability [in South Korea], you run the risk of political and social instability there, and that can have all kinds of national security implications." situation but active maneuvering by the six US largest banks to get this package approved shows that the world banking system has very high stakes in this crisis. -- Extinction Chol, 2 – Director Center for Korean American Peace 10-24, http://nautilus.org/fora/security/0212A_Chol.html Any military strike initiated against North Korea will promptly explode into a thermonuclear exchange between a tiny nuclear-armed North Korea and the world's superpower, America. The most densely populated Metropolitan U.S.A., Japan and South Korea will certainly evaporate in The Day After scenario-type nightmare. The New York Times warned in its August 27, 2002 comment: "North Korea runs a more advanced biological, chemical and nuclear weapons program, targets American military bases and is developing missiles that could reach the lower 48 states. Yet there's good reason President Bush is not talking about taking out Dear Leader Kim Jong Il. If we tried, the Dear Leader would bombard South Korea and Japan with never gas or even nuclear warheads, and (according to one Pentagon study) kill up to a million people." Continues… The first two options should be sobering nightmare scenarios for a wise Bush and his policy planners. If they should opt for either of the scenarios, The North Koreans will use all their resources in their arsenal to fight a full-scale nuclear exchange with the Americans in the last war of [hu]mankind. A nuclearthat would be their decision, which the North Koreans are in no position to take issue with. The Americans would realize too late that the North Korean mean what they say. armed North Korea would be most destabilizing in the region and the rest of the world in the eyes of the Americans. They would end up finding themselves reduced to a second-class nuclear power. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 157/212 POVERTY GOOD (TEST SUBJECTS) Poverty causes pools of potential test subjects Dani Veracity, journalist for Natural News, 06 (3/7/06, <http://www.naturalnews.com/019193.html>) During the Holocaust, the Nazis confined the marginalized sectors of society -- Jews (including children), gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill and the mentally retarded -- into camps that became human guinea pig-filled laboratories for IG Farben's experimental drug studies. Today, marginalized populations still make up a large portion of experimental drug test subjects; however, socioeconomic factors, rather than concentration camp authorities, make them more likely to sell their bodies to Big Pharma. It's no accident that SFBC, the largest experimental drug testing center in North America, is located in Miami. According to the St. Petersburg Times, Miami-Dade County "is the only county in the country where more than half the residents are foreign-born." After immigrants come to Miami from countries like Cuba, Colombia, Haiti, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Argentina and Mexico, they need money, yet experience the employment limitations that little or no fluency in English, little education, unfamiliarity, prejudice and, in some cases, lack of a work permit brings. With few other options available, these immigrants find one of the few legal jobs that doesn't require any amount of English proficiency or education and may even accept forged social security cards: Professional guinea pig. Many immigrants participate in multiple, simultaneous drug studies. Combining these experimental drugs is a recipe for disaster "because researchers don't know how the different chemicals interact or what side effects the mix may have on a person," according to the Bloomberg article "Miami Test Center Lures Poor Immigrants as Human Guinea Pigs". However, given the fact that some studies only pay $25 per day, what else are the truly marginalized subjects supposed to do? "It's not the job I would choose, but financial circumstances require you to do it sometimes,'' Venezuelan immigrant Oscar Cabanerio told Bloomberg. More test subjects improve medicine Dute et. al, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Health Law, Tort and insurance Law, 04, The Netherlands, 2004, Liability for and Insurability of Biomédical Research with Human Subjects in a Comparative Perspective p. 229) In order to improve medicine, it will be necessary to engage test subjects in research. This may always involve the risk for these test subjects to be exposed to injuries. This is problematic all the more so now that biomedical research is not, at least not merely and not in the first place, in the interest of the test subject . It always involves other interests as well. namely the public interest of progress of medicine or medical science, and in addition, the interests of the researcher, the institution for scientific research and the (pharmaceutical) industry. On account of structural third-party presence at biomedical research involving human subjects, protection of the test subject against (possible) injury deserves special legal attention. The potential of the injury-causing nature of biomedical research can be legally mitigated in two ways. On the one hand, by limiting the risks involved with research to a minimum on the other hand by seeing to it that if an injury does indeed manifest itself with the test subject, this is to be compensated as adequately as possible. The statutory regulation of Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands intends to offer adequate protection to the test subject in both ways. At the centre of the Dutch legal test subject protection system is the Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects Act, applicable to all biomedical research. The statutory framework is described in paragraph 1.3. The act does not contain any specific liability regime (i.e. liability rules based on fault are applicable), but does contain an obligation for the sponsor of the research to take out insurance. Liability and insurance within the framework of biomedical research involving human subjects will be extensively dealt with in Parts II and III. Critical observations will be added there and the insurance regulation practice will be the subject of extensive discussion as well. A few more views of the insurance regulation in the light of the objections observed follow in Part N First, however, the matter of intemational legislation affecting legal protection of the test subject will be briefly discussed (paragraph 1.2). Big pharmaceuticals key to solve AIDS—investment EFPIA, 2K (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Association, 2K, <http://www.efpia.org/2_indust/pharmainnovation.pdf>) Several responsible AIDS activists have become concerned that the attacks against the industry – including the intellectual property foundation of its drug development – threaten to discourage new investments, as survey data suggest that after a substantial rise through most of the past decade in the number of anti-retroviral drug compounds in development for the potential treatment and possible cure of HIV/AIDS, there has been a steady decline in the number over the past three years – corresponding to the period of growing attack on IP rights linked to AIDS medicines. AIDS causes extinction Mathiu, Africa News writer, 2K Mutuma Mathiu, Africa News, July 15, 2000 Every age has its killer. But Aids is without precedent. It is comparable only to the Black Death of the Middle Ages in the terror it evokes and the graves it fills. But unlike the plague, Aids does not come at a time of scientific innocence: It flies in the face of space exploration, the manipulation of genes and the mapping of the human genome. The Black Death - the plague, today easily cured by antibiotics and prevented by vaccines - killed a full 40 million Europeans, a quarter of the population of Europe, between 1347 and 1352. But it was a death that could be avoided by the simple expedient of changing addresses and whose vector could be seen and exterminated. With Aids, the vector is humanity itself, the nice person in the next seat in the bus. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. Every human being who expresses the innate desire to preserve the human genetic pool through the natural mechanism of reproduction is potentially at risk. And whereas death by plague was a merciful five days of agony, HIV is not satisfied until years of stigma and excruciating torture have been wrought on its victim . The plague toll of tens of millions in two decades was a veritable holocaust, but it will be nothing compared to the viral holocaust: So far, 18.8 million people are already dead; 43.3 million infected worldwide (24.5 million of them Africans) carry the seeds of their inevitable demise - unwilling participants in a March of the Damned. Last year alone, 2.8 million lives went down the drain, 85 per cent of them African; as a matter of fact, 6,000 Africans will die today. The daily toll in Kenya is 500. There has never been fought a war on these shores that was so wanton in its thirst for human blood. During the First World War, more than a million lives were lost at the Battle of the Somme alone, setting a trend that was to become fairly common, in which generals would use soldiers as cannon fodder; the lives of 10 million young men were sacrificed for a cause that was judged to be more worthwhile than the dreams - even the mere living out of a lifetime - of a generation. But there was proffered an explanation: It was the honour of bathing a battlefield with young blood, patriotism or simply racial pride. Aids, on the other hand, is a holocaust without even a lame or bigoted justification. It is simply a waste. It is death contracted not in the battlefield but in bedrooms and other venues of furtive intimacy. It is difficult to remember any time in history when the survival of the human race was so hopelessly in jeopardy. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 158/212 EXT – POOR PEOPLE = TEST SUBJECTS Poor people are willing test subjects Katie Garey, SSU researcher, 98 Katie Garey, SSU researcher, 1998, American Drug Industry Uses the Poor as Human Guinea Pigs <http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/13-american-drug-industry-uses-the-poor-as-human-guinea-pigs/> Over 40,000 human guinea pigs participate in drug testing experiments run by huge pharmaceutical companies in the United States annually. Most of these people are poor and “down-and-outers,” who need the money drug testing provides. Ever since the mid-1970s, when the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) issued stricter rules on informed consent, high compensation has been necessary to attract research subjects for pharmaceutical tests. This generally means that the lowest income people in the U.S. are the ones who participate, since few people with comfortable financial circumstances volunteer to be guinea pigs for the drug companies. The nation’s drug testing processes seem to be based on the exploitation of America’s lowest classes. Last fall, The Wall Street journal published an article that reported Eli Lilly, maker of Prozac, uses homeless people to test drugs for FDA approval. The Eli Lilly program, which pays $85 per day, is reportedly famous “through soup kitchens, prisons, and shelters from coast-to-coast.” A nurse at the Lilly clinic in Indianapolis told the Journal that the majority of participants in the Phase I testing programs are alcoholics, although heavy drinkers and drug users are supposed to be excluded from experimental programs because the presence of alcohol or other drugs in the body compromises test results. Participation in drug and medical studies is a serious gamble. No one knows the long-term side effects of the drugs volunteers take. Animal drug testing, however, the mechanism that is supposed to minimize the danger to volunteers of drugs that have never been tested on humans, is unreliable. For example, in the early 1990s, the FDA approved fialuridine for healthy human volunteers after it proved non-toxic to dogs. Dogs, however, have an enzyme that neutralizes the drug, which humans apparently do not. Five Phase II patients died after taking fialuridine. Even Princeton University’s highly rated program raises questions about the ethics of drug testing. The Princeton site makes participation especially alluring to the poor. The unit runs a courtesy van for easy access to the facility. There is a bank within walking distance, and the unit gives volunteers a letter to guarantee they won’t have problems cashing their checks. Screening participants enjoy a free, all-you-can-eat lunch. Once admitted to the study, they get free meals, shelter, cable TV, and a video library. The nation’s big drug companies have never been known for high-minded ethical standards. Before 1900, orphans and street urchins were used as control groups in drug experiments. Testing remained informal in the early part of the twentieth century, as companies issued experimental drugs to doctors to try out on sick patients. But after the thalidomide scare of 1962, Congress passed laws to standardize drug testing procedures. Animal tests were then required for all new drugs, followed by experiments on healthy human subjects, who were most often prisoners. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 159/212 PREZ POWERS BAD (NUCLEAR WAR) Sole presidential authority makes nuclear war inevitable Forrester 89 [Ray, Professor, @ Hastings College of the Law, University of California, Former dean of the law schools at Vanderbilt, Tulane, and Cornell, “Presidential Wars in the Nuclear Age: An Unresolved Problem” George Washington Law Review, August, 57 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1636, Lexis] A basic theory--if not the basic theory of our Constitution--is that concentration of power in any one person, or one group, is dangerous to mankind. The Constitution, therefore, contains a strong system of checks and balances, starting with the separation of powers between the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. The message is that no one of them is safe with unchecked power. Yet, in what is probably the most dangerous governmental power ever possessed, we find the potential for world destruction lodged in the discretion of one person. As a result of public indignation aroused by the Vietnam disaster, in which tens of thousands lost their lives in military actions initiated by a succession of Presidents, Congress in 1973 adopted, despite presidential veto, the War Powers Resolution. Congress finally asserted its checking and balancing duties in relation to the making of presidential wars. Congress declared in section 2(a) that its purpose was to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. The law also stated in section 3 that [t]he President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated. . . . Other limitations not essential to this discussion Congress undertook to check the President, at least by prior consultation, in any executive action that might lead to hostilities and war. [*1638] President Nixon, who initially vetoed the resolution, claimed that it was an unconstitutional restriction on his powers are also provided. The intent of the law is clear. as Executive and Commander in Chief of the military. His successors have taken a similar view. Even so, some of them have at times complied with the law by prior consultation with representatives of Congress, but obedience to the law has been uncertain and a subject of continuing controversy between Congress and the President. Ordinarily, the issue of the constitutionality of a law would be decided by the Supreme Court. But, despite a series of cases in which such a decision has been sought, the Supreme Court has refused to settle the controversy. The usual ground for such a refusal is that a "political question" is involved. The rule is well established that the federal judiciary will decide only "justiciable" controversies. "Political questions" are not "justiciable." However, the standards established by the Supreme Court in 1962 in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, to determine the distinction between "justiciable controversies" and "political questions" are far from clear. One writer observed that the term "political question" [a]pplies to all those matters of which the court, at a given time, will be of the opinion that it is impolitic or inexpedient to take jurisdiction. Sometimes this idea of inexpediency will result from the fear of the vastness of the consequences that a decision on the merits might entail. Finkelstein, Judicial Self-Limitation, 37 HARV. L. REV. 338, 344 (1924)(footnote omitted). It is difficult to defend the Court's refusal to assume the responsibility of decisionmaking on this most critical issue. The Court has been fearless in deciding other issues of "vast consequences" in many historic disputes, some involving executive war power. It is to be hoped that the Justices will finally do their duty here. But in the meantime the spectre of single-minded power persists, fraught with all of the frailties of human nature that each human possesses, including the President. World history is filled with tragic examples. Even if the Court assumed its responsibility to tell us whether the Constitution gives Congress the necessary power to check the President, the War Powers Resolution itself is unclear. Does the Resolution require the President to consult with Congress before launching a nuclear attack? It has been asserted that "introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities" refers only to military personnel and does not include the launching of nuclear missiles alone. In support of this interpretation, it has been argued that Congress was concerned about the human losses in Vietnam and in other presidential wars, rather than about the weaponry. Congress, of course, can amend the Resolution to state explicitly that "the introduction of Armed Forces" includes missiles as well as personnel. However, the President could continue to act without prior consultation by renewing the claim first made by President [*1639] Nixon that the Resolution is an unconstitutional invasion of the executive power. Therefore, the real solution, in the absence of a Supreme Court decision, would appear to be a constitutional amendment. All must obey a clear rule in the Constitution. The adoption of an amendment is very difficult. Wisely, Article V requires that an amendment may be proposed only by the vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, and the proposal must be ratified by the legislatures or conventions of threefourths of the states. Despite the difficulty, the Constitution has been amended twenty-six times. Amendment can be done when a problem is so important that it arouses the attention and concern of a preponderant majority of the American people. But the people must be made aware of the problem. It is hardly necessary to belabor the relative importance of the control of nuclear warfare . A constitutional amendment may be, indeed, the appropriate method. But the most difficult issue remains. What should the amendment provide? How can the problem be solved specifically? The Constitution in section 8 of Article I stipulates that "[t]he Congress shall have power . . . To declare War. . . ." The idea seems to be that only these many representatives of the people, reflecting the public will, should possess the power to commit the lives and the fortunes of the nation to warfare. This approach makes much more sense in a democratic republic than entrusting the decision to one person, even though he may be designated the "Commander in Chief" of the military forces. His power is to command the war after the people, through their representatives, have made the basic choice to submit themselves and their children to war. There is a recurring relevation of a paranoia of power throughout human history that has impelled one leader after another to draw their people into wars which, in hindsight, were foolish, unnecessary, and, in some instances, downright insane. Whatever may be the psychological influences that drive the single decisionmaker to these irrational commitments of the lives and fortunes of others, the fact remains that the behavior is a predictable one in any government that does not provide an effective check and balance against uncontrolled power in the hands of one human. We, naturally, like to think that our leaders are above such irrational behavior. Eventually, however, human nature, with all its weakness, asserts itself whatever the setting. At least that is the evidence that experience and history give us, even in our own relatively benign society, where the Executive is subject to the rule of law. [*1640] Vietnam and other more recent engagements show that it can happen and has happened here. But the "nuclear football"--the ominous "black bag" --remains in the sole possession of the President. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 160/212 PREZ POWERS BAD (SOP) Presidential Power destroys the separation of powers Branum 2 (Tara, Editor in Chief Texas Review of Law and Politics, Texas Review of Law and Politics, “President or King? The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders in Modern-Day America”, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?men_tab=srchresults&handle=hein.journals/jleg28&id=8&size=2&collection=journals&terms=increa sed&termtype=phrase&set_as_cursor=#7) CBC The perception of Americans that the President is not only willing, but also able to solve their problems is reinforced by the media and by the political process…(CONTINUES)… Congressmen and private citizens besiege the President with demands that action be taken on various issues. To make matters worse, once a president has signed an executive order, he often makes it impossible for a subsequent administration to undo his action without enduring the political fallout of such a reversal. For instance, President Clinton issued a slew of executive orders on environmental issues in the weeks before he left office. Many were controversial and the need for the policies he instituted was debatable. Nevertheless, President Bush found himself unable to reverse the orders without invoking the ire of environmentalists across the country. A policy became law by the action of one man without the healthy debate and discussion in Congress intended by the Framers. Subsequent presidents undo this policy and send the matter to Congress for such debate only at their own peril. This is not the way it is supposed to be. Restoration of our system of separation of powers will require that the public be educated on what does—and does not—constitute a constitutional use of executive orders and other presidential directives. Breakdown of SOP leads to foreign conflicts. Paul, prof of law UConn, 1998 (Joel R. Paul, Prof of law @ UConn, July 1998, “The Geopolitical Constitution: Executive Expediency and Executive Agreements” 86 Calif. L. Rev. 671) The Constitution "diffuses power...to secure liberty." n27 Constitutional checks and balances create resistance to the exercise of power. n28 [*679] So long as constitutional authority over foreign affairs remained divided between the executive and Congress, neither branch was able to commit the nation abroad without a popular consensus. n29 These institutional obstacles are not merely quaint vestiges of an earlier era of relative isolationism. They serve the normative value of discouraging foreign adventures to which the nation is not fully committed. The discourse of executive expediency undermined this constitutional structure. n30 Specifically, the expansion of executive power allowed Congress to avoid public accountability for U.S. foreign policy, facilitated more frequent foreign interventions, undermined the coherence of our foreign policy, and exposed foreign policy-making to "capture" by foreign governments. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 161/212 PREZ POWER BAD (TERROR) Prez power kills congressional power – that’s critical to a successful WOT Dean 2 [John, White House Counsel to Nixon and FindLaw Writ Columnist, “Tom Ridge's Non- Testimonial Appearance Before Congress: Another Nixon-style Move By The Bush Administration, Find Law, April 12 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020412.html] Congressional oversight and the collective wisdom of Congress are essential in our dealing with terrorism.. Presidents don't issue press releases about their mistakes Nor do they report interagency squabbles that reduce executive effectiveness. They don't investigate how funds have been spent poorly or unwisely. And they're not inclined to explain even conspicuous problems in gathering national security intelligence. When did anyone hear of a President rooting out incompetent appointees (after all, they chose them in the first place)? In contrast, Congress wants to do all these things, thereby keeping a President on his toes. Its oversight is crucial - for the Presidential and Executive Branch limitations I've suggested are only a few of the myriad problems that might hamper the efficacy of the Executive in its efforts to deal with terrorism, and that Congress can help to correct. Justifiably, Americans are worried, but they are getting on with their lives. Shielding and hiding the man in charge of homeland security from answering the questions of Congress is entirely unjustified. This talk of "separation of powers" and "executive privilege" is unmitigated malarkey. It is a makeshift excuse to keep the Congress from policing the White House For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 162/212 PREZ POWER BAD (TORTURE) Presidential powers are bad in the context of military ability- they justify torture & human rights abuses. Paul 4 June 15, 2004 Torture, War, and Presidential Powers by Rep. Ron Paul, MD is an American physician and Republican Congressman for the 14th congressional district of Texas. Paul is a member of the Liberty Caucus of Republican congressmen which aims to limit the size and scope of the federal government,[2] and serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and the Committee on Financial Services, where he has been an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policy. He has gained notoriety for his right-libertarian positions on many political issues, often clashing with both Republican and Democratic Party leaders. Paul has run for President of the United States twice, first in 1988 as the nominee of the Libertarian Party and again in 2008 as a candidate for the Republican nomination. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul185.html>//DoeS The greater issue presented by the Defense department memo, however, is the threat posed by unchecked executive power. Defense department lawyers essentially argue that a president’s powers as Commander-In-Chief override federal laws prohibiting torture, and the Justice department appears to agree. But the argument for extraordinary wartime executive powers has been made time and time again, always with bad results and the loss of our liberties. War has been used by presidents to excuse the imprisonment of American citizens of Japanese descent, to silence speech, to suspend habeas corpus, and even to control entire private industries. It is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it. War does not justify the suspension of torture laws any more than it justifies the suspension of murder laws, the suspension of due process, or the suspension of the Second amendment.We are fighting undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an open-ended war against terrorism worldwide. If the president claims extraordinary wartime powers, and we fight undeclared wars with no beginning and no end, when if ever will those extraordinary powers lapse? Since terrorism will never be eliminated completely, should all future presidents be able to act without regard to Congress or the Constitution simply by asserting “We’re at war”? Conservatives should understand that the power given the president today will pass to the president’s successors, who may be only too eager to abuse that unbridled power domestically to destroy their political enemies. Remember the anger directed at President Clinton for acting “above the law” when it came to federal perjury charges? An imperial presidency threatens all of us who oppose unlimited state power over our lives. Anything that enables torture must be rejected & is counterproductive in trying to solve the terrorism problem. USCCB 9 January 15, 2009 Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development [http://usccb.org/sdwp/international/2009-0115_alert_on_torture.pdf]//DoeS The moral test in economic life is how we treat “the least of these,” according to the parable of the Last Judgment in St. Matthew’s Gospel. It may not be biblical but it is also true that the moral test in this area is how we treat the “worst of these” – those who would violate all boundaries in their attacks on us.Torture is morally wrong because it debases human dignity, which is God-given, not earned by good behavior. Respect for human dignity is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church. In their November 2007 statement Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the U.S. bishops declared that because torture assaults the dignity of human life, it is “intrinsically evil” (No. 23), one of very few action to be labeled “intrinsically evil.” The Catholic bishops went on to state in Faithful Citizenship, “The use of torture must be rejected as fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person and ultimately counterproductive in the effort to combat terrorism” (No. 81). For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 163/212 PREZ POWER GOOD (ECON) Strong executive powers are critical to restrain federal spending Calabresi ‘95 (Steven G., Associate Prof, Northwestern U School Law, Arkansas LR, Lexis) Now imagine a whole Congress of such officeholders, all of whose careers depend in significant part on their abil [*35] ity to get back more for their small electoral constituency than their constituents pay in. The net result is a collective action problem in which every member of Congress's career depends on an ability to be ever more creative in funnelling federal resources back to their constituencies while imposing the cost in federal taxes, borrowing, or regulation on someone else's constituency or on the nation as a whole. The collective action problem exists because most of the constituencies might be better off with less largesse and lower levels of taxation, borrowing, and regulation. But no member of Congress will dare vote for this absent an effective mechanism of collective enforcement for fear that other members of Congress will cheat and will continue to steer national pork to their local interests. The only official with any incentive under our present electoral structure to stop this game is the President who is (along with the Vice President) our only nationally elected official. 33 Representing as he does a national electoral college majority, the President at least has an incentive to steer national resources toward the 51% of the nation that last supported him (and that might support him again), thereby mitigating the bad distributional incentives faced by members of Congress. In fact, most modern presidents probably see their potential electoral base as comprehending up to 60% of all voters 34 and perhaps as many as 90% of all state electoral college votes. 35 Moreover, elections over the last thirty years suggest that virtually every state in the nation is in fact in play in these contests. Thus, the President is our only constitutional backstop against the redistributive collective action problem described above. [*36] Now how does this fact bear on the quite different fact that because of a change in circumstances since 1937 the federal government has grown exponentially in wealth and power? Well, in brief, the huge increase in the amount of federal largesse has greatly exacerbated the collective action problem created by the congressional electoral system. It has transformed members of Congress into constituent service agents whose raison d'etre is to recover for their constituencies as much federal largesse as possible, even if the end result is only to set off a race with other members of Congress that ultimately intensifies the growth in the size of the federal pie thereby requiring ever higher levels of constituent service. The only practicable way out of this situation is to strengthen presidential power and unitariness. 36 The essential ingredient to combating the congressional collective action problem is the President's national voice, because he, and he alone, speaks for the entire American people. Failure to hold the line on spending ensures deficits destroy the U.S. economy Ornstein ‘04 (Norman, Resident Scholar / AEI, Roll Call, 7-7, Lexis) Today’s budget deficit is 4.2 percent of our GDP. That’s a large but not alarming number -a figure that, by itself, could be sustainable indefinitely without deeply damaging the economy. But any realistic projection of the revenue base that we can use to cover these future obligations shows a dismal future - one in which the deficit balloons to almost 16 percent of GDP by 2030, and nearly 29 percent of GDP by 2040. That is not merely unsustainable. It’s downright catastrophic - the equivalent of a suitcase nuclear bomb set off in the middle of our economy. All of this is occurring while we blithely go about cutting the tax base and adding funding for a host of other problems, including homeland security, defense, the environment, education and highways - just to name a few that get overwhelming support from Congress and the American people. Our debate about “fiscal discipline” focuses overwhelmingly on the tiny share of the budget that is in discretionary domestic spending. Cut it all out and we still have staggering obligations and huge future deficits. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 164/212 PREZ POWERS GOOD (HEG) Presidential Power key to secure hegemony Paul 98 (Joel, Professor at University of Connecticut School of Law, California Law Review, “The Geopolitical Constitution: Executive Expediency and Executive Agreements”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3481139) CBC The United States could not exercise world leadership without a shift in power from Congress to the executive. "Other governments must know, if they are to be willing to undertake indispensable joint commitments, that the United States can so act to implement integrated and responsible policy." In McDougal and Lans' view, a foreign policy led by a powerful executive unhampered by Congress best served democracy. In the new world environment, the values of efficiency, flexibility, and secrecy took precedence over the deliberative process: Executive officers, who are charged with the task of conducting negotiations with other governments, must be able to treat the national body politic as a whole and must be able to canvass it promptly and efficiently as a whole for the majority will, without being subjected to delays, obstructions, and disintegrating efforts by minorities... A leisurely diplomacy of inaction and of deference to dissident minority interests supposedly characteristic of past eras when economic and political change proceeded at a slower pace and the twin ocean barriers gave us an effortless security is no longer capable, if it ever was, of securing the interests of the United States. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 165/212 PREZ POWER GOOD (TERROR) Sole presidential control of foreign policy is essential to combating terrorism Lansford and Pauly 3 [Tom, assistant professor of political science, University of Southern Mississippi, Gulf Coast + Robert J. adjunct professor of history and political Science at Norwich University, Northfield, Vermont, and Midlands Technical College “National Security Policy and the Strong Executive” Special Conference Report of American Diplomacy online May 20, http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_04-06/lansfordpauly_exec/lansfordpauly_exec.html] Furthermore, American foreign policy is rooted in the notion of the “sole organ theory” which holds that the president is the “sole” source of foreign and security policy.15 This theory has served as the underpinning for the dramatic twentieth-century expansion of executive power. For instance, the Supreme Court decision United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation (1936) gave executive agreements the weight of law (and thereby bypassed the senatorial approval required of treaties), while Goldwater v. Carter (1979) confirmed the ability of the president to withdraw from international treaties without congressional consent.16 The result of this concentration of power has been the repeated presidential use of the U.S. military throughout the nation’s history without a formal congressional declaration of war and an increased preference by both the executive and the legislature for such actions.17 One feature of this trend was consistency in U.S. foreign policy, especially during the Cold War era. Even during periods when the United States experienced divided government, with the White House controlled by one political party and all or half of the Congress controlled by the party in opposition, the executive was able to develop and implement foreign and security policy with only limited constraints.18 Given the nature of the terrorist groups that attacked the United States on 11 September 2001, such policy habits proved useful since a formal declaration of war was seen as problematic in terms of the specific identification of the foe and the ability of the Bush administration to expand combat operations beyond Afghanistan to countries such as Iraq. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 166/212 RMA BAD (PROLIF) RMA increases the risk of proliferation and new technology can’t solve for WMDs, turns case Pardesi 04 (Manjeet S., an associate research fellow at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Singapore, "Can U.S. win future wars?" The Korea Herald, August 3, Lexis) RMA does undoubtedly make militaries stronger. In the case of the United States, it is likely to ensure that it prevails militarily against any likely adversary. However, this very superiority is likely to lower the threshold for the use of missiles armed with WMD. Faced with America's overwhelming conventional military might, its potential enemies might be driven to use rather than lose their WMD. Once a state possesses even a small nuclear/WMD stockpile, it would become extremely difficult and dangerous for the United States to conduct a disarming first-strike against it, as it can easily deploy "dummies" at known military bases while deploying WMD at isolated locations, ready to launch retaliatory (or preemptive) strikes. This fact may prevent the United States from taking military action against states capable of retaliating with WMD-armed missiles - unless, of course, it has a functioning ballistic missile defense system. Even then success would not be guaranteed for the system is not likely to be foolproof. A cursory look at military threats worldwide reveals that a strategy based exclusively on RMA-capable militaries is insufficient to counter new security threats. Nuclear proliferation results in extinction Utgoff 2002 [Victor A., Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions”, pgs. 87-90] In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 167/212 RMA BAD (READINESS) RMA causes equipment to be more vulnerable to attack by enemies and destroys readiness Aviation Week & Space Technology 00 ("Military Technology Changes Are Slower Than We Think" Aviation Week & Space Technology, volume 152 issue 9, February 28, p. 70, Lexis) These physical limitations will be exploited by future enemies, who will increasingly find ways to make military vehicles resemble civilian vehicles in external shape, and in their radar and infrared signatures. [Future enemies also] will continue to have little trouble hiding small arms from sensors in most types of tactical settings. Communications systems are improving more rapidly. But they too will have limitations. They could be vulnerable to various types of enemy attack, including possible enemy use of high-altitude nuclear explosions that would do much more harm to the advanced electronics of the U.S. military than to the simpler weaponry operated by most of its foes. Declines in readiness cause hostile nations to perceive that attacks against the U.S. are viable, killing heg and drawing the U.S. in to inevitable conflicts Spencer 2k (Jack, Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation, September 15, 2000, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1394.cfm) Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace. Nuclear War Khalilzad 95, (Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND analyst, “Losing the Moment,” WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Spring 1995, LN.) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 168/212 RMA GOOD (HEG) Continued focus on RMA will allow the U.S. to retain global hegemony for decades Gongora, Research Associate with the Institut quebecois des hautes etudes internationals, and von Riekhoff, Professor of Political Science, Carleton University in Ottawa, 2K (Thierry and Harold, Toward a Revolution in Military Affairs? Defense and Security at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century, p. 7) One cannot escape the central role of the United States in discussing national perspectives about the RMA. The present U.S. position as the sole global power, established with the end of the Cold War, has been reinforced by the introduction of RMA technologies and doctrines. Unlike the short-lived monopoly of atomic weapons, U.S. primacy in the RMA sphere promises to continue unchallenged for at least another twenty years, if not longer. One merely needs to cite a few elementary facts to establish the scope of U.S. dominance of the field. U.S. investment in intelligence collection, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), particularly space-based aspects of the so-called system of systems, exceeds that of all other nations combined, and the United States also leads in C4I and precision force (Nye and Owens 1996, 28). U.S. R&D expenses in information technology exceed those of the rest of the world. When it comes to dominant situational awareness, the United States, to cite Libicki, has the "world's best eyes" (Libicki 1998, 414). In the foreseeable future, no country or group of countries can match U.S. hegemony in the RMA sphere. As a consequence, all wars in which the United States chooses to become involved will inevitably assume the nature of asymmetric conflicts (Freedman 1998,34). US leadership is essential to avert global nuclear war Khalilzad 95 – US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Former Defense Analyst at RAND [Zalmay, “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War,” Washington Quarterly, Spring, LN] Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 169/212 RMA GOOD (TERRORISM) A) RMA solves terrorism- long range strikes and information awareness prove Sloan, 2002 Defence Analyst with the Directorate of Strategic Analysis at Canada's National Defence Headquarters (Elinor, assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Carleton University, The Revolution in Military Affairs: Implications for Canada and nato, p. 52) Simply put, the United States can be expected to speed up those elements of the U.S. military's force transformation program that fit with or advance America's ability to combat terrorism. Many elements are relevant here. They include, above all, developing the smaller, more rapidly mobile, deployable, and lethal ground forces that have figured centrally in RMA doctrine from the outset. A particular emphasis is placed on special operations forces. However the force transformation efforts begun by the U.S. army in 1999 will also be essential. Not surprisingly, the QDR of 2001 calls on the secretary of the army to accelerate the introduction of forwardstationed interim brigade combat teams. In addition, the army is exploring ways it can accelerate the development of its future combat systems.51 Strategic sea and air lift will also be important, as will combat helicopters for battlefield mobility. Heavy platforms, like main battle tanks, are likely to become even more outdated in the new strategic environment. A second key RMA capability central to the war against terrorism is long-range precision strike. Associated platforms and weapons include stealthy 15-2 bombers equipped with satellite-guided joint direct attack munitions, u-i bombers equipped with satellite-guided launched cruise missiles, and submarines equipped with satellite-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles. Short-range tactical aircraft, dependent as they are on overseas bases, carriers, and refuelling aircraft, are less likely to be a platform of choice for military planners and political leaders. Finally, combatting international terrorism will depend to a significant degree on advanced battlespace awareness and control capabilities. "Our highest priority right now is situational awareness," argued one high-level Pentagon official in the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 2001.51 Unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator and the Global Hawk will be particularly important, as will advanced command, control communications, computing and intelligence (C41) systems. Consistent with these trends, the Pentagon is using its share of the emergency funding provided after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington to accelerate the development of unmanned aerial vehicles, precision munitions, and C41 programs. B) Extinction Alexander, 2003 [Yonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, 8/28/03, Washington Times] Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 170/212 RMA GOOD (U.S. CHINA WAR) China is aggressively trying to play military catch-up. The US must continue to out pace the PLA to deter it from testing our resolve with nuclear weapons Dreyer 00 - Director of East Asian programs at the University of Miami [Dr June Teufel Dreyer, House Armed Services, The U.S. Response to China’s Increasing Military Power: Eleven Assumptions in Search of a Policy Military Capabilities of the People's Republic of China, 19 July 2000, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2000_hr/00-07-19dreyer.html] The military capabilities of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are growing in almost all areas, as my colleague Richard Fisher will outline in some detail The administration has been quite complacent about the import of this growing military might . Its assumption seems to be that growing economic prosperity will lead to pluralism, which in turn will cause the erosion of the communist state and its replacement by a democracy. Democracies are inherently peaceful and do not fight each other. Therefore, the best course of action is to engage China. Not to engage China is equivalent to isolating China. In the words of one high-ranking administration official, “If we treat China With regard to the military specifically, other members of the administration have been dismissive of the growth in the military capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), stating that it is no match for the U.S. military. There is a dangerous complacency in these assumptions. First, it is not certain that the PRC can continue current rates of economic growth. As is often the case with rapid econo mic growth, prosperity is as an enemy, it most assuredly will become one.” unevenly distributed, both within communities and geographically. The increasingly uneven distribution of wealth has opened social fissures which threaten the country’s stability. This is a major reason behind party/government’s recent efforts to develop the western regions of the state. Additionally, the country’s banking system is in precarious health. State-owned enterprises continue to operate in deficit, depleting the resources of the central treasury. Corruption, often with the collusion of party/government officials and military officers, is endemic. Efforts to restructure the economy into a healthier, more efficient producer of goods and services have foundered because of the widespread social disruptions that terminating the employment of millions of people would cause. Second, there is no certainty that that advent of capitalism will cause the demise of the communist government. The PRC has developed a variant market Leninism that has been characterized as “bureaucrat capitalism”: the state appears to have co-opted the entrepreneurs, who remain highly dependent on the bureaucracy, rather than vice-versa. Third, even the collapse of the communist government does not guarantee the triumph of democracy. Certainly it did not in the former Soviet Union. The successor states to the USSR boast few successes in terms of protection for civil liberties. Fourth, even if the PRC were to become a democracy, China would not necessarily become less of a threat to its neighbors. There is no charismatic leader, and the ideology of communism under which the party came to power, has been discredited. This has undermined the legitimacy of the party and its ruling group. Particularly after the demonstrations of 1989, the leadership seemed to become afraid of its own people. Partly to shore up its position, it stirred up nationalist passions---an “us versus them” mentality with regard to foreign countries. These have proved quite popular, to the extent that, when Japanese leaders visit the PRC, anti-Japanese activists have been placed under house arrest. The current autocratic government has been able to keep these nationalist sentiments in check; a democratic government would find it much more difficult to do so. People who have been educated to believe that various irredentist territories claimed by the PRC have always been part of the ancestral land have a tendency to become passionate about reclaiming them. It is quite easy to imagine, for example, a democratic China resorting to armed hostilities against India or the Philippines. Fifth, the administration seems unwilling to internalize the security consequences of an engagement that is one-way rather than, as it should be, a mutual process. A country that is assured that another country will engage it at any cost can use this commitment to extract maximum leverage. There are minimal costs to intransigence, since the second country believes in engagement regardless of the actions of the first country. A sound policy would be grounded in the understanding that the alternative to engagement is not necessarily isolation: there are intermediate positions.Sixth, if the statement that if the United States treats the PRC like an enemy, it will surely become one, is true, then the converse should be true as well. In fact, the PRC does regard the United States not only as an enemy but as the enemy. Military journals and newspapers regularly discuss scenarios in which the PLA engages “a technologically superior” foe that could be only the United States. Quite comfortable with the Cold War geopolitical balance of power between the United States and the Soviet Union, the PRC was greatly discomfited by a situation in which there was only one superpower---the United States---and became more so when the United States marshaled international support to reverse Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. In Beijing’s view, the one remaining superpower had chosen the role of international bully, and would have to be countered. This determination was reinforced when the United States launched a relief effort to counter the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. The Chinese media expressed outrage that so-called humanitarian considerations could be used as a pretext for violating the sovereign right of state to do whatever it wished within its own borders, and explicitly drew parallels about what this precedent might portend for an American response against Chinese actions in Proponents of People’s War pointed out that the Serbian people had not broken under heavy U.S. bombing attacks and neither would the Chinese people. pointed out that if the PRC wished to prevail against the United States, it would have to acquire comparable weapons systems. A third group argued that this was precisely what the Americans wanted: they had consciously lured the Soviet Union into an arms race that had forced the Soviet state into bankruptcy and collapse, and hoped to do the same to the PRC. The correct strategy for China was to develop a select few weapons that targeted American weaknesses; they therefore advocated asymmetric warfare. None argued that it is necessary to engage the superpower or to accommodate to its wishes, even temporarily. Seventh, to say that China is no match for the United States Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang. Others military is to misstate the question. It is likely that in a global confrontation between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, America’s technological superiority and more resilient economic system would enable the U.S. to prevail. But Beijing has no current intention of confronting the United States on a global scale. It wishes only to deter Washington in a regional context---to ensure that American military might does not prevent it from taking over territories it regards as belonging to China. Hence, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would initially engage not U.S. forces but those of regional neighbors with whom it has territorial disputes--mainly, but not limited to, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Here, its chances of prevailing militarily are much better. China has by far the largest military in the region; only Japan and Taiwan have technologically superior equipment. In the case of Taiwan, this technological edge is eroding rapidly. Even were its technological superiority massive, its qualitative superiority could be eroded by the massively larger numbers of weapons and manpower of the PLA. In the case of Japan, there is a serious internal debate about whether Article Nine of the country’s constitution would allow it to fight, even when attacked. The United States has close ties with many of these countries, which include a Mutual Security Treaty with Japan and a commitment to provide Taiwan with defensive arms under the Taiwan Relations Act of April 1979. We also have a longstanding relationship with the government of the Philippines, and a strong commitment both to stability in the region and to keeping the sea lanes open. Inevitably, there would be pressure on Washington to become involved. The American military would thus be confronting China on its home turf. Moreover, as a global power, the United States has other interests to protect. At the moment, these other interests are focused on the Middle East, but Having downsized considerably since the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. military is already stretched very thin to defend American interests and commitments. There is a real question of what resources we could bring to bear in a confrontation in East Asia. China would also seek to control the public relations aspects of any confrontation. They would portray the PRC’s victim as the also include the successor states of the former Soviet empire as well as problems in Africa and Latin America. aggressor. The official media already excoriate Taiwan as a “troublemaker” and describe Japan as in the grip of a dangerous trend back toward pre-World War II militarism. They regularly remind the United States public that the U.S. has agreed that there is but one China and Taiwan is a part of it, conveniently glossing over the fact that (a) the United States has never defined what it means by one China(b) the U.S. has consistently China has already reminded Americans on several occasions that it possesses nuclear weapons, and asked them if they would be willing to trade Los Angeles or San Francisco for Taiwan. maintained that the cross-Strait issue must not be solved by the use of force. Since the American public is unaware of these subtleties, there would be considerable confusion. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 171/212 RUSSIAN EXPANSIONISM BAD (EXTINCTION) Russian expansionism causes extinction Engdahl 7 (F. William, has written on issues of energy, politics and economics for more than 30 years, http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Putin/putin.html, AD: 7/5/10) jl Putin also did not have North Korea, China, Pakistan or India in mind, nor Great Britain with its ageing nuclear capacity, not even Israel. The only power surrounding Russia with weapons of mass destruction was its old Cold War foe--the United States. The Commander of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces, General Nikolai Solovtsov, was more explicit. Commenting on the successful test of the K65M-R at Russia’s Kapustin Yar missile test site last April, he declared that US plans for a missile defense system, ‘could upset strategic stability. The planned scale of the United States’ deployment of a…missile defense system is so considerable that the fear that it could have a negative effect on the parameters of Russia’s nuclear deterrence potential is quite justified.’ Put simply, he referred to the now open US quest for Full Spectrum Dominance—Nuclear Primacy. A new Armageddon is in the making. The unilateral military agenda of Washington has predictably provoked a major effort by Russia to defend herself. The prospects of a global nuclear conflagration, by miscalculation, increase by the day. At what point might an American President, God forbid, decide to order a pre-emptive full-scale nuclear attack on Russia to prevent Russia from rebuilding a state of mutual deterrence? The new Armageddon is not exactly the Armageddon which George Bush’s Christian fanatics pray for as they dream of their Rapture. It is an Armageddon in which Russia and the United States would irradiate the planet and, perhaps, end human civilization in the process. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 172/212 RUSSIAN EXPANSIONISM BAD (RESOURCE WARS) Russia’s expansionist goal to become an economic powerhouse will lead to energy and resource wars that escalate to armed conflicts. Bugajski 10(Janusz, holder of the Lavrentis Lavrentiadis Chair and director of the New European Democracies program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Russia’s Pragmatic Reimperialization” CRIA Vol. 4(1))AQB Russia’s ambitions are to fundamentally alter the existing European security structure, to marginalize or sideline NATO, and to diminish the U.S. role in European security. In all these areas, Russia’s national interests fundamentally diverge from those of the U.S.; or, more precisely, the Russian leadership does not share Western interests or threat perceptions.4 To affirm its national interests, the Medvedev administration has released three major policy documents: the Foreign Policy Concept in July 2008, the Foreign and Security Policy Principles in August 2008, and the National Security Strategy in May 2009.5 The Foreign Policy Concept claims that Russia is a resurgent great power, exerting substantial influence over international affairs and determined to defend the interests of Russian citizens wherever they reside. According to the Foreign and Security Policy Principles, Moscow follows five key principles: the primacy of international law, multipolarity to replace U.S.-dominated unipolarity, the avoidance of Russian isolationism, the protection of Russians wherever they reside, and Russia’s privileged interests in regions adjacent to Russia. Russia’s National Security Strategy, which replaced the previous National Security Concepts, repeats some of the formulations in the other two documents and depicts NATO expansion and its expanded global role as a major threat to Russia’s national interests and to international security. The document asserts that Russia seeks to overcome its domestic problems and emerge as an economic powerhouse. Much attention was also devoted to the potential risk of future energy wars over regions such as the Arctic, where Russia would obviously defend its access to hydrocarbon resources. The document also envisages mounting competition over energy sources escalating into armed conflicts near Russia’s borders. Among the customary list of threats to Russia’s security, the National Security Strategy includes alleged falsifications of Russian history.6 The Kremlin is engaged in an extensive historical revisionist campaign in which it seeks to depict Russia’s Tsarist and Soviet empires as benevolent and civilizing missions pursued in neighboring countries. Systematized state-sponsored historical distortions have profound contemporary repercussions. Interpretations of the past are important for legitimizing the current government, which is committed to demonstrating Russia’s alleged greatness and re-establishing its privileged interests over former satellites. Energy wars go north causing the battle for the Arctic to go nuclear. Matthews 9(Owen, writer for The Mail news service, “The coldest war: Russia and U.S. face off over Arctic resources”)AQB The year is 2020, and, from the Middle East to Nigeria, the world is convulsed by a series of conflicts over dwindling energy supplies. The last untapped reserves of oil and gas lie in the most extreme environment on the planet - the North Pole - where an estimated bonanza of 100 billion barrels are buried deep beneath the Arctic seabed. The ownership of this hostile no-man's-land is contested by Russia, Denmark, Norway, the U.S and Canada. And, in an increasingly desperate battle for resources, each begins to back up its claim with force. Soon, the iceberg-strewn waters of the Arctic are patrolled by fleets of warships, jostling for position in a game of brinkmanship. Russia's Northern Fleet, headed by the colossal but ageing guided missile cruiser Pyotr Velikiy (Peter The Great), and the U.S. Second Fleet, sailing out of Norfolk, Virginia, are armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles - and controlled by leaders who are increasingly willing to use them. For now, such a scenario is pure fiction. But it may not be for long. Only recently, respected British think-tank Jane's Review warned that a polar war could be a reality within 12 years. And the Russians are already taking the race for the North Pole's oil wealth deadly seriously. Indeed, the Kremlin will spend tens of millions upgrading Russia's Northern Fleet over the next eight years. And its Atomic Energy Agency has already begun building a fleet of floating nuclear power stations to power undersea drilling for the Arctic's vast oil and gas reserves. A prototype is under construction at the SevMash shipyard in Severodvinsk. The prospect of an undersea Klondike near the North Pole, powered by floating nuclear plants, has environmentalists deeply worried - not least because Russia has such a dismal record on nuclear safety and the disposal of radioactive waste. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 173/212 RUSSIAN EXPANSIONISM GOOD (NATO) Absent Russian hegemony in Central Asia, NATO expansion will cause regional wars that draw in great powers and go nuclear Valery V. Tsepkalo, Belarusian statesman and former Ambassador to the United States, March/April 1998. “The Remaking of Eurasia” Foreign Affairs. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/53811/valery-v-tsepkalo/the-remaking-of-eurasia Russia's post-Soviet orientation toward Europe and the West is in serious trouble. Western leaders' decision to expand NATO eastward without taking Moscow's objections into account has sidelined Russia on matters that affect its strategic interests. Fellow former Soviet republics seeking Western investment and sponsorship have spoken out against Russia in international forums; within the country, some groups even feel they must leave the Russian Federation to gain Western favor. Since nobody wants powerful neighbors, even when they are not hostile, the Western powers have been the natural allies of all who would break with Moscow. The West does not want to see any structure in Eurasia that permits Russian hegemony. But abetting the continuing destabilization of Eurasia is not in the West's interests. NATO enlargement has not consolidated anti-Western forces in the region, as some Western experts had feared, but it has encouraged the division of Eurasia and the shattering of the Russian Federation. There will likely be further attempts at secession, although not necessarily according to the bloody model of Chechnya. Central Asia and the Caucasus are rife with flash points that could ignite several nations and draw in outside powers. And with regional destabilization and the slackening of central control, the nuclear threat is perhaps greater now than during the Cold War. If current trends continue, Russia's clout in Eurasia will further dwindle and that of Western powers and Western-dominated international organizations will grow. The United States, however, will be unable to maintain control of the process. Western allies like Germany, Japan, and Turkey will adopt independent policies in the region. The jockeying of Western interests will exacerbate tensions between and within countries. And the West will confront the increasing power of China and, to a lesser extent, Iran, which will make extending Western influence beyond the Urals impossible. Eurasia will rapidly become a less predictable and more dangerous place. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 174/212 RUSSIAN EXPANSIONISM GOOD (RUSSIAN ECON) Russian expansionism is necessary to access arctic oil reserves – the impact is Russian economic collapse and global oil shocks Weir 8 (Fred, Correspondent for the CSM, May 28, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2008/0528/p01s04-wosc.html The Kremlin often touts Russia's image as an "energy superpower," but now the country's oil production is declining. Some say Russia may have already reached peak oil output. Underscoring the urgency of the issue, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's new cabinet made its first order of business on Monday the approval of a package of measures to relieve the oil-production crisis. "It's a good first step," says Natalia Milchakova, an oil and gas analyst for Otkritiye, a Moscow-based brokerage firm. But she adds that "rapidly slowing" oil production, which was growing by more than 10 percent five years ago, isn't "something that can be quickly fixed with political declarations." As the world's second-largest oil exporter, Russia joins a growing number of top oil suppliers wrestling with how to address declining or peaking production. Like Venezuela and Mexico, Russia is heavily dependent on oil, which accounts for more than two-thirds of government revenue and 30 percent of the country's gross domestic product. Now, Moscow is trying to remedy a situation caused in part by outdated technology, heavy taxation of oil profits, and lack of investment in oil infrastructure. The Presidium of the Cabinet, as it is officially known, in its inaugural meeting Monday approved tax holidays of up to 15 years for Russian companies that open new oil fields and proposed raising the threshold at which taxation begins from the current $9 per barrel to $15. Oil companies welcomed the measures, but experts say that after almost two decades of post-Soviet neglect, which have seen little new exploration, it may be too little, too late. After rising steadily for several years to a post-Soviet high of 9.9 million barrels per day (bpd) in October, Russian oil production fell by 0.3 percent in the first four months of this year, while exports fell 3.3 percent – the first Putin-era drop. Russia's proven oil reserves are a state secret, but the Oil & Gas Journal, a US-based Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko recently admitted the decline, but suggested it might be overcome by fresh discoveries in underexplored eastern Siberia or in new Arctic territories recently claimed by Russia. "The output level we have today is a plateau, or stagnation," he said. But Leonid Fedun, vice president of Russia's largest private oil company LUKoil, went one step further in an interview with the Financial Times last month. " Russian oil production has peaked and may never return to current levels," he said. That poses problems for Russia, which has talked of expanding beyond its main oil market – Europe – to China, Japan, and the US. industry publication, estimates it has about 60 billion barrels – the world's eighth largest – which would last for 17 years at current production rates. In 2006, then-President Putin approved construction of an $11 billion pipeline across Siberia to the Pacific Ocean to carry eastward exports. Putin and his successor, Dmitri Medvedev, have insisted Russia can meet demand by increasing output but oil analysts around the globe are pessimistic that oil supplies can meet rising consumption in the coming decade. Russian economic collapse causes nuclear war David 99 (Steven, Professor of Political Sciences at John Hopkins University, Foreign Affairs, Proquest AT NO TIME since the civil war of 1918-Zo has Russia been closer to bloody conflict than it is today. The fledgling government confronts a vast array of problems without the power to take effective action. For 70 years, the Soviet Union operated a strong state apparatus, anchored by the KGB and the Communist Party. Now its disintegration has created a power vacuum that has yet to be filled. Unable to rely on popular ideology or coercion to establish control, the government must prove itself to the people and establish its authority on the basis of its performance. But the Yeltsin administration has abjectly failed to do so, and it cannot meet the most basic needs of the Russian people. Russians know they can no longer look to the state for personal security, law enforcement, education, sanitation, health care, or even electrical power. In the place of government authority, criminal groups-the Russian Mafia-increasingly hold sway. Expectations raised by the collapse of communism have been bitterly disappointed, and Moscow's inability to govern coherently raises the specter of civil unrest. If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 5o percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twentytwo percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies on an exceedingly fragile foundationpersonal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low. Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the Federation. Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia-even though in decline-does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,ooo nuclear weapons and the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much materiel. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of antiAmerican groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil war. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 175/212 RUSSIAN EXPANSIANISM GOOD (OIL SHOCKS) Russian expansionism is necessary to access arctic oil reserves – the impact is Russian economic collapse and global oil shocks Weir 8 (Fred, Correspondent for the CSM, May 28, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2008/0528/p01s04-wosc.html, AD: 7/6/10) jl The Kremlin often touts Russia's image as an "energy superpower," but now the country's oil production is declining. Some say Russia may have already reached peak oil output. Underscoring the urgency of the issue, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's new cabinet made its first order of business on Monday the approval of a package of measures to relieve the oil-production crisis. "It's a good first step," says Natalia Milchakova, an oil and gas analyst for Otkritiye, a Moscow-based brokerage firm. But she adds that "rapidly slowing" oil production, which was growing by more than 10 percent five years ago, isn't "something that can be quickly fixed with political declarations." As the world's second-largest oil exporter, Russia joins a growing number of top oil suppliers wrestling with how to address declining or peaking production. Like Venezuela and Mexico, Russia is heavily dependent on oil, which accounts for more than twothirds of government revenue and 30 percent of the country's gross domestic product. Now, Moscow is trying to remedy a situation caused in part by outdated technology, heavy taxation of oil profits, and lack of investment in oil infrastructure. The Presidium of the Cabinet, as it is officially known, in its inaugural meeting Monday approved tax holidays of up to 15 years for Russian companies that open new oil fields and proposed raising the threshold at which taxation begins from the current $9 per barrel to $15. Oil companies welcomed the measures, but experts say that after almost two decades of post-Soviet neglect, which have seen little new exploration, it may be too little, too late. After rising steadily for several years to a post-Soviet high of 9.9 million barrels per day (bpd) in October, Russian oil production fell by 0.3 percent in the first four months of this year, while exports fell 3.3 percent – the first Putin-era drop. Russia's proven oil reserves are a state secret, but the Oil & Gas Journal, a US-based industry publication, estimates it has about 60 billion barrels – the world's eighth largest – which would last for 17 years at current production rates. Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko recently admitted the decline, but suggested it might be overcome by fresh discoveries in underexplored eastern Siberia or in new Arctic territories recently claimed by Russia. "The output level we have today is a plateau, or stagnation," he said. But Leonid Fedun, vice president of Russia's largest private oil company LUKoil, went one step further in an interview with the Financial Times last month. "Russian oil production has peaked and may never return to current levels ," he said. That poses problems for Russia, which has talked of expanding beyond its main oil market – Europe – to China, Japan, and the US. In 2006, then-President Putin approved construction of an $11 billion pipeline across Siberia to the Pacific Ocean to carry eastward exports. Putin and his successor, Dmitri Medvedev, have insisted Russia can meet demand by increasing output but oil analysts around the globe are pessimistic that oil supplies can meet rising consumption in the coming decade. Oil shocks crush the US economy Setser 4 (Brad, Research Associate, Global Economic Governance Programme at Oxford http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/papers/OilShockRoubiniSetser.pdf , AD: 7/6/10) jl These effects are not trivial: oil shocks have caused and/or contributed to each one of the US and global recessions of the last thirty years. Yet while recent recessions have all been linked to an increase in the price of oil, not all oil price spikes lead to a recession. The 2003 spike associated with the invasion of Iraq is a good example. Private sector estimates generally suggest that a persistent 10% increase in the price of oil – say an increase from $30 to an average of $35 over the course of 2004 -- would reduce the US and the G7 growth rate by about 0.3%-0.4% within a year. Some (Goldman Sachs) are more pessimistic, and calculate that if oil prices were to increase further to levels closer to $45, the reduction in the G7 growth rate may be closer to 1% of GDP. Thus, private estimates of the negative effects of an oil shock currently range between 0.3% to 1% of US and G7 GDP growth. This means that the US economy, which was growing in Q4:2003 and Q1:2004 at about a 4.3% average rate could be expected to see a slowdown of its growth to a level between 4.0% and 3.3%. Global growth would also de-accelerate from its current very strong pace. And, indeed, the first estimate for Q2:2004 U.S. GDP growth was 3.0%, confirming that high oil prices in the first half of 2004 put a dent on real consumer demand. Looking ahead, persistence of oil prices at recent high levels of $43-44 per barrel (or even higher prices) could further slow down the U.S. economy below a 3% growth rate. Extinction Friedberg and Schoenfield 8 (Friedberg, professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, Schoenfeld, senior editor of Commentary, is a visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J., “The Dangers of a Diminished America”, WSJ, http://online.wsj.vom/articles/SB122455074012352571.html, AD: 6/19/10) jl Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 176/212 SPACE COLONIZATION BAD (MILITARIZATION) Space Colonization leads to nuclearization. Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space 99’ http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm Nuclear power has become the power source of choice for NASA. Not only has NASA, and the Department of Energy (DoE), been promoting the use of nuclear power for on-board generators for deep space missions, but there is growing evidence that the space exploration and exploitation "adventure" will soon be awash in nuclear materials. According to Marshall Savage, the founder of the First Millennial Foundation (a pro-space colonization organization), "We really can’t mess up the Moon, either by mining it or building nuclear power plants. We can ruthlessly strip mine the surface of the Moon for centuries and it will be hard to tell we’ve even been there. There is no reason why we cannot build nuclear power plants on the Moon’s surface with impunity. Equipped with limitless nuclear, the lunar civilization will be capable of prodigious rates of economic growth." One cannot help but wonder what would happen to the poor Moon miner who becomes contaminated by radioactive dust after removing his irradiated space suit inside the lunar habitat. There is a growing call as well for the nuclear rocket to Mars. Already work is underway on the project at Los Alamos Labs in New Mexico and at the University of Florida Nuclear Engineering Department. In his Space News op-ed called Nuclear Propulsion to Mars, aerospace industry engineer Robert Kleinberger states that the nuclear rocket "could be used for defending U.S. space systems, reboosting the International Space Station, returning to the Moon for exploration or mining, and for exploring and opening the inner solar system to scientific research. The nuclear vehicle could even assist in the eventual colonization of Mars." In fact, there is such a growing demand for plutonium for "space projects" that the DoE is now undertaking an internal review of its production process. The DoE is considering re-opening plutonium processing lines at such facilities as Hanford in Washington state, a site that has created enormous contamination during its years of bomb making. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 177/212 SPACE COLONIZATION BAD (SPACE WAR) Space colonization causes environmental exploitation and space war. Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space 99’ http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Having shown such enormous disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries" and "explorers" are now ready to rape and pillage the heavens. Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets that regularly blow up on the launch pad, will seriously jeopardize life on Earth. Returning potentially bacteria-laden space materials back to Earth, without any real plans for containment and monitoring, could create new epidemics for us. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms race in space will certainly have serious ecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years of consensus around international space law will create new global conflicts and confrontations. Now is the time for all who care about peaceful and scientific space exploration to learn more about these issues and to begin organizing to prevent this insanity before it happens. An international debate must be created about the kind of seed we from Earth will carry with us as we explore space. Let this historic debate begin now. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 178/212 SPACE COLONIZATION GOOD (ASTEROIDS) An asteroid will hit the Earth – very likely and results in extinction. Space colonization is critical to getting us “off the rock.” EASTERBROOK 08, Gregg: Brooking Institutions fellow and contributing editor to The Atlantic and The New Republic [“The Sky is Falling,” Atlantic Monthly, June, WilsonSelect Plus] Other scientists are making equally unsettling discoveries. Only in the past few decades have astronomers begun to search the nearby skies for objects such as asteroids and comets (for convenience, let’s call them “space rocks”). What they are finding suggests that near-Earth space rocks are more numerous than was once thought, and that their orbits may not be as stable as has been assumed . There is also reason to think that space rocks may not even need to reach Earth’s surface to cause cataclysmic damage. Our solar system appears to be a far more dangerous place than was previously believed. The received wisdom about the origins of the solar system goes something like this: the sun and planets formed about 4.5 billion years ago from a swirling nebula containing huge amounts of gas and dust, as well as relatively small amounts of metals and other dense substances released by ancient supernova explosions. The sun is at the center; the denser planets, including Earth, formed in the middle region, along with many asteroids—the small rocky bodies made of material that failed to incorporate into a planet. Farther out are the gas-giant planets, such as Jupiter, plus vast amounts of light elements, which formed comets on the boundary of the solar system. Early on, asteroids existed by the millions; the planets and their satellites were bombarded by constant, furious strikes. The heat and shock waves generated by these impacts regularly sterilized the young Earth. Only after the rain of space objects ceased could life begin; by then, most asteroids had already either hit something or found stable orbits that do not lead toward planets or moons. Asteroids still exist, but most were assumed to be in the asteroid belt, which lies between Mars and Jupiter, far from our blue world. As for comets, conventional wisdom held that they also bombarded the planets during the early eons. Comets are mostly frozen water mixed with dirt. An ancient deluge of comets may have helped create our oceans; lots of comets hit the moon, too, but there the light elements they were composed of evaporated. As with asteroids, most comets were thought to have smashed into something long ago; and, because the solar system is largely void, researchers deemed it statistically improbable that those remaining would cross the paths of planets. These standard assumptions—that remaining space rocks are few, and that encounters with planets were mainly confined to the past—are being upended. On March 18, 2004, for instance, a 30-meter asteroid designated 2004 FH—a hunk potentially large enough to obliterate a city—shot past Earth, not far above the orbit occupied by telecommunications satellites. (Enter “2004 FH” in the search box at Wikipedia and you can watch film of that asteroid passing through the night sky.) Looking at the broader picture, in 1992 the astronomers David Jewitt, of the University of Hawaii, and Jane Luu, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, discovered the Kuiper Belt, a region of asteroids and comets that starts near the orbit of Neptune and extends for immense distances outward. At least 1,000 objects big enough to be seen from Earth have already been located there. These objects are 100 kilometers across or larger, much bigger than whatever dispatched the dinosaurs; space rocks this size are referred to as “planet killers” because their impact would likely end life on Earth. Investigation of the Kuiper Belt has just begun, but there appear to be substantially more asteroids in this region than in the asteroid belt, which may need a new name. Beyond the Kuiper Belt may lie the hypothesized Oort Cloud, thought to contain as many as trillions of comets. If the Oort Cloud does exist, the number of extant comets is far greater than was once believed. Some astronomers now think that short-period comets, which swing past the sun frequently, hail from the relatively nearby Kuiper Belt, whereas comets whose return periods are longer originate in the Oort Cloud. But if large numbers of comets and asteroids are still around, several billion years after the formation of the solar system, wouldn’t they by now be in stable orbits—ones that rarely intersect those of the planets? Maybe not. During the past few decades, some astronomers have theorized that the movement of the solar system within the Milky Way varies the gravitational stresses to which the sun, and everything that revolves around it, is exposed. The solar system may periodically pass close to stars or groups of stars whose gravitational pull affects the Oort Cloud, shaking comets and asteroids loose from their orbital moorings and Consider objects that are already near Earth, and the picture gets even bleaker. Astronomers traditionally spent little time looking for asteroids, regarding them as a lesser class of celestial bodies, lacking the beauty of comets or the significance of planets and stars. Plus, asteroids are hard to spot—they move rapidly, compared with the rest of the heavens, and even the nearby ones are fainter than other objects in space. Not until the 1980s did scientists begin systematically searching for asteroids near Earth. They have been finding them in disconcerting abundance. In 1980, only 86 near-Earth asteroids and comets were known to exist. By 1990, the figure had risen to 170; by sending them downward, toward the inner planets. 2000, it was 921; as of this writing, it is 5,388. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, part of NASA, keeps a running tally at www.neo.jpl.nasa.gov/stats. Ten years ago, 244 near-Earth space rocks one kilometer across or more—the size that would cause global calamity—were known to exist; now 741 are. Of the recently discovered nearby space objects, NASA has classified 186 as “impact risks” (details about these rocks are at www.neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk). And because most space-rock searches to date have been low-budget affairs, conducted with equipment designed to look deep into the heavens, not at nearby space, the actual number of impact risks is undoubtedly much higher . Extrapolating from recent discoveries, NASA estimates that there are perhaps 20,000 potentially hazardous asteroids and comets in the general vicinity of Earth. There’s still more bad news. Earth has experienced several mass extinctions—the dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, and something killed off some 96 percent of the world’s marine species about 250 million years ago. Scientists have generally assumed that whatever caused those long-ago mass extinctions—comet impacts, extreme volcanic activity—arose from conditions that have changed and no longer pose much threat. It’s a comforting notion—but what about the mass extinction that occurred close to our era? About 12,000 years ago, many large animals of North America started disappearing—woolly mammoths, saber-toothed cats, mastodons, and others. Some scientists have speculated that Paleo-Indians may have hunted some of the creatures to extinction. A millennia-long mini–Ice Age also may have been a factor. But if that’s the case, what explains the disappearance of the Clovis People, the best-documented Paleo-Indian culture, at about the same time? Their population stretched as far south as Mexico, so the mini–Ice Age probably was not solely responsible for their extinction. A team of researchers led by Richard Firestone, of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in California, recently announced the discovery of evidence that one or two huge space rocks, each perhaps several kilometers across, exploded high above Canada 12,900 years ago. The detonation, they believe, caused widespread fires and dust clouds, and disrupted climate patterns so severely that it triggered a prolonged period of global cooling. Mammoths and other species might have been killed either by the impact itself or by starvation after their food supply was disrupted. These conclusions, though hotly disputed by other researchers, were based on extensive examinations of soil samples from across the continent; in strata from that era, scientists found widely distributed soot and also magnetic grains of iridium, an element that is rare on Earth but common in space. Iridium is the meteor-hunter’s lodestar: the discovery of iridium dating back 65 million years is what started the geologist Walter Alvarez on his path-breaking theory about the dinosaurs’ demise. A more recent event gives further cause for concern. As buffs of the television show The X Files will recall, just a century ago, in 1908, a huge explosion occurred above Tunguska, Siberia . The cause was not a malfunctioning alien star-cruiser but a small asteroid or comet that detonated as it approached the ground. The blast had hundreds of times the force of the Hiroshima bomb and devastated an area of several hundred square miles . Had the explosion occurred above London or Paris, the city would no longer exist. Mark Boslough, a researcher at the Sandia National Laboratory, in New Mexico, recently concluded that the Tunguska object was surprisingly small, perhaps only 30 meters across. Right now, astronomers are nervously tracking 99942 Apophis, an asteroid with a slight chance of striking Earth in April 2036. Apophis is also small by asteroid standards, perhaps 300 meters across, but it could hit with about 60,000 times the force of the Hiroshima bomb—enough to destroy an area the size of France. In other words, small asteroids may be more dangerous than we used to think—and may do considerable damage even if they don’t reach Earth’s surface. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 179/212 SPACE COLONIZATION GOOD (EXTINCTION) Space solves multiple existential threats – the program is key to survival Pelton 03 (Joseph, Director of the Space and Advanced Communications Research institute at George Washington University and Executive Director of the Arthur C. Clarke Foundation, “COMMENTARY: Why Space? The Top 10 Reasons”, September 23, http://www.space.com/news/commentary_top10_030912.html) Actually the lack of a space program could get us all killed. I dont mean you or me or my wife or children. I mean that Homo sapiens as a species are actually endangered. Surprising to some, a well conceived space program may well be our only hope for long-term survival. The right or wrong decisions about space research and exploration may be key to the futures of our grandchildren or great-grandchildren or those that follow. Arthur C. Clarke, the author and screenplay writer for 2001: A Space Odyssey, put the issue rather starkly some years back when he said: The dinosaurs are not around today because they did not have a space program. He was, of course, referring to the fact that we now know a quite largish meteor crashed into the earth, released poisonous Iridium chemicals into our atmosphere and created a killer cloud above the Earth that blocked out the sun for a prolonged period of time. This could have been foreseen and averted with a sufficiently advanced space program. But this is only one example of how space programs, such as NASAs Spaceguard program, help protect our fragile planet. Without a space program we would not know about the large ozone hole in our atmosphere, the hazards of solar radiation, the path of killer hurricanes or many other environmental dangers. But this is only a fraction of the ways that space programs are crucial to our future. He Continues… Protection against catastrophic planetary accidents: It is easy to assume that an erratic meteor or comet will not bring destruction to the Earth because the probabilities are low. The truth is we are bombarded from space daily. The dangers are greatest not from a cataclysmic collision, but from not knowing enough about solar storms, cosmic radiation and the ozone layer. An enhanced Spaceguard Program is actually a prudent course that could save our species in time. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 180/212 SPACE COLONIZATION GOOD (HEG) Unless we directly engage space exploration, we’ll be doomed. RICHARD B. MYERS, ice chairman putative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is commander-in-chief, U.S. Space Command, and Defense Dept. manager for space transportation system contingency support, Peterson AFB, Colorado, January 2000, Space Superiority is Fleeting, Lexis THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS. BUT, ''space superiority is fleeting'' in that we can't be deceived by the fact that we enjoyed space dominance in Kosovo and in the gulf war. We controlled the ''high ground,'' not because of superior technologies or strategies, but because our adversaries simply didn't use space. We gained space superiority by default; the world took notice. Just as Milosevic modified his air defenses to try to deny our air superiority, others will modify their forces to try to deny our space superiority. Fortune may not be so kind in the 21st century. The worldwide proliferation of space-based capabilities will accelerate. Practically anyone with a credit card and an Internet account can buy global satcom and 1-meter-resolution imagery. Precision navigation is free to everyone with a GPS receiver. Inevitably, these capabilities will be used for purposes hostile to the U.S. and its allies. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 181/212 SPACE MILITARIZATION BAD (ARMS RACES) Space Satellites are what entrench war by giving us war capabilities, the next step is crucial if we do it means an arms race in space. Robert Ayson, writer the australian, 1/07, Hopes for sanity not yet lost in space, lexis Despite China's anti-satellite test, a new arms race isn't inevitable, argues Robert Ayson CHINA'S surprising anti-satellite test has raised fears of an arms race in space. The unofficial moratorium on such tests is over. This alone means that China has acted provocatively and the military implications are only part of the story. If the satellites supporting the global transmission of data, images and funds became too vulnerable to be viable, much of life as we know it would grind to a halt. That is in nobody's interests. The 22-year taboo against anti-satellite tests supported the myth that space is not militarized. But space has long been used for military applications. The American way of war -- from the Gulf War in 1990 to Shock and Awe in Iraq in 2003 -- would be impossible without the military use of satellites. Washington's plans for missile defence have included space-based systems as essential components. Ballistic missiles leave the earth's atmosphere en route to their target. And space is central in Australia's own record of defence co-operation with Washington. The US is the world's dominant space power. Having beaten the Soviet space challenge by prevailing in the Cold War, the Pentagon guards this dominance jealously. Above all, it allows the US freedom of manoeuvre in conducting military operations. Washington's concerns about China's test may be less to do with the breaking of a gentlemen's agreement and more to do with the protection of the US's space hegemony. China could throw some stones back at the main critic. Beijing could argue that the US has been even quicker to break old understandings. The Bush administration tore up its Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia to develop missile defence. This program may one day target China's anti-satellite capabilities. Missile defence certainly reduces China's confidence in the balance of strategic power, and in its ability to hold sway in any conflict over Taiwan. Its anti-satellite test sends a clear signal that any space-based systems involved in the defence of Taiwan would not go unchallenged. Yet China would be unwise to get into a war of words with the US and its allies. The test challenges China's insistence at the stalled Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that it will only discuss a fissile material cut-off treaty if the US agrees to negotiate a treaty on avoiding an arms race in space. More importantly, the test, and Beijing's fumbling and belated acknowledgement of its existence, flies in the face of the reputation China has been carefully building as a responsible and peaceful rising power. Thanks in no small part to its increasingly nuanced diplomacy, Beijing's reputation in the Asia-Pacific region is better than it has been in living memory. But this could be at risk if there are more signs of sabre-rattling. So far the test will only really concern those who were already slightly suspicious about China's intentions. But if Beijing pushes further, the balance of opinion may really start to change. And that may well provide an opening for the US. This would not be in keeping with Beijing's plans. In 1957 the launch of the Sputnik satellite showed the West that the Soviet Union was a serious competitor in the space race. This accelerated the Cold War nuclear arms race. The US spent billions of dollars responding to a non-existent ''missile gap'', and both sides ended up with far more nuclear weapons than they would ever need. It is by no means inevitable that China's test will have a similar effect. An arms race is like the tango: it takes two. This means that the next step is crucial. Arms race is fueled and stability is lost by US persuasion for Space Mil KCNA, newspaper, BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific – Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 2/08, lexis Text of commentary entitled: "Dangerous act that precipitates arms race in space" carried by state-run North Korean news agency KCNA The United States fired a missile to intercept a reconnaissance satellite in the Northern Pacific on 20 February, despite protests and denunciations from the international community. According to foreign news agencies, the interception of the reconnaissance satellite was carried out in the form of a comprehensive exercise staged by the warships loaded with specially modified interceptor missiles and the command system - which is controlled by radars and computers - under the command of the United States Strategic Command. Assessing it as a test for actual battle aimed at establishing a missile defence system as it marked an important occasion in rounding off a phase in the development of a missile defence system, observers are resolutely refuting the United States' claim on the reasons for the interception of the satellite. The reasons the United States advanced were that it was necessary to get rid of the satellite because the remote control of the reconnaissance satellite - which was launched in December 2006 - from ground became impossible, the satellite may fall on earth as early as the first week of March, and it was necessary to prepare for the situation that the satellite loaded with hazardous fuel could fall into a densely populated area. The United States said that the interception of the satellite carried out this time was neither the test of weapons to intercept other countries' satellite nor a sort of show towards potential adversaries. The experts' unanimous opinion is that, even if the satellite - which is loaded with toxic fuel - is intercepted as claimed by the United States, the toxic substance will remain and cause serious atmospheric pollution. In reality, the objective that the United States is pursuing through the interception of the reconnaissance satellite is nothing more than the one to contain China, Russia, and other countries and to gain military hegemony in space through the revival of the 1980s plan for "Star Wars." It is by no means a mere accident that the Russian Ministry of Defence revealed on 16 February that the United States' interception of the satellite is clearly intended to test a new type of strategic weapon. As was made known, the United States already conducted a test of intercepting satellite by firing missile from a fighter in 1985 and has lavished a tremendous amount of funds into the development of space weapons over the past decades. After China conducted a satellite interception test in January 2007, the United States has been speeding up the space militarization manoeuvres, while even more vehemently justifying its development of space weapons on the pretext of the China's test. A case in point is the fact that the United States openly opposed a draft of the treaty for the prohibition of the deployments of weapons in space [international space demilitarization treaty] that China and Russia presented to the UN Conference on Disarmament not long ago. In what was called the "National Space Policy" published in October 2006, the United States already stated, "The United States rejects discussions of agreements that may limit US access to or use of space and opposes any forms of agreements on disarmament." It is as clear as noonday that the United States' such adventurous manoeuvre, as the one based on the traditional way of thinking it adopted during the Cold War era, will scrap the international treaty for the peaceful use of space and will precipitate an arms race in space. All the facts once again clearly show that the United States is indeed the destroyer of global peace and stability. Source: KCNA, Pyongyang, in Korean 0214 gmt 25 Feb 08 For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 182/212 SPACE MILITARIZATION BAD (INDO-PAK WAR) 1/2 Space militarization causes India to follow suit, forcing Pakistan into preemptive strikes and nuclear war. Lewis 4 (Jeffrey Center for Defense Information “What if Space Were Weaponized?” July, http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf) Previous scenarios outlined the relationship between U.S. pursuit of space weapons and their possible spread to other countries. Perhaps the most straightforward possibility for this phenomenon lies in the relationship between India and Pakistan. India is a state that may pursue ASAT capabilities, if other states do so first . The chief of the Indian Air Force, S. Krishnaswamy, recently remarked that: “Any country on the fringe of space technology like India has to work towards such a command as advanced countries are already moving towards laser weapons platforms in space and killer satellites.”57 Pakistan has a much smaller industrial base, but has long attempted to match Indian deployments – particularly in military matters. Pakistan is likely to emulate Indian ASAT efforts, given the enmity between the two countries and the relative advantage that India derives from the use of space for military operations. Developing states like India and Pakistan could develop two types of ASATs by 2010. First, both states could create modified missile defense systems to intercept satellites. All missile defense interceptors have an inherent capability to intercept satellites in LEO. India already has an active program to develop its own indigenous missile defenses and has expressed interest in purchasing the U.S. Patriot both states might develop so-called “killer satellites” based on civilian microsatellite technology. The Indian Space Research Organization is already supporting the development of a 60 kg technology demonstration microsatellite, called ANUSAT, to be launched in 2005.59 India may also be interested in directed energy weapons, although New Delhi probably lacks the technical expertise to develop such weapons. Nevertheless, India’s Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) reportedly commissioned a study on directed energy weapons and the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) funds research on laser weapons.60 There are also reports that the Indian military has conducted studies on space-based lasers, as well as a “kinetic attack loitering interceptor.” Although Pakistan has a smaller technological base than does India, Pakistan is also investing in space systems . Pakistan has created an indigenous space PAC-3 and Russian S-300 short-range missile defense systems.58 Second, agency, the Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO), to build and launch indigenous satellites. Pakistan has also signed an agreement to increase cooperation with the Chinese space The role that space systems will play in Indian and Pakistan military operations in the future remains unclear, and the nuclear arsenals of both countries remain inchoate. India has positioned itself to exploit space technologies . New Delhi has launched several program.61 remote-sensing satellites under the Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) Satellite System, including the Technology Experimental Satellite with one-meter resolution.62 Already New Delhi is sophisticated enough to eliminate Pakistan is more likely to focus on strategies that deny India the use of space, rather than exploiting these advantages itself. Pakistan does, however, lease a U.S.-built communications satellite in geostationary orbit. Space-based capabilities would provide India with a real advantage over Pakistan. When the U.S.-based Federation of American Scientists (FAS) any coverage of its military operations areas when selling the IRS data commercially. purchased one-meter resolution images from a commercial satellite company, FAS analysts expressed surprise at the amount of detail available about the Pakistani nuclear force. Looking at one image, an FAS analyst said the image “shows the Pakistanis have all their eggs in one basket. These Pakistani missiles are vulnerable to an Indian first strike.”63 The Indian military is also reportedly interested in acquiring military GPS India may also be interested in supplementing national capabilities with commercial systems. By 2010, these capabilities could provide India with a substantial advantage in a crisis. Both countries rely on offensively oriented conventional military doctrines. India reportedly considered limited conventional strikes on Pakistani targets in response to alleged Pakistani support for terrorists . Indian officials apparently believe that nuclear weapons would discourage the escalation of a low-intensity conflict into a full-scale conventional war. The Pakistani Army, in contrast, emphasizes launching counter-offensives to respond to limited strikes.65 Perhaps mindful of Pakistan’s strategy, India considered a round of air receivers from the United States and has launched a national communications satellite constellation, INSAT, that will carry military traffic.64 strikes during a recent conflict that would have been limited to the monsoon season, when heavy rains impede large-scale conventional armor operations.66 In war games conducting by the United States Navy, very In each of these scenarios, Pakistan used limited nuclear weapon attacks to attempt to disrupt Indian conventional operations. During a conflict in 2010, Pakistan may have a strong incentive to launch preemptive strikes against satellites used by the Indian military for reconnaissance and communications. Such strikes would pose substantial challenges to U.S. security policy. First, even limited strikes against Indian satellites could very well endanger U.S. space assets , including imaging satellites and similar scenarios were played out.67 civil space missions. A 1985 ASAT test conducted by the United States created hundreds of pieces of debris, many of which remained in orbit for a decade. In 1999, one of these pieces of debris came within about one kilometer from the International Space Station. 68 Although unlikely, the National Academy of Sciences has warned of the possibility of “collisional cascading” from debris impacts at crowded altitudes.69 High altitude Second, Pakistan might target third-party satellites used by the Indian Army. Potential targets would include commercial imaging and communications satellites, as well as the GPS or Third Party Escalation Scenario 31 European Galileo system if Indian forces were allowed to utilize those services during an offensive. Such attacks would have unanticipated affects on the United States. In one war game, the United States nuclear detonations could also create substantial collateral damage, through electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and radiation effects. faced what one participant called “ugly choices” about commercial satellites being used by potential opponents. Participants discovered that they were unable to determine who might be affected by a decision to shoot The United States has made clear that it would regard a deliberate attack on U.S. space assets, including commercial satellites, as an act of war. The U.S. National Space Policy states: “Purposeful interference with U.S. space systems will be viewed as an infringement on our sovereign rights . The United States may take all appropriate down a commercial satellite. This, according to one participant, “vastly complicates the national security landscape.”70 self-defense measures, including if directed by the National Command Authorities, the use of force to respond to such an infringement on U.S. rights.”71 In practice, of course, the U.S. threat to treat attacks on satellites as an act of war may not be credible for commercial satellites supporting foreign military operations. Moreover, the lack of casualties in an attack on U.S. space assets also raises questions about the credibility of this commitment. Perhaps more importantly, the risk of Pakistani ASAT attacks would create the same escalatory incentives for India that the United States faces in the second scenario. U.S. war games suggest that future the IndiaPakistan scenarios usually escalate to the use of nuclear weapons “within the first 12 ‘days’ of the war game.” “It’s a scary scenario,” said one participant. Anti-satellite weapons would reinforce the strong escalatory dynamic that many war games have revealed . For example, war conflicts in South Asia may not be very stable.72 A contractor who has conduct more than two dozen war games for the Pentagon and other military-planning centers told the Wall Street Journal that games that quickly escalate to nuclear use are often restarted to allow the Indian side to reconsider some of the moves that lead to Pakistani escalation. The Indian side, however, generally learns the opposite lesson and attempts a “lighting strike” to destroy the Pakistani nuclear stockpile. When asked if the Indian Armed Force could really execute a preemptive strategy, one participant noted, “Probably not, but they believe they According to U.S. intelligence estimates, a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan could kill as many as 12 million people.73 The scale of the humanitarian catastrophe has led the military to war game possible scenarios for peacekeeping missions to prevent escalation. Participants learned that such interventions, as often as not, escalated into a crisis. In at least one game, the United States was compelled to send a rescue team to forcibly enter Pakistan and relieve a besieged division of U.S. peacekeepers – this force was attacked with nuclear weapons. Yet , will the United States really be able to keep out of a conflict if vital military and commercial assets in space are threatened, either deliberately or collaterally, by South Asian ASATs? could.” For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 183/212 SPACE MILITARIZATION BAD (INDO-PAK WAR) 2/2 That causes extinction. Fai 1 (Ghulam Nabi, Executive Director of the Kashmiri American Council ., 7/8/01, “India-Pakistan Summit and the Issue of Kashmir”) The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 184/212 SPACE MILITARIZATION BAD (LAUNDRY LIST) Problems with Militarization Dr. Giuseppe Anzera, Lecturer of Sociology of International Relations, 8/05 http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=347&language_id=1 The White House will face several problems if it wants to pursue the ambitious project of space militarization consisting of both offensive and defensive weapons. The first point is the political issue. International reactions to U.S. plans have already appeared: Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov recently evoked an immediate reaction from Moscow, and serious consequences were threatened should an orbital weapon deployment be performed by Washington. Such a reaction could consist of a modified version of the SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of putting into orbit a remarkable quantity of space vehicles -- which could even carry military nukes, thus making the U.S. planned intercepting effort much more difficult. It is easy to imagine that space weaponization -- once in place -- could be employed as well by U.S. rivals at any occasion, as these latter will develop mutual strategic ties just like China and Russia are doing in Central Asia. The second problem is economic. Orbital weapons -- as the Strategic Defense Initiative showed in the 1980s -- are extremely expensive. It has been estimated that a space defense system against weak ballistic missile strikes could cost between $220 billion and $1 trillion. A laser-based system to be used against ballistic missiles would cost about $100 million for each target. For instance, the Future Imagery Architecture -- a project aimed at the implementation of new spy satellites which are vital to identify targets for space weapons -- has already reached a cost of US$25 billion. It is a legitimate question, therefore, whether Washington really needs to finance such projects in today's geostrategic context. Moreover, would these tools be cost-effective in relation to their real operational capability? The first question raises doubts and the second one remains, at the moment, without answer. Henceforth, such initiatives resemble more and more Reagan's S.D.I. The third fundamental problem is of a strategic nature. The implications of space militarization are enormous, and its consequences can't be predicted. It is certain that -- in the short term -- U.S. financial and technological superiority would increase the already prominent gap in military power between Washington and the rest of the world. In addition, some of the new weapons could give the White House new effective tools to fight against symmetrical (states) and asymmetrical (terror networks) threats. However, in the long run, a military colonization of outer space could very well be started by other powers -- which would hardly tolerate Washington's quasi-private use of space. The Clinton administration decided to take the opposite route and avoided international space militarization, as it considered a new front useless because of the U.S. military's overwhelming dominance on land, sea and air. Moreover, the orbital deployment of offensive weapons -- even though unequivocally non-nuclear -- can be perilous for various reasons. First of all, the U.S. is currently obligated not to deploy atomic or W.M.D. space weapons, as it signed the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Even if Rods of God is not a nuclear weapon, its impact power is near the magnitude of a nuke. Hence, it is not certain that the international community will consider it a conventional weapon, and a violation of the treaty could, therefore, be claimed. As a consequence, an indiscriminate race to space weaponization could begin -- involving the orbital deployment of W.M.D. and nuclear weapons. This latter scenario could result in a problem for the United States, a problem that its decision-makers in the 1960s strived to avoid at any cost. Second, political consequences of a quasi-nuclear weapon should not be overlooked. If Rods of God will be used and other powers will perceive it as the equivalent of a nuclear strike, many states could change their perception of W.M.D. and nuclear weapons standards. A stark decrease in the traditional refrain from using nuclear bombs could then occur, thus changing the current strategy behind nuclear weapons: that of deterrence tools. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 185/212 SPACE MILITARIZATION BAD (NUCLEAR WAR) Space militarization causes space nuclear war. Chin 5 (Larry, reporter for Global Research, July 16, “Deep Impact and the Militarization of Space” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=645)KM Space is not only the ultimate military "high ground"; it is the frontier for pillage and colonization, and the battleground for coming superpower conflicts with China and other rivals. "The prospects for eventual profit and control of the new space frontier are too high to be left to chance", observed Gagnon. "Clearly, since the end of World War II, the US military has been planning and is now vigorously developing space technologies that will give them control of the pathways on an off the planet Earth. Just as the Spanish Armada and the British Navy were created to protect their ‘interests and investments’ in the new world, space is viewed today as open territory to be seized for eventual corporate profit." Did any of these nightmarish realities cross the minds of the NASA scientists as they wildly celebrated the successful Deep Impact blast of July 3, 2005, or those who watched the event unfold on television screens and through their telescopes? The acceleration of space militarization, pushed by Bush adminstration, has raised appropriate alarm, among those who know. In addition to the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, the Union of Concerned Scientists is opposing the Bush space agenda, and taking its case for treaties prohibiting space weapons to Congress and the United Nations. To again quote Gagnon, "the United Nations, to their credit, created the Moon Treaty and the Outer Space Treaty as ways to circumvent the war-like tendencies of humankind as we step out into the cosmos…but the US appears to be heading in the opposite direction by creating enormous danger and conflict with the current Nuclear Systems Initiative that will expand nuclear power and weapons into space ---all disguised as the noble effort to hunt for the ‘origins of life’ in space. [ Similarly, the Deep Impact project is also being lauded for "origins of life" research breakthroughs.—LC] Only a lively and growing global debate about the ethics and morality of current space policy will save us from igniting the harsh fires of Prometheus in the heavens above us ." For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 186/212 SPACE MILITARIZATION BAD (SPACE DEBRIS) Militarization causes an increase in space debris which kills space exploration efforts. Katz-Hyman and Krepon 3 (Michael and Michael “Assurance or Space Dominance? The Case Against Weaponizing Space” Washington, D.C.: Henry L. Stimson Center, April p120, http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1302/) Orbital debris mitigation and space traffic management require multilateral solutions. Earth is surrounded by litter -- perhaps 9,000 objects larger than ten centimeters in diameter, and an estimated 100,000 pieces of orbital debris larger than a marble. As Joel Primack has written , "[S]pace does not clear after an explosion near our planet. The fragments continue circling the Earth, their orbits crossing those of other objects. Paint chips, lost bolts, pieces of exploded rockets -- all have already become tiny satellites, traveling at about 27,000 kilometers per hour, 10 times faster than a high-powered rifle bullet. A marble traveling at such speed would hit with the energy of a one-ton safe dropped from a three-story building. Anything it strikes will be destroyed and only increase the debris." The weaponization of space is an environmental as well as a national security issue. The environmental degradation of space created by space-faring nations constitutes a danger to space exploration, the space shuttle, and other peaceful uses of space. Space litter also poses difficulties for the military uses of space. You have an obligation to vote here – extinction is inevitable unless we colonize. Falconi 1, (Oscar: BS degree in Physics from M.I.T. “THE CASE FOR SPACE COLONIZATION - NOW!” http://www.nutri.com/space/ What expenditure should have first priority in American budgetary considerations? Defense? Pollution? Education? Inflation? Unemployment? Crime? Welfare? Integration? Bussing? Bureaucratic over-regulation? What we present here is felt to be an extremely convincing argument for an adventure in space that a billion years from now might well be considered by far the best investment ever made at any time by any society. The adventure is the colonization of space. The argument is that man may soon destroy himself on earth before he can set up a backup civilization elsewhere. Now man may or may not be the only life in the universe capable of abstract thought, but we surely must agree that much would be lost if man's existence were to cease right now. Trillions of trillions of potentially happy and productive man-years would never come to pass. We are obligated to do all we can, now, to protect this future! In the last generation or two, man has clearly reached some sort of milestone or turning point. The present is unprecedented, and so the future is completely unpredictable. For the first time in man's history, many things seem to be doubling every decade or two, such as population, research, energy usage, pollution, nuclear capability, total knowledge, and more. In addition, man has achieved the ability to destroy himself and all his future generations. The probability of man's self-destruction is clearly increasing at a rate much greater than, for instance, population growth. An in-depth study could well uncover some alarming statistics here. It behooves us to immediately begin work toward getting a self-sufficient colony away from earth. We just may be the only life in the universe with the foresight to have "moved out" before it destroyed itself. So, should America go all-out for space colonization? What follows can only touch the surface of this question. The points that are made, however, are felt to be convincing enough to warrant immediate and forceful action. Many of the ideas in this book are very new and very important. Read them with a receptive mind and criticize them fairly and logically, remembering all the while the importance of what's at stake. "What can happen, will happen." - Anon CAUSES OF MAN'S EXTINCTION Unfortunately, mankind reproduces itself in series. One generation begets the next. When one generation ceases to exist all future generations are lost. In the past, the human race was well dispersed, with little possibility for self-destruction. There was no reason to think that the existent generation might be the last. But times have changed. With weaponry and research advancing furiously, it could well be that our chance for self-destruction is doubling every year or two. Carl Sagan, in a recent episode of his very fine TV series, "Cosmos", has reasoned that the chance of human life continuing to exist on earth is less than 1% per century. This is equivalent to less than a 50-50 chance of lasting the next 15 years! As it stands now, it appears that most Americans (half are less than 30) will die a violent death. When the odds against us are bad, and rapidly getting worse, it's time to search for a solution. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 187/212 SPACE MILITARIZATION BAD (U.S. CHINA WAR) Space militarization creates a hair-trigger posture by the US military to defend space assets from anti-satellite missiles from China, creating a first strike that escalates to nuclear war. Lewis 4 (Jeffrey Center for Defense Information “What if Space Were Weaponized?” July, http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/scenarios.pdf) There are, however, dangers to placing such important assets in space. Satellites are inherently vulnerable. They travel in predictable, fixed orbits — this is the reason that some in the Air Force call intercepting a satellite “scheduling.” Because of the high velocities of objects in orbit, even a small object can destroy the most durable military satellite. For example, engineers cannot shield satellites against orbital debris larger than one centimeter in diameter – anything larger than an M&M.20 Moreover, the space environment is harsh and subject to human manipulation. During a high-altitude nuclear test in the early 1960s, the United States discovered that a nuclear weapon detonated in space could create a lethal electromagnetic pulse that would deaden virtually all of the satellites in its line-of-sight, and leave a long-term radiation hazard that would disable large numbers of satellites over the next several months.21 Not surprisingly, the Pentagon is extremely worried about possible Chinese ASATs, and the threat that such weapons would pose to U.S. military superiority. The most recent Pentagon report on Chinese military power warns that “China is said to be acquiring a variety of foreign technologies which could be used to develop an active Chinese ASAT capability.”22 The report also warns that, at the outset of a conflict, “the PLA would attempt to weaken U.S. or other third party’s resolve by demonstrating the capability to hold at risk – or actually striking – high-value assets. The PLA would seek to leverage emerging asymmetric capabilities to counter or negate an adversary’s superiorities.” 23 These weapons could be used to blind the missile warning and radar satellites that allow the United States to target Chinese ballistic missiles on the ground or in flight, as well as the communications satellites that would direct systems such as the Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) to their targets. If the United States were to deploy space-based missile defenses, or place a large number of CAVs in orbit (aboard a space maneuver vehicle like NASA’s X-37), China might target those weapons with anti-satellite weapons as well. This situation would essentially put the United States on “hair trigger” alert in space. A Chinese military exercise, for example, involving the movement of large numbers of troops and mobilization of ballistic missile units might be mistaken in the United States as a prelude to a surprise attack. With a military strategy that absolutely depends on vulnerable space assets to protect the homeland, an American president would face the unenviable task of choosing between launching a surprise attack on China or risking the loss of spacebased intelligence, strike and missile defense assets that protect against nuclear attack. Such an attack could be very large or very small. The United States might attempt to use CAVs, aided by guidance from space-based radar systems, to attack Chinese command and control systems, disable the arsenal of Chinese ballistic missiles or merely attack the sites of suspected Chinese anti-satellite weapons. Missile defense, using space-based sensors and perhaps interceptors, would be used to discourage the Chinese from attempting It is not clear whether even a very large American first strike would completely neutralize the 75 to 100 Chinese nuclear weapons that the CIA anticipates will be capable of reaching the United States in the next 10 to 15 years.24 Controlling escalation, however, appears dicey – if any retaliation. the United States succeeded in severely degrading the Chinese command and control system, Chinese leaders might not even know that the original attack had been confined to conventional weapons. Those who say this scenario is far fetched may be surprised to learn that it happened – in a war game sponsored by the Naval War College.25 In that game, which was held August 14-25, 2000, a large Asian nation with over a billion people called Red (China) was conducting large-scale military exercises that the Blue Team (the United States) believed were a prelude to an attack on a U.S. ally located in region, designated Brown. During these exercises, the commander of Blue Forces became concerned that Red might use ground-based lasers against U.S. satellites. Fearing the loss of such important assets, he ordered a limited preemptive strike – using a fleet of CAVs that he had deployed in space – against suspected ground-based laser sites deep inside Red’s country. At the same time, he refrained from striking other targets “rationalizing that the preemptive strike was only protecting highvalue space assets, not initiating hostilities.”26 The Blue Team was stunned when Red viewed the strike on targets deep inside its territory as an act of war and retaliated – causing a general war. One flabbergasted participant, sounding not completely convinced of what had just happened, reportedly explained: “We thought these preemptive strikes might very well It is important to note that the Chinese don’t even have to actually acquire ASATs for this nightmare scenario to happen . The Pentagon’s assessments of Chinese ASATs are based have stopped the crisis situation. But there were some who had a different point of view – that the strikes may have been provocative.”27 largely on circumstantial evidence – a Hong Kong newspaper report here; a commercial purchase by a Chinese company there. In fact, the Pentagon admits that “specific Chinese Such gaps in U.S. knowledge are dangerous, given the natural tendency of defense planners to assume the worst . Although Blue claimed that it had acted on “unambiguous warning” of a threat to space assets, the mere fact that the Chinese might already have such system – or could improvise a crude ASAT in a pinch – would create a strong incentive to use U.S. space systems before they were lost. It is not too far fetched to imagine the president, faced with a crisis over Taiwan, deciding – as he did with Iraq – that “we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”29 programs for a laser ASAT system have not been identified” and that press reports of a so-called “parasitic” microsatellite “cannot be confirmed.”28 First strike from US towards China would be the biggest impact equivalent to 100 holocausts. Ellsberg 9 (“U.S. Nuclear War Planning for a Hundred Holocausts” DANIEL Former United States military analystSEPTEMBER 13, 2009 http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/us-nuclear-war-planning-for-a-hundred-holocausts) The question to the JCS was: “If your plans for general [nuclear] war are carried out as planned, how many people will be killed in the Soviet Union and China?” Their answer was in the form of a graph (see representation below). The vertical axis was the number of deaths, in millions. The horizontal axis was time, indicated in months. The graph was a straight line, starting at time zero on the horizontal—on the vertical axis, the number of immediate deaths expected within hours of our attack—and The lowest number, at the left of the graph, was 275 million deaths. The number at the right-hand side, at six months, was 325 million. That same slanting upward to a maximum at six months, an arbitrary cutoff for the deaths that would accumulate over time from initial injuries and from fallout radiation. morning, with Komer’s approval, I drafted another question to be sent to the Joint Chiefs over the president’s signature, asking for a total breakdown of global deaths from our own attacks, to include not only the whole Sino-Soviet bloc but all other countries that would be affected by fallout. Again their answer was prompt. Komer showed it to me about a week later, this time in the form of a table with explanatory footnotes. In sum, 100 million more deaths, roughly, were predicted in East Europe. There might be an additional 100 million from fallout Regardless of season, still another 100 million deaths, at least, were predicted from fallout in the mostly neutral countries adjacent to the Soviet bloc or China: Finland, Austria, Afghanistan, India, Japan and others. Finland, for example, would be wiped out by fallout from U.S. ground-burst explosions on the Soviet submarine pens at Leningrad. (The total number of “casualties”—injured as well as killed—had not been requested and was not estimated; nor were casualties from any Soviet retaliatory strikes.) The total death toll as calculated by the Joint Chiefs, from a U.S. first strike aimed primarily at the Soviet Union and China, would be roughly 600 million dead. A hundred Holocausts. in West Europe, depending on which way the wind blew (a matter, largely, of the season). For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 188/212 SPACE MILITARIZATION GOOD (DIPLOMACY) Space dominance provides the opportunity to provide space services as a new form of foreign aid diplomacy. Whiting 2 (“Policy, Influence, And Diplomacy: Space As A National Power Element” Lieutenant Colonel Stephen N., School Of Advanced Airpower Studies Air University, June, https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2002/saas/whiting.pdf)KM The third aspect of space assets’ inherent diplomatic power is the ability to provide no-cost, or low-cost, access to space services to states who do not otherwise have access to such services. Similar to technology partnerships in that access to space services is a form of constructive coercion through persuasive influence, three factors make this component distinct. First, rather than collaborate with another state toward some common goal, access to space services resembles traditional foreign aid in that the country granting the access to its space services does not expect a significant monetary or technological payback for the services it provides . Second, providing access to space services does not require the state receiving the services to be industrially or technologically advanced. In fact, some of the best opportunities for achieving diplomatic leverage in this area may very well be among third world states . The third unique factor of access to space services is that it offers the opportunity to achieve diplomatic advantage in a quicker timeframe than technology partnerships. Since providing access to space services can theoretically occur very quickly, depending on the training and hardware that must be provided to the target state, diplomatic effects can be readily realized. That diplomatic power is key to deterring conflicts before they start- Persian Gulf War proves. Whiting 2 (“Policy, Influence, And Diplomacy: Space As A National Power Element” Lieutenant Colonel Stephen N., School Of Advanced Airpower Studies Air University, June, https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2002/saas/whiting.pdf)KM The second category of access to space services concerns high-end services such as high-resolution imagery, missile warning data, advanced communications, and launch services. Focused more toward technologically sophisticated states, those with advanced elements within their economies, providing high-end space services can be an inducement as it allows access to services that are currently beyond their means. For example, providing missile warning data (along with Patriot missile batteries and crews, and an intense air interdiction effort) to Israel during the Persian Gulf War led directly to achieving the United States’ diplomatic objective of persuading Israel not to retaliate militarily against Iraq. Israeli retaliation could have severely fractured the American-led coalition, and the use of military assets (space, air, and ground) in this diplomatic capacity was one of the most important strategic operations of the entire conflict. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 189/212 SPACE MILITARIZATION GOOD (HEG) Space control is key to US hege. Center for Security Policy, press release, 1-23-98, “Summary of 'The Need For American Space Dominance',” http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=98-P_16at The nation with military control of space will have the capability to control international communications and access to land, sea and air. If the U.S. should lose its present control of space, it will mark the end of its status as a global superpower. Sen. Robert Smith, R-N.H., was grimly serious. "Whoever controls space will control the destiny of the Earth," he declared. "And when you look at the options out there, I would ask you, who do you want it to be? Iran? Russia? Iraq? China?" Smith was raising those tough questions at a recent seminar on space power at the prestigious Center for Security Policy in Washington. Not given to flamboyant rhetoric, the plainspoken New Hampshireman continued, "To those who say we can't militarize space, I must say, `Do you want somebody else to do it?'" hina and Russia want to. So do likely or incipient nuclear powers Pakistan, India, Iraq and North Korea. And it isn't just those with military ambitions, say leading defense authorities. Now, thanks to commercialization of many space technologies, any individual or group with the cash can buy the hardware and software to cause havoc for U.S. security interests in space. Space holds the key to U.S. communications -- not only for the military, but for every single citizen whose news and entertainment, telephone calls, Internet surfing, banking and financial services depend on satellites. Vulnerable to attack is the entire communications system on which the U.S. economy now depends. Equally vulnerable is the U.S. mainland itself. Any defense against incoming ballistic missiles -- be they short-range or strategic rockets with nuclear warheads -- must rely heavily on space-based sensors and, in some cases, space-based weapons to shoot down the missiles or warheads before they land. In military terms, control of space means much more than missile defense. "The United States' unimpeded access to space is vital to national interests -- the word `vital' meaning that we are willing to do whatever it takes to maintain that access" according to Air Force Maj. Gen. Brian Arnold. Virtually every facet of modern war-fighting makes use of space, he says, "from intelligence to reconnaissance, surveillance to warning to timing [and] getting over the target, to our precision-guidance weapons that you saw used so well in Operation Allied Force to limit the collateral damage, to put a single weapon on a single target, to the weather, to accessing the battle damage after the fight, to the communications ... and going even further to computer-network defense and computer-network attack, which uses a lot of space assets." For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 190/212 SPACE MILITARIZATION GOOD (PROLIF) US space dominance checks arms races and prolif – stops anyone from escalating conflicts and capabilities. Dolman 6 (Everett C. "U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space." SAIS Review. XXVI, No. 1 Winter-Spring p171, http://spacedebate.org/evidence/2311/)KM Seizing the initiative and securing low-Earth orbit now, while the United States is unchallenged in space, would do much to stabilize the international system and prevent an arms race in space. The enhanced ability to deny any attempt by another nation to place military assets in space and to readily engage and destroy terrestrial anti-satellite capacity would make the possibility of large-scale space war or military space races less likely, not more. Why would a state expend the effort to compete in space with a superpower that has the extraordinary advantage of holding securely the highest ground at the top of the gravity well? So long as the controlling state demonstrates a capacity and a will to use force to defend its position, in effect expending a small amount of violence as needed to prevent a greater conflagration in the future, the likelihood of a future war in space is remote. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 191/212 TERRORISM BAD (EXTINCTION) Terrorism risks extinction Yonah Alexander, Inter-University for Terrorism Studies Director, 2003 [The Washington Times, "Terrorism myths and realities," 8/28] Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. Nuclear terrorism means extinction Sid-Ahmed Mohamed, Egyptian Political Analyst, Al-Ahram Newspaper, 8/26/04, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm | SWON What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 192/212 TERRORISM BAD (ECONOMY) A. Academic studies prove terrorism crushes the economy Abadie and Gardeazabal, 7 (Alberto Abadie- professor of public policy @ Harvard, and Javier Gareazabal- professor of economics @ the University of Baque Country, “Terrorism and the World Economy”, August 2007, http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~aabadie/twe.pdf) It has been argued that terrorism should not have a large effect on economic activity, because terrorist attacks destroy only a small fraction of the stock of capital of a country (see, e.g., Becker and Murphy, 2001). In contrast, empirical estimates of the consequences of terrorism typically suggest large effects on economic outcomes (see, e.g., Abadie and Gardeazabal, 2003). The main theme of this article is that mobility of productive capital in an open economy may account for much of the difference between the direct and the equilibrium impact of terrorism. We use a simple economic model to show that terrorism may have a large impact on the allocation of productive capital across countries, even if it represents a small fraction of the overall economic risk. The model emphasizes that, in addition to increasing uncertainty, terrorism reduces the expected return to investment. As a result, changes in the intensity of terrorism may cause large movements of capital across countries if the world economy is sufficiently open, so international investors are able to diversify other types of country risks. Using a unique dataset on terrorism and other country risks, we find that, in accordance with the predictions of the model, higher levels of terrorist risks are associated with lower levels of net foreign direct investment positions, even after controlling for other types of country risks. On average, a standard deviation increase in the terrorist risk is associated with a fall in the net foreign direct investment position of about 5 percent of GDP. The magnitude of the estimated effect is large, which suggests that the “open-economy channel" impact of terrorism may be substantial. This paper analyzes the effects of terrorism in an integrated world economy. From an economic standpoint, terrorism has been described to have four main effects (see, e.g., US Congress, Joint Economic Committee, 2002). First, the capital stock (human and physical) of a country is reduced as a result of terrorist attacks. Second, the terrorist threat induces higher levels of uncertainty. Third, terrorism promotes increases in counter-terrorism expenditures, drawing resources from productive sectors for use in security. Fourth, terrorism is known to affect negatively specific industries such as tourism.1 However, this classification does not include the potential effects of increased terrorist threats in an open economy. In this article, we use a stylized macroeconomic model of the world economy and inter- national data on terrorism and the stock of foreign direct investment (FDI) assets and liabilities to study the economic effects of terrorism in an integrated world economy B. Global nuclear war Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, 2-4-09, “Only Makes You Stronger,” http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2 If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 193/212 TERRORISM BAD (LASHOUT) A. US will retaliate – risks nuclear conflict Speice 6 Patrick F., Jr. "Negligence and nuclear nonproliferation: eliminating the current liability barrier to bilateral U.S.-Russian nonproliferation assistance programs." William and Mary Law Review 47.4 (Feb 2006): 1427(59). Expanded Academic ASAP. The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. (50) In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. (51) This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States or its allies by hostile states, (52) as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. (53) B. Terrorism sparks U.S. retaliation globally Morgan 1 Nicole Schwartz-Morgan, Assistant Professor of Politics and Economics at Royal Military College of Canada, 10-10-2001, “Wild Globalization and Terrorism,” http://www.wfs.org/mmmorgan.htm The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive us to gather around clan chieftans. Nationalistic sentiment re-awakens, setting up an implacable frontier which divides "us" from "them," each group solidifying its cohesion in a rising hate/fear of the other group. (Remember Yugoslavia?) To be sure, the allies are trying for the moment to avoid the language of polarization, insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against Islam," "civilians will not be targeted." But the word "war" was pronounced, a word heavy with significance which forces the issue of partisanship. And it must be understood that the sentiment of partisanship, of belonging to the group, is one of the strongest of human emotions. Because the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become emotionally volatile. Another spectacular attack, coming on top of an economic recession could easily radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe, where racial prejudices are especially close to the surface and ask no more than a pretext to burst out. This is the Sarajevo syndrome: an isolated act of madness becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions, and armies in search of a war. We should not be fooled by our expressions of good will and charity toward the innocent victims of this or other distant wars. It is our own comfortable circumstances which permit us these benevolent sentiments. If conditions change so that poverty and famine put the fear of starvation in our guts, the human beast will reappear. And if epidemic becomes a clear and present danger, fear will unleash hatred in the land of the free, flinging missiles indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enemy. And on the other side, no matter how profoundly complex and differentiated Islamic nations and tribes may be, they will be forced to behave as one clan by those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict, whether they be themselves merchants or terrorists. C. Extinction results Corsi 5 Jerome Corsi, Expert in Antiwar Movements and Political Violence, PhD in History from Harvard, Atomic Iran, 2005, p. 176-8 The United States retaliates: 'End of the world' scenarios The combination of horror and outrage that will surge upon the nation will demand that the president retaliate for the incomprehensible damage done by the attack. The problem will be that the president will not immediately know how to respond or against whom . The perpetrators will have been incinerated by the explosion that destroyed New York City. Unlike 9-11, there will have been no interval during the attack when those hijacked could make phone calls to loved ones telling them before they died that the hijackers were radical Islamic extremists. There will be no such phone calls when the attack will not have been anticipated until the instant the terrorists detonate their improvised nuclear device inside the truck parked on a curb at the Empire State Building. Nor will there be any possibility of finding any clues, which either were vaporized instantly or are now lying physically inaccessible under tons of radioactive rubble. Still, the president, members of Congress, the military, and the public at large will suspect another attack by our known enemy–Islamic terrorists. The first impulse will be to launch a nuclear strike on Mecca, to destroy the whole religion of Islam. Medina could possibly be added to the target list just to make the point with crystal clarity. Yet what would we gain? The moment Mecca and Medina were wiped off the map, the Islamic world – more than 1 billion human beings in countless different nations – would feel attacked. Nothing would emerge intact after a war between the United States and Islam. The apocalypse would be upon us. Then, too, we would face an immediate threat from our long-term enemy, the former Soviet Union. Many in the Kremlin would see this as an opportunity to grasp the victory that had been snatched from them by Ronald Reagan when the Berlin Wall came down. A missile strike by the Russians on a score of American cities could possibly be pre-emptive. Would the U.S. strategic defense system be so in shock that immediate retaliation would not be possible? Hardliners in Moscow might argue that there was never a better opportunity to destroy America. In China, our newer Communist enemies might not care if we could retaliate. With a population already over 1.3 billion people and with their population not concentrated in a few major cities, the Chinese might calculate to initiate a nuclear blow on the United States. What if the United States retaliated with a nuclear counterattack upon China? The Chinese might be able to absorb the blow and recover. The North Koreans might calculate even more recklessly. Why not launch upon America the few missiles they have that could reach our soil? More confusion and chaos might only advance their position. If Russia, China, and the United States could be drawn into attacking one another, North Korea might emerge stronger just because it was overlooked while the great nations focus on attacking one another. So, too, our supposed allies in Europe might relish the immediate reduction in power suddenly inflicted upon America. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 194/212 TERRORISM BAD – HEG Terrorism undermines US hegemony --- risks instability, civil wars, overextension, and tension escalation Newmann 08 (William W. Newmann, political analyst, L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, “Hegemonic Competition, Hegemonic Disruption, and the Current War,” All Academic, April 3, 2008, This essay refines power transition theories by developing a model of hegemonic disruption . Al- Qaeda does not command large armies from Indonesia to Morocco, nor does it or its ideological brethren have control of even a regionally powerful state; however, it does provide inspiration, operational support, and, most importantly, an ideological blueprint for many groups who seek to overthrow the status quo in their nations and region. For this reason, al-Qaeda as the centerpiece of a revolutionary and violently militant ideology can be seen as a global insurgency which presents an asymmetric challenge to US hegemony throughout Asia and Africa.3 While not an existential threat, nor capable of producing a peer competitor for the US, the alQaeda network’s ability to propagate its revolutionary ideology could plunge at-risk nations into instability or civil war or even come to power through short-lived alliances of convenience with non-violent Islamists or non-Islamist opponents of the ruling regime. Each scenario can undermine the hegemonic legitimacy and/or dominance of the US on a region by region basis. AlQaeda’s network and ideology is less likely to produce a national champion, such as communism had in the form of the USSR, than to instigate or take advantage of a series of flashpoints where its ideology squares off with local or regional opponents in insurgency or civil war. The conflicts in Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan could be seen as visions of the future for many states. Such disruption can be an initial indication of hegemonic decline, leading second-tier powers to sense vulnerability in the US, a vulnerability which may change their calculus of the costs and benefits of balancing against the US or posing a direct challenge. It could also lead the US into overextension, miscalculations in foreign policy priorities, and provocative policies which could alienate allies, threaten fence sitters, and play into the hands of critics or enemies of US hegemony, again changing the cost and benefit estimates for second-tier powers of balancing or challenging the US. A third possibility emerges if the American public loses its commitment to the duties of hegemony and begins to ask its leaders to minimize US involvement in troublesome regions. This too would lead to a reassessment of US hegemony by second-tier powers. The situation in Iraq today provides evidence for all three of these scenarios. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 195/212 TERROR GOOD (CENTRAL ASIAN PRESENCE) A. Terrorism key to US presence in Central Asia. Bruno Tertrais, Senior Research Fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research, 12/4/’1 (What are the Strategic and Geopolitical Consequences of the War Against Terrorism?, p. Google) Finally, I should add the acceleration of another long-term trend, which is the growing US penetration in Central Asia. Until now, this presence was mostly political and economic, with a military dimension, but without permanent military presence. I doubt very much that, having established bridgeheads in Uzbekistan and Afghanistan in particular, the US military will just pack and go home in a few weeks. There are many reasons for the US to stay. One is simply that it is just too good a geostrategic opportunity. Another is that Washington does not want to appear as leaving Afghanistan to its own fate for the second time in two decades. A third is that the US military presence will be justified by a "deterrence" role, to avoid that other countries in the region become sanctuaries for Al-Qaida-like organizations. B. US Presence in Central Asia key to stop nuclear war. Dr. M. Ehsan Ahrari, Professor of National Security and Strategy of the Joint and Combined Warfighting School at the Armed Forces Staff College, 8/1/’1 (www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/display.cfm?pubID=112) South and Central Asia constitute a part of the world where a well-designed American strategy might help avoid crises or catastrophe. The U.S. military would provide only one component of such a strategy, and a secondary one at that, but has an important role to play through engagement activities and regional confidence-building. Insecurity has led the states of the region to seek weapons of mass destruction, missiles, and conventional arms. It has also led them toward policies which undercut the security of their neighbors. If such activities continue, the result could be increased terrorism, humanitarian disasters, continued low-level conflict and potentially even major regional war or a thermonuclear exchange. A shift away from this pattern could allow the states of the region to become solid economic and political partners for the United States, thus representing a gain for all concerned. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 196/212 TERROR GOOD (CHINA BASHING) Terrorism solves China bashing. Economy 2004 Elizabeth Economy, Director of Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, June, ‘4 (Don't Break the Engagement, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, Iss. 3, p. Proquest) After almost three years of calm, the American debate over China policy is set to heat up pushing for a tougher approach to Beijing. And like his predecessor, Bush soon changed his tune. But again. Like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush came into office if the Clinton administration's shift reflected a deeprooted embrace of the logic of engagement, the Bush administration's shift has appeared more tactical, reflecting a realist appreciation for alliances of convenience during times of crisis. Now that the initial and most urgent phases of the war on terrorism have passed, China policy is likely to find its way back onto the agenda of hard-liners who consider the country a strategic competitor. They are likely to be joined by those who think that tough talk about trade deficits and China's human rights violations makes for good campaign politics. With the bilateral trade deficit now at $120 billion, Beijing's reported backsliding on human rights, and its heavy-handed diplomacy with Hong Kong and Taiwan, 2004 could be a banner year for the critics of engagement. Yet a return to China-bashing and to a strategy of containment would be a mistake. The past 30 years have demonstrated that engagement works -- if not exactly in the way its advocates predicted. That collapses the economy and causes recession Navarro 6 Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the Paul Merage School of Business, University of California (Peter, Bernanke understands fully that absent acceptable progress on the currency valuation issue by the Paulson team, the first piece of protectionist legislation Congress is likely to pass is a bill first floated in 2005 by Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. This bill would slap a stiff tariff on all Chinese imports if China fails to swiftly bring its currency to fair value. To Bernanke, the Schumer-Graham bill must be absolutely frightening. To comply, China's central bank would have to effectively end the yuan-dollar peg. It would do so by ceasing to finance the U.S. budget deficit with its surplus export dollars and by dumping millions of greenbacks on world markets. This, in turn, would trigger an inflationary spike in the United States and force Congress to either raise taxes or cut expenditures to balance the budget. The end result would almost surely be a nasty stagflation -- simultaneous inflation and recession. Moreover, Bernanke would have no effective weapon against such stagflation. Cutting interest rates to stimulate the economy would further weaken the dollar by discouraging foreign capital inflows and thereby cause more inflation. Raising interest rates to fight inflation would merely deepen the recession . How do you spell "fall guy" for a failed China policy? Recessions cause war NSN 09 - 2,000 members and experts with experience in government service, the private sector and the non-profit sector (National Security Network, 2/13/09, “Global Economic Crisis is the Greatest Threat,” http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1213) Yesterday, the new Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, warned that “the primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications.” While Al Qaeda remains the most direct threat to the physical security of the United States, the geopolitical ramifications of the global economic crisis are truly startling. The interconnected nature of the global economy has meant that the current crisis has affected all regions of the world. As growth has slowed in Europe, the U.S. and China, it has also imposed significant setbacks to economic development in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, creating leading to fears of a potential humanitarian catastrophe. Historically, widespread economic crises have preceded massive geopolitical instability and conflict – experts note that we are already seeing low-level instability on the rise, from Central Europe to Africa to Asia. To prevent the crisis from worsening, economists agree that tremendous action is required on the part of governments around the world. Yet conservatives in Congress seem out of touch with the dangers of inaction, rejecting the bipartisan approach offered by the Obama administration. Instead, conservatives choose to retreat to the comfort of standard partisan politics and the failed ideologically-driven economic approach of the Bush administration. In this time of crisis, more bold action will be required; ultimately, it will be inaction that is the most reckless. Global economic crisis is a grave threat to U.S. national security. The global economic meltdown has already produced serious instability, which according to Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, poses a serious threat to the U.S. “Blair told Congress yesterday that instability in countries around the world caused by the current global economic crisis, rather than terrorism, is the primary near-term security threat to the United States,” reported the Washington Post. The Director also spoke to the urgency of the issue, saying that “time is probably our greatest threat,” and the “the longer it takes for the recovery to begin, the greater the likelihood of serious damage to US strategic interests .” Blair’s analysis went on to say that “roughly a quarter of the countries in the world have already experienced low-level instability such as government changes because of the current slowdown.” World Bank President Robert Zoellick expressed similar concerns, warning that the “global economic crisis threatens to become a human crisis in many developing countries.” A recent issue of the Economist showed how the crisis was wreaking havoc in Asia as well, where GDPs in Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan have fallen “by an average annualised rate of around 15%,” and exports slumped more than 50% at an annualised rate.” In Blair’s view, these deteriorating economic conditions present a variety of challenges for the U.S., including “increased economic nationalism,” the inability of allies and friends “to fully meet their defense and humanitarian obligations,” “[p]otential refugee flows from the Caribbean,” and “increased questioning of US stewardship of the global economy and the international financial structure.” Therefore the U.S. cannot afford to botch its response, as economist Nouriel Roubini recently observed: “[i]n the 19 30s , the botched policy response and severe depression led to the rise of nationalistic, militaristic and aggressive regimes in Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan to name a few. The final result was World War II.” [Washington Post, 12/13/09. DNI Annual Threat Assessment, 2/12/09. Robert Zoellick, 2/13/09. The Economist, 1/29/09. Nouriel Roubini. 1/28/09. NSN, 1/29/08. Washington Post, 1/24/09] For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 197/212 TERROR GOOD (ECON) Terrorist attack will pull the US out of recession Katharine Mieszkowski 1, Senior Staff Writer for Salon, (9/21/01 , http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/09/21/fiscal_stimulus/index.html) Will last week's terrorist attacks and the coming war effort finally plunge the U.S. economy into the recession it's been teetering on the brink of for months? Or will the opposite happen? Might wartime spending act as a fiscal stimulus package that would jump-start the country's flagging finances? Congress has already approved $40 billion in spending to rebuild and fight terrorism after last week's attacks, and there's a good chance that many more billions will be ladled for tasks such as rescuing the beleaguered airline industry and upgrading national security. Economists are hoping that the burst of wartime spending will counteract not only the financial fallout from last week's attacks, but also the long decline of the economy over the last year."The bottom line is that, in a sufficiently aggressive military posture, you could actually have a positive economic effect from this," says Robert Litan, director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution, in a briefing. Just look, for example, at the postwar prosperity resulting from the United States' involvement in World War II. Such government spending acts as a stimulus, because those funds would have otherwise been languishing in the so-called Social Security lock box. "Otherwise that money would have been sitting in T-bills [Treasury bonds] with an IOU to the Social Security trust fund," said Ross DeVol, an economist at the Milken Institute. The terrorist attacks signaled an immediate change in the government's economic priorities. "All the talk about balancing the budget and protecting social security -that's gone now," said Steve Golub, an economics professor at Swarthmore College, adding, "I'm fairly confident that they'll do what it takes to prevent a sustained recession." Continued economic decline will result in global war. Mead, 9 - senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (Walter Russell, 2/4/09, The New Republic, “Only Makes You Stronger,” http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2 AD 6/30/09) Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 198/212 TERROR GOOD (FREE TRADE) Terrorism increases free trade between countries—empirically proven Alberto Abadie and Javier Gardeazabal, January 2008, Abadie is a professor of Public Policy at Harvard University and has a PhD in Economics from MIT. Gardeazabal is a professor at Universidad del Pais Vasco. “Terrorism and the World Economy.” Written for the European Economic Review, Volume 52, Issue 1, pg. 21 In this paper we have shown how terrorism influences the equilibrium decisions of international investors in an integrated world economy. We have introduced terrorism as catastrophic risk in a standard endogenous growth model and analyzed the effect of an increase in terrorist risk on the net FDI position of countries. The model suggests that in an integrated world economy, where international investors are able to diversify other country risks, terrorism may induce large movements of capital across countries. The empirical evidence, based on cross-country regressions, indicates that terrorist risk depresses net foreign investment positions. This relationship is robust to the introduction of demographic factors, country-specific risk indexes, governance indicators, and other financial and macroeconomic factors such as per capita GDP and FDI restrictions which might determine the country’s FDI position. Our estimates suggest that a one standard deviation increase in the intensity of terrorism produces a 5% fall in the net FDI position of the country (normalized by GDP). Both the model and the empirical evidence suggest that the open-economy channel may be an important avenue through which terrorism hurts the economy. Free trade promotes peace and decreases the likelihood of war—empirically proven Griswold 98, Associated Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, 98 (Daniel, “Peace on Earth, Free Trade for Men,” 31 Dec, http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-31-98.html) Advocates of free trade have long argued that its benefits are not merely economic. Free trade also encourages people and nations to live in peace with one another. Free trade raises the cost of war by making nations more economically interdependent. Free trade makes it more profitable for people of one nation to produce goods and services for people of another nation than to conquer them. By promoting communication across borders, trade increases understanding and reduces suspicion toward people in other countries. International trade creates a network of human contacts. Phone calls, emails, faxes and face-to-face meetings are an integral part of commercial relations between people of different nations. This human interaction encourages tolerance and respect between people of different cultures (if not toward protectionist politicians). Ancient writers, expounding what we now call the Universal Economy Doctrine, understood the link between trade and international harmony. The fourth-century writer Libanius declared in his Orations (III), "God did not bestow all products upon all parts of the earth, but distributed His gifts over different regions, to the end that men might cultivate a social relationship because one would have need of the help of another. And so He called commerce into being, that all men might be able to have common enjoyment of the fruits of the earth, no matter where produced." Open trade makes war a less appealing option for governments by raising its costs. To a nation committed to free trade, war not only means the destruction of life and property. It is also terrible for business, disrupting international commerce and inflicting even greater hardship on the mass of citizens. When the door to trade is open, a nation's citizens can gain access to goods and resources outside their borders by offering in exchange what they themselves can produce relatively well. When the door is closed, the only way to gain access is through military conquest. As the 19th century Frenchman Frederic Bastiat said, "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will." History demonstrates the peaceful influence of trade. The century of relative world peace from 1815 to 1914 was marked by a dramatic expansion of international trade, investment and human migration, illuminated by the example of Great Britain. In contrast, the rise of protectionism and the downward spiral of global trade in the 1930s aggravated the underlying hostilities that propelled Germany and Japan to make war on their neighbors. In the more than half a century since the end of World War II, no wars have been fought between two nations that were outwardly oriented in their trade policies. In every one of the two dozen or so wars between nations fought since 1945, at least one side was dominated by a nation or nations that did not pursue a policy of free trade. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 199/212 TERROR GOOD (HEG) Terrorism is key heg and military dominance DuBoff 03 Prof. Economics at Bryn Mawr College (Richard, “US hegemony: Continuing Decline, Enduring Danger,” http://home.aubg.bg/students/SIG020/) Nowadays, cooperation among states is promoted in order to create a stable international community. When the bipolar model was destroyed after the end of the Cold War, the idea of balance of power shared by a certain number of greater political actors became more and more popular. This idea lied behind the creation and the operation of all international organizations, both military alliances (like NATO) and non-military ones (like the United Nations). The main point has been to look for consensus among the major powers to avoid conflicts and to prevent the excessive influence (or domination) by a particular state so that it cannot dictate world order. Having in mind the recent events, however, more and more sceptics appear who argue whether balance of power is currently present or achievable on the international stage of politics. Scholars in the field of political science start to believe that the USA use the notion of benign hegemony in order to justify their expansionist goals (meaning increase in political, economic and cultural influence) for the establishment of a “new world order”. Balance of power is not desired, not pursued, but undermined. A benign hegemony requires some moral grounds for a guise of his actual search for influence and power. Thus, it is already clear how the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11th in New York were used by the US to unleash a massive military campaign. The declaration of an all-out war on terrorism served to justify the subsequent military operations in the Middle East . They were carried out officially by international forces but, undoubtedly, the US were the leading stimulus and driving force. They engaged the international community in invading two countries on the grounds that humanitarian intervention was needed there - that human rights were abused, terrorists developed their networks, or that secret weapons were being developed. Finally, neither the terrorists claimed to be in Afghanistan, nor the nuclear weapons reputedly developed by Saddam Hussein. But, these two countries ended up with the establishment of pro-US puppet regimes under the fragile claim they were under the jurisdiction of the international community. These events , as well as the possible US projects for dealing with North Korea and Iran, clearly presents their determination to proceed in order to become the undisputed leading power on the international arena. Nuclear war Khalilzad 95 Former Assist Prof of Poli Sci at Columbia (Zalmay, Spring 1995 , The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2; P. 84) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world’s major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 200/212 TERROR GOOD (U.S. CHINESE RELATIONS) A. Terrorist attack key to Chinese relations. Elizabeth Economy, Director of Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, June, ‘4 (Don't Break the Engagement, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, Iss. 3, p. Proquest) After almost three years of calm, the American debate over China policy is set to heat up again. Like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush came into office pushing for a tougher approach to Beijing. And like his predecessor, Bush soon changed his tune. But if the Clinton administration's shift reflected a deep-rooted embrace of the logic of engagement, the Bush administration's shift has appeared more tactical, reflecting a realist appreciation for alliances of convenience during times of crisis. Now that the initial and most urgent phases of the war on terrorism have passed, China policy is likely to find its way back onto the agenda of hardliners who consider the country a strategic competitor. They are likely to be joined by those who think that tough talk about trade deficits and China's human rights violations makes for good campaign politics. With the bilateral trade deficit now at $120 billion, Beijing's reported backsliding on human rights, and its heavy-handed diplomacy with Hong Kong and Taiwan, 2004 could be a banner year for the critics of engagement. Yet a return to China bashing and to a strategy of containment would be a mistake. The past 30 years have demonstrated that engagement works--if not exactly in the way its advocates predicted. B. Solves nuclear war. Adhariri, Armed Forces Staff College national security professor, 1999 [Eschan, JANE'S INTELLIGENCE REVIEW, August 1] Looking ahead, a continued deterioration of Sino-US ties does not bode well for the regional stability of the very large and equally important Asia Pacific. Yet this regional stability might be negatively affected for a long time if Washington and Beijing fail to bounce back from this fiasco and assiduously work to improve their strategic relations. In the meantime, the issue of immediate concern for the USA is nuclear non-proliferation. Immediate work has to be done by both sides to minimize damages on this issue. The PRC, armed with the knowledge of America's premier nuclear programs, is likely to be a much more sought after sources for nuclear proliferation than it has ever been in the past by those countries keenly interested in enhancing the sophistication of their extant nuclear programs and by those who have not yet developed indigenous nuclear know-how but desire to purchase it. China, along with Russia, has an established record proliferating nuclear technology. This reality is not likely to change in the foreseeable future, much to the continued consternation of now-nuclear India. The increased nuclear sophistication on the troubled subcontinent carries with it the risk of a potential nuclear holocaust. The Kashmir issue still remains unresolved and very explosive given the continued intransigence of both India and Pakistan to amicably resolve it. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 201/212 TERROR GOOD (U.S. RUSSIAN RELATIONS) U.S.-Russian relations are on the brink- only terrorism can bring the countries back together. Hooson, 08 , former lobbyist and writer for Progressive Values (Paul, “New Wave of Terrorism may Draw Russia & U.S. closer again,” 1130, http://wizbangblue.com/2008/11/30/new-wave-of-terrorism-may-draw-russia-us-closer-again.php] Interestingly, VOICE OF RUSSIA, the Russian news-service … violence, then this may well provide the common ground required for better relations between the states. Interestingly, VOICE OF RUSSIA, the Russian news-service which is a virtual mouthpiece for the Russian government Putin regime and the Putin dominated United Russia political party seems to be taking a much less confrontational opinion of the U.S. in the last few days since the violence in Mumbai, India as well elsewhere in the world. Since the Russian military offensive in Georgia in August, American and Russian relations had been greatly strained, but now Russia views a recent uptick in international terrorism as evidence that the United States, Russia and the EU must work together as allies to prevent a spread of this epidemic of violence around the world. Russia might also be realizing that with a fresh administration coming into power in Washington soon, that it might just be more pragmatic to paper-over the recent bad relations since Georgia, and work together for a better relationship with Washington. And the shared international fears of terrorism just might give both Washington as well as Moscow good enough of a reason to forget each nation's problems with the other somewhat, and work together to stem rising international terrorism. Besides the terrorist violence in Mumbai, terrorism in Georgia claimed the life a pro-Moscow mayor, and a U.S. embassy in Kabul was attacked as well. VOICE OF RUSSIA notes that these actions came recently when Russian-Western relations have suffered in the wake of the Georgia conflict. Russia seems to be opening the door to improved relations with Washington and the EU by running such a feature on VOICE OF RUSSIA, where it appears that they are inviting an improvement in relations, perhaps viewing the incoming Obama Administration as less confrontational to Russia than the Bush administration. Interestingly, the news coverage on VOICE OF RUSSIA appears to be far less anti-Washington in tone as well in recent days, a sharp contrast from the more heated opinions in Russia around the time of the August actions in Georgia. Surprisingly, it appears as though Moscow might have blinked first here. And if anything, this is an important signal to the incoming Obama Administration that better relations with Russia built on common ground issues such as combating international terrorism are very possible. An improvement in relations with Russia is very important because it is the only nation in the world with a nuclear weapons force large enough to battle the U.S. to draw or worse. The two world military superpowers. Russia and the U.S. need to work together on many issues, and not allow events like Georgia to put the two nations at dangerous odds with other, especially when world terrorism just might be on the rise once again, taking some advantage of the problems that Washington and Moscow have been having since the Georgia incident. There is the saying that the, "Enemy of my enemy is my friend". And since Russia, the U.S. and the EU are all three disgusted with worldwide terrorist violence, then this may well provide the common ground required for better relations between the states. Rebuilding high level ties prevents a war of miscalculation that would cause extinction Cirincone 7 Center for American Progress expert in nonproliferation, national security, international security, U.S. military, U.S. foreign policy (Joseph Cirincione, July 23rd, 2007, “Nuclear summer) The first jolt came June 3, when Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia will point its nuclear missiles toward Europe if the United States constructs anti-missile bases on his borders. Putin warned that placing new American weapon systems in Poland and the Czech Republic “increases the possibility of a nuclear conflict.” Beyond the fact that Putin actually used his nuclear arsenal as a lever to alter U.S policy, the conflict underscored the threat from the 25,000 nuclear weapons the two countries still deploy, with thousands on hair-trigger alert ready to fire in 15 minutes. With Russian early-warning capabilities eroding, we increasingly rely on good relations between the White House and the Kremlin to ensure that no Russian president will misinterpret a false alarm and make a catastrophic decision. This summer, behind the smiles at the “Lobster Summit" in Maine, that good will was in short supply, weakening an important safety net crucial to preventing an accidental nuclear exchange. Later in July, the mutual diplomatic expulsions between Russia and the United Kingdom, which fields 185 nuclear weapons, ratcheted tensions up another notch and should shake current complacent policies that take good relations for granted and scorn any further negotiated nuclear reductions. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 202/212 U.S. CHINA WAR BAD (CCP COLLAPSE) china won’t attack in response to Taiwanese secession or they do and the attack fails --- either one crushes the CCP Hunkovic, American Military university, 09 [Lee J, 2009, “The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, http://www.lampmethod.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf] In other words, the national security concerns for China regarding Taiwan are potentially grave. If China were to lose Taiwan, at best, its ability to expand into the Pacific would be curtailed and it would most likely find itself encroached upon by the U.S. military and at worst , it could find itself losing other territories, in a similar fashion to the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and facing a nuclear arsenal or arsenals just beyond its borders, which would effectively end any reign of military supremacy that the PRC currently enjoys. If such were to occur, the CCP could easily lose control of their country, given their loss of power and territory and be in no position to make any demands of the United States on any issues, including the democratization of China, as the U.S. could gain a first-strike nuclear capability against them. Considering these facts, the People’s Republic of China may not be desirous of a war with Taiwan under the current conditions, but absolutely must militarily defend their interests if an attempt at secession occurs, as failing to do so could reduce their formerly powerful nation to a fraction of its former self, as well as incite revolution within the country and a possible overthrow of the CCP. That causes a desperate attempt to hold on to power ensures lash out and extinction San Renxing,. The Epoch Times "The CCP's Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War. Hundreds of millions of deaths proposed", 8/5/05. http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.html What, then, is the gist of this wild, last-ditch gamble? To put it in a few words: A cornered beast is fighting desperately to survive in a battle with humanity. If you don’t believe me, read some passages directly from the speeches. We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack [on the US], the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the U.S. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the U.S., China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward fearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone! In any event, we, the CCP, will never step down from the stage of history! We’d rather have the whole world, or even the entire globe, share life and death with us than step down from the stage of history!!! Isn’t there a nuclear bondage theory? It means that since the nuclear weapons have bound the security of the entire world, all will die together if death is inevitable. In my view, there is another kind of bondage, and that is, the fate our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the CCP, are finished, China will be finished, and the world will be finished. It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths. But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Partys life has always been above all else! Since the Party’s life is above all else, it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 203/212 U.S. CHINA WAR BAD (EVNIRONMENT) A US first strike decimates the environment --- cause extinction Takai ‘9, Retired Colonel and Former Researcher in the military science faculty of the Staff College for Japan’s Ground Self Defense Force (“U.S.-China nuclear strikes would spell doomsday”, October 7, http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/10/07/uschina_nuclear_strikes_would_spell_doomsday/7213/) What would happen if China launched its 20 Dongfeng-5 intercontinental ballistic missiles, each with a 5-megaton warhead, at 20 major U.S. cities? Prevailing opinion in Washington D.C. until not so long ago was that the raids would cause over 40 million casualties, annihilating much of the United States. In order to avoid such a doomsday scenario, consensus was that the United States would have to eliminate this potential threat at its source with preemptive strikes on China. But cool heads at institutions such as the Federation of American Scientists and the National Resource Defense Council examined the facts and produced their own analyses in 2006, which differed from the hard-line views of their contemporaries. The FAS and NRDC developed several scenarios involving nuclear strikes over ICBM sites deep in the Luoning Mountains in China’s western province of Henan, and analyzed their implications. One of the scenarios involved direct strikes on 60 locations – including 20 main missile silos and decoy silos – hitting each with one W76-class, 100-kiloton multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle carried on a submarine-launched ballistic missile. In order to destroy the hardened silos, the strikes would aim for maximum impact by causing ground bursts near the silos' entrances. Using air bursts similar to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not be as effective, as the blasts and the heat would dissipate extensively. In this scenario, the 6 megatons of ground burst caused by the 60 attacks would create enormous mushroom clouds over 12 kilometers high, composed of radioactive dirt and debris. Within 24 hours following the explosions, deadly fallout would spread from the mushroom clouds, driven by westerly winds toward Nanjing and Shanghai. They would contaminate the cities' residents, water, foodstuff and crops, causing irreversible damage. The impact of a 6-megaton nuclear explosion would be 360 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, killing not less than 4 million people. Such massive casualties among non-combatants would far exceed the military purpose of destroying the enemy's military power. This would cause political harm and damage the United States’ ability to achieve its war aims, as it would lose international support. On the other hand, China could retaliate against U.S. troops in East Asia, employing intermediate-range ballistic missiles including its DF-3, DF-4 and DF-21 missiles, based in Liaoning and Shandong provinces, which would still be intact. If the United States wanted to destroy China's entire nuclear retaliatory capability, U.S. forces would have to employ almost all their nuclear weapons, causing catastrophic environmental hazards that could lead to the annihilation of mankind. Accordingly, the FAS and NRDC conclusively advised U.S. leaders to get out of the vicious cycle of nuclear competition, which costs staggering sums, and to promote nuclear disarmament talks with China. Such advice is worth heeding by nuclear hard-liners. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 204/212 U.S. CHINA WAR BAD (NUCLEAR WAR) Global nuclear war Hunkovic, American Military University, 09 [Lee J, 2009, “The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, http://www.lampmethod.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf] A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a third world war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all other countries in the world that participate in the global economy, in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 205/212 U.S. CHINA WAR BAD (RUSSIA) Chinese Nuclear Launch activates the Russian Early Warning System Kristensen director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, 06 [“Report: Chinese Nuclear Forces and U.S. Nuclear War”, http://www.nukestrat.com/china/chinareport.htm] In Chapter 2 we quoted a range for China’s DF-5A ICBM of at least 8,000 miles (13,000 km). Assuming a circumpolar trajectory for the missile, Figure 92 illustrates which areas of the United States are within range assuming the DF-5A is launched from silos near the city of Luoning in China’s Henan Province. A range of at least 6.835 miles (11,000 km) is required to put cities at 186 | Federation of American Scientists/Natural Resources Defense Council risk on the West Coast and in the north-central region of the United States. A range of 7,456 miles (12,000 km) puts cities on the East Coast at risk, including New York City and Washington, D.C. If the range of the DF-5A exceeds 8,000 miles (13,000 km) then all of the continental United States could be targeted. Note that a near-polar intercontinental ballistic missile trajectory toward the United States from Luoning is the shortest distance but would necessitate an overflight of Russia and possibly activate Russia’s early warning system. Missile trajectories from China to the continental United States which do not overfly Russia would require a range exceeding 10,560 miles (17,000 km). Accidental launch Rosenberg, San Francisco Gate, 06 [Eric, “Experts warn of an accidental atomic war / Nuclear missile modified for conventional attack on Iran could set off alarm in Russia”, http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-10-06/news/17316809_1_nuclear-missiles-norwegianscientific-rocket-ballistic] Russian military officers might misconstrue a submarine-launched conventional D5 intercontinental ballistic missile and conclude that Russia is under nuclear attack, said Ted Postol, a physicist and professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Pavel Podvig, a physicist and weapons specialist at Stanford. "Any launch of a long-range nonnuclear armed sea or land ballistic missile will cause an automated alert of the Russian early warning system," Postol told reporters. The triggering of an alert wouldn't necessarily precipitate a retaliatory hail of Russian nuclear missiles, Postol said. Nevertheless, he said, "there can be no doubt that such an alert will greatly increase the chances of a nuclear accident involving strategic nuclear forces." Podvig said launching conventional versions of a missile from a submarine that normally carries nuclear ICBMs "expands the possibility for a misunderstanding so widely that it is hard to contemplate." Mixing conventional and nuclear D5s on a U.S. Trident submarine "would be very dangerous," Podvig said, because the Russians have no way of discriminating between the two types of missiles once they are launched. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. "The media and expert circles are already discussing plans to use intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry nonnuclear warheads," he said in May. "The launch of such a missile could ... provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces." Accidental nuclear war is not so far-fetched. In 1995, Russia initially interpreted the launch of a Norwegian scientific rocket as the onset of a U.S. nuclear attack. Then-President Boris Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" in the first stages of preparation to launch a retaliatory strike before the mistake was discovered. The United States and Russia have acknowledged the possibility that Russia's equipment might mistakenly conclude the United States was attacking with nuclear missiles. In 1998, the two countries agreed to set up a joint radar center in Moscow operated by U.S. and Russian forces to supplement Russia's aging equipment and reduce the threat of accidental war. But the center has yet to open. A major technical problem exacerbates the risk of using the D5 as a conventional weapon: the decaying state of Russia's nuclear forces. Russia's nuclear missiles are tethered to early warning radars that have been in decline since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. And Russia, unlike the United States, lacks sufficient satellites to supplement the radars and confirm whether missile launches are truly under way or are false alarms. Only scenario for extinction Bostrom, gannon award winner, prof at oxford, 02 [Nick Bostrom, Professor of philosophy at Oxford University, 2002, (http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html)] A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 206/212 U.S. CHINA WAR GOOD (WAR NOW GOOD) War now is good --A) Eliminates the Chinese arsenal Lieber and Press, 9 (Keir A., Associate Professor @ Georgetown University, Daryl G., Associate Professor of Government, Dartmouth College, Foreign Affairs, Nov/Dec) MODELING THE UNTHINKABLE To illustrate the growth in U.S. counterforce capabilities, we applied a set of simple formulas that analysts have used for decades to estimate the effectiveness of counterforce attacks. We modeled a U.S. strike on a small target set: 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in hardened silos, the approximate size of China's current long-range, silo-based missile force. The analysis compared the capabilities of a 1985 Minuteman ICBM to those of a modern Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile. [The technical details of the analysis presented in this essay are available online [2].] In 1985, a single U.S. ICBM warhead had less than a 60 percent chance of destroying a typical silo. Even if four or five additional warheads were used, the cumulative odds of destroying the silo would never exceed 90 percent because of the problem of "fratricide," whereby incoming warheads destroy each other. Beyond five warheads, adding more does no good. A probability of 90 percent might sound high, but it falls far short if the goal is to completely disarm an enemy: with a 90 percent chance Today, a multiple-warhead attack on a single silo using a Trident II missile would have a roughly 99 percent chance of destroying it, and the probability that a barrage would destroy all 20 targets is well above 95 percent. Given the accuracy of the U.S. military's current delivery systems, the only question is target identification : silos that can be found can be destroyed. During the Cold War, the United States worked hard to pinpoint Soviet nuclear forces, with great success. Locating potential adversaries' small nuclear arsenals is undoubtedly a top priority for U.S. intelligence today. The revolution in accuracy is producing an even more momentous change: it is becoming possible for the United States to conduct low-yield nuclear counterforce strikes that inflict relatively few of destroying each target, the odds of destroying all 20 are roughly 12 percent. In 1985, then, a U.S. ICBM attack had little chance of destroying even a small enemy nuclear arsenal. casualties. A U.S. Department of Defense computer model, called the Hazard Prediction and Assessment Capability (HPAC), estimates the dispersion of deadly radioactive fallout in a given region after a nuclear detonation. The software uses the warhead's explosive power, the height of the burst, and data about local weather and demographics to estimate how much fallout would be generated, where it would blow, and how many people it would injure or kill. HPAC results can be chilling. In 2006, a team of nuclear weapons analysts from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) used HPAC to estimate the consequences of a U.S. nuclear attack using high-yield warheads against China's ICBM field. Even though China's silos are located in the countryside, the model predicted that the fallout would blow over a large area, killing 3-4 million people. U.S. counterforce capabilities were useless, the study implied, because even a limited strike would kill an unconscionable number of civilians. But the United States can already conduct nuclear counterforce strikes at a tiny fraction of the human devastation that the FAS/NRDC study predicted, and small additional improvements to the U.S. force could dramatically reduce the potential collateral The United States' nuclear weapons are now so accurate that it can conduct successful counterforce attacks using the smallest-yield warheads in the arsenal, rather than the huge warheads that the FAS/NRDC simulation modeled. And to further reduce the fallout, the weapons can be set to detonate as airbursts, which would allow most of the damage even further. radiation to dissipate in the upper atmosphere. We ran multiple HPAC scenarios against the identical target set used in the FAS/NRDC study but modeled low-yield airbursts rather than high-yield groundbursts. The fatality estimates plunged from 3-4 million to less than 700 -- a figure comparable to the number of civilians reportedly killed since 2006 in Pakistan by U.S. drone strikes. One should be skeptical about the results of any model that depends on unpredictable factors, such as wind speed and direction. But in the scenarios we modeled, the area of lethal fallout was so small that very few civilians would have become ill or died, regardless of which way the wind blew. Critics may cringe at this analysis. Many of them, understandably, say that nuclear weapons are -- and should remain -- if the United States is to retain these weapons for the purpose of deterring nuclear attacks , it needs a force that gives U.S. leaders retaliatory options they A counterforce attack -- whether using conventional munitions or low- or high-yield nuclear weapons -- would be fraught with peril. Even a small possibility of a single enemy warhead's surviving such a strike would undoubtedly give any U.S. leader great pause . But in the midst of a conventional war, if an enemy were using nuclear threats or limited nuclear attacks to try to coerce the United States or its allies, these would be the capabilities that would give a U.S. president real options. unusable. But might actually employ. If the only retaliatory option entails killing millions of civilians, then the U.S. deterrent will lack credibility. Giving U.S. leaders alternatives that do not target civilians is both wise and just. B) China’s military is woefully inadequate --- a US attack obliterates their military capacity Lieber and Presse 6 – Keir A. Leiber, author of War and the Engineers: The Primacy of Politics over Technology, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. Daryl G. Press, author of Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania ("The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006) China's nuclear arsenal is even more vulnerable to a U.S. attack. A U.S. first strike could succeed whether it was launched as a surprise or in the midst of a crisis during a Chinese alert. China has a limited strategic nuclear arsenal. The People's Liberation Army currently possesses no modern SSBNs or long-range bombers. Its naval arm used to have two ballistic missile submarines, but one sank, and the other, which had such poor capabilities that it never left Chinese waters, is no longer operational. China's medium-range bomber force is similarly unimpressive: the bombers are obsolete and vulnerable to attack . According to unclassified U.S. government assessments, China's entire intercontinental nuclear arsenal consists of 18 stationary single-warhead ICBMs. These are not ready to launch on warning: their warheads are kept in storage and the missiles themselves are unfueled. (China's ICBMs use liquid fuel, which corrodes the missiles after 24 hours. Fueling them is estimated to take two hours.) The lack of an advanced early warning system adds to the vulnerability of the ICBMs. It appears that China would have no warning at all of a U.S. submarine-launched missile attack or a strike using hundreds of stealthy nucleararmed cruise missiles. Many sources claim that China is attempting to reduce the vulnerability of its ICBMs by building decoy silos. But decoys cannot provide a firm basis for deterrence. It would take close to a thousand fake silos to make a U.S. first strike on China as difficult as an attack on Russia, and no available information on China's nuclear forces suggests the existence of massive fields of decoys. And even if China built them, its commanders would always wonder whether U.S. sensors could distinguish real silos from fake ones. Despite much talk about China's military modernization, the odds that Beijing will acquire a survivable nuclear deterrent in the next decade are slim. China's modernization efforts have focused on conventional forces, and the country's progress on nuclear modernization has accordingly been slow. Since the mid-1980s, China has been trying to develop a new missile for its future ballistic missile submarine as well as mobile ICBMs (the DF-31 and longer-range The U.S. Defense Department predicts that China may deploy DF-31s in a few years, although the forecast should be treated skeptically: U.S. intelligence has been announcing the missile's imminent deployment for decades. Even when they are eventually fielded, the DF-31s are unlikely to significantly reduce China's vulnerability. The missiles' limited range, estimated to be DF-31A) to replace its current ICBM force. only 8,000 kilometers (4,970 miles), greatly restricts the area in which they can be hidden, reducing the difficulty of searching for them. The DF-31s could hit the contiguous United States only if they were deployed in China's far northeastern corner, principally in Heilongjiang Province, near the Russian-North Korean border. But Heilongjiang is mountainous, and so the missiles Such restrictions increase the missiles' vulnerability and raise questions about whether they are even intended to target the U.S. homeland or whether they will be aimed at targets in Russia and Asia. Given the history of China's slow-motion nuclear modernization, it is doubtful that a Chinese second-strike force will materialize anytime soon. The United States has a first-strike capability against China today and should be able to maintain it for a decade or more. might be deployable only along a few hundred kilometers of good road or in a small plain in the center of the province. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 207/212 U.S. CHINA WAR GOOD (SUPERWEAPONS) War with China is inevitable – delay risks global nuclear escalation Babbin and Timperlake 06 former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, and a veteran defense analyst Jed and Edward, War with China: not only possible, but inevitable Here's a guide to how it may happen -- and how we can win Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States, http://www.hebookservice.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6926 Will the U.S. (will) go to war with China? Yes, say Ed Timperlake and Jed Babbin. Timperlake (a veteran defense analyst) and Babbin (former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense) show in their new book Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States that the Chinese want that war, and think they can win it -- and will keep pushing the United States until it begins. It's shaping up to be a huge struggle for democracy and freedom: between America's commitment to defend Taiwan at any cost and China's increasingly bellicose attempts to expand its commercial and military reach at American expense, war between the U.S. and China is now virtually inevitable. But in Showdown, Babbin and Timperlake offer indispensable strategies and tactics for how the U.S. can and must respond to the Chinese military threat. Babbin (author of Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe Are Worse Than You Think) and Timperlake (co-author of the New York Times bestselling Year of the Rat and Red Dragon Rising) here bring you the very latest developments in China's quest to become a superpower. They explain the combination of alliances and global tinderboxes that could turn China's quest for superpower status into nothing less than World War III. They detail China's aggressive military buildup, revealing how it has been even more rapid than that of Nazi Germany before World War II. They also expose China's military and commercial maneuvering to outflank the United States -- much as the Soviet Union tried to do at the height of the Cold War. But Babbin and Timperlake, both of whom are military veterans, do much more than just offer expert analysis. In a dramatic style worthy of Tom Clancy, they take you into the field with Navy SEALs and Air Force bomber pilots, invite you inside the war councils at the White House and the Pentagon, and peer within China's own Politburo in an exciting -- and all too likely -- series of war scenarios stretching from a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2008 to its extension of total control over the Pacific region within a few years. This is by no means an exercise in fiction: these disturbing, gripping scenarios are based on the latest and most reliable intelligence -- and they make clear that China is an immense and immediate threat to America's national security. If we don't stop China now, the coming war could engulf the entire world (particularly since the Chinese post-Communist regime is happy to make common cause with the forces of the worldwide Islamic jihad). Provocative, thrilling, exhaustively documented and sobering, Showdown is a wake-up call for our elected officials -- and for everyone who loves America. This increases the probability of super weapons and extinction Navrozov 08, [Lev, December 24, Newsmax; China Wages Stealth War) The war between the owners of China and the free West is not noticed in the free West. It may only be noticed just before the total annihilation of the free West — at which time, any defense will be meaningless. In the modern wars, the development of superweapons (like early nuclear weapons in the United States) is the essence of a war, while the U.S. use of atom bombs in Japan took just a couple of days till its unconditional surrender. The modern wars in countries like China begin with the education of scientists and engineers able to construct the equipment producing superweapons. The scientists and engineers include those foreigners to whom the word “genius” is applicable. The Chinese recruiters promised one Western weapons designer $150,000,000 if he worked in China: half of the sum being delivered to him on his arrival, and the other half used for his salary. I have been writing about the motivation of the owners of China for quite some time. The free West evokes, by its very existence, the hatred of those in China; the owners of 1.1 billion Chinese slaves (that is, the population of China minus 0.2 billion Chinese whom the owners of China consider prosperous). Yes, the owners of China believe that it is safer for them to annihilate the free West than to keep 1.1 billion Chinese slaves in slavery and leave the free West for these slaves to admire. The owners of Russia promised paradise on earth to its population instead of the hell of the capitalist West. But in 1991, that is, more than 70 years after Lenin’s “revolution,” the Soviet dictatorship was overthrown. True, another dictatorship came in, several years later. But these were new owners of Russia, not those of 1991. The owners of China want to preserve their ownership, and this is why they have to remove by super-weapons the present stimulant of hatred for them — the free West. This war that China wages is invisible. The more trusting, good-natured, and friendly the West is to the owners of China, the better this is for their secret war. Their war may last decades. But when it reaches fruition, in the form of new superweapons, the ensuing open war will take days, hours, minutes, or even seconds. Since the Industrial Revolution, Western Europe regarded science and engineering as its hereditary attributes. But they are not. China produced Newton’s calculus, book-printing, compass, and more before the Industrial Revolution. In the Western old-fashioned war, much came from an aristocratic duel when an aristocrat challenged his opponent and faced his pistol while shooting at him. Even Hitler, a bandit and a scoundrel, declared war on the United States and on Stalin’s Russia. In China, historically, a war would begin as unexpectedly for the enemy as possible, and then victory would come all the more quickly. In the epoch of post-nuclear superweapons, such a “least expected” attack may be the beginning and the end of a war — an instant war that leaves nothing of the enemy. There may be no worsening of diplomatic relation — on the contrary, these it may coming during diplomatic trade and friendship. The greater the surprise the better chance for victory. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 208/212 U.S. CHINA WAR GOOD (CHINESE NANOTECH R&D) War now prevents Chinese acquisition of nanotech weapons News Max ‘3, interview with Lev Navrozov – a journalist, author, and columnist—extensively studied superweapons and won the Albert Einstein Price for outstanding intellectual achievements, 9/26/, “an interview on nanoweapons,” http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/25/210250.shtml What countries are developing the post-nuclear superweapons involving nanotechnology? LN: It is worthwhile to speak only of China, Russia if dictatorship comes back to that country, and the United States if it awakens from its sleep, which may well be its last. To make the nanoweapons useful, a RM: country must have the ability and the will to either world domination or to the defense against another country’s world domination. RM: What do you believe are the motives and goals of the countries that are developing the LN: The national student movement of 1989, associated with Tiananmen Square, endangered the Chinese dictatorship more than any group in Soviet Russia endangered the Soviet dictatorship two years later. Yet the Soviet dictatorship fell. What a lesson for the Chinese dictators! We know authentic information about the Tiananmen Square movement from Zhang Liang’s publication "The Tiananmen Papers,” a 514-page collection of Chinese government documents. It is clear that the dictators of China saw how absolutism was endangered in China and understood that the only way to prevent future Tiananmens was to annihilate or subjugate the source of subversion, viz., the West. RM: What do you believe are going to be China’s next steps in terms of acquiring territory? LN: In contrast to Hitler, who stupidly grabbed the rump of Czechoslovakia in 1939, China has been very cautious in its territorial claims, since the position of China now is the best for the development of "Superweapon No. 3,” such as the nano superweapon. RM: Who does China see as allies and enemies? LN: The worst enemy is the democratic West, whose very existence produces Tiananmens able to destroy the Chinese dictatorship. The best ally is the democratic West, supplying China with everything necessary for the annihilation or subjugation of the democratic West. RM: Are the other post-nuclear weapons being researched to this day? If so, are they known? If not, can you enlighten us? LN: Since the post-nuclear superweapons? nano "Superweapon No. 3” is a hypothesis, and not an absolute certainty, the Chinese Project 863 has been engaged in genetic engineering and at least six or seven other fields. RM: If China has or is close to, molecular nanotechnology to be used in war, what is the purpose of having a large, advanced conventional army and "traditional” nuclear weapons? LN: Eric Drexler, the Newton of nanotechnology, alive and enriching us with his A nation armed with molecular nanotechnologybased weapons would not require nuclear weapons to annihilate a civilization . In fact, it seems that a rather surgical system of seeking and destroying enemy human beings as cancerous polyps could be developed--leaving the nation’s infrastructure intact to be repopulated.” wisdom, discusses the problem in his historic book of 1986 "Engines of Creation.” My assistant Isak Baldwin says that, according to Drexler, " Nevertheless conventional weapons might be useful even on the "D-day,” after nanotechnology has been successfully weaponized. Conventional non-nuclear weapons have been useful even after 1945. Please recall that two "atom bombs” were delivered in 1945 by conventional U.S. bombers with conventional machine guns and all. RM: What beliefs or desires are motivating the rulers of China? The belief that Communism must triumph over The dictators of China defend not their power, which is worth trillions of dollars, apart from what cannot be expressed in terms of money (royal grandeur, cult, and glorification). Remember the French king who said, "The state – it is me”? Many dictators have been saying and can always say: "Communism/capitalism/democracy/freedom/socialism/national socialism/our great country/the meaning of life/the goal of history – it is me." RM: If the U.S. is the most technologically advanced country, does this mean we have been surpassed? LN: The "most technologically advanced country” is an ambiguous generality. In the 1950s, Russia was still a technologically backward country, with most of its population deprived of running water, to say nothing of passenger cars. Yet it did not prevent Russia from outstripping the United States in space rocketry, when the Soviet space satellite was launched before its American counterpart. In its annual "Soviet Military Power,” to which I subscribed, the Pentagon could not help praising certain Soviet weapons as second to none in the world. RM: What today is holding China back from becoming overtly aggressive and reshaping the geopolitical world? LN: The dictators of China are not insane! China’s government-controlled "capitalist corporations” have been penetrating the entrails of the Western economies, absorbing the latest science and technology – or sometimes entire Western corporations, induced to operate in China on cheap local labor. To become "overtly aggressive”? What for? To invade Taiwan? To perish, along with the West, in Mutually Assured Destruction? No, the dictators of China are not insane! They are developing superweapons able to annihilate the Western means of nuclear retaliation. Capitalism? LN: A New York taxi robber risks his life, life imprisonment, or death sentence to acquire the taxi driver’s $200. Hence the bulletproof partitions in taxis. $200, but China’s focused on molecular manufacturing – they’ll destroy the US in a nanowar Navrozov, Friday, Mar. 26, 2004 Lev, Center for the Survival of Western Democracy, Inc. “Towards Molecular Nano Weapons in China vs. U.S. “Unilateral Disarmament”” But attacked for his “militarism”, Drexler does not surrender, and sent to “Howard Lovy’s NanoBot” the following statement: “ Molecular manufacturing will bring a revolution in military affairs greater than the transition from hand-made spears to mass-produced guns. It is unwise to be on the wrong side of such a technology gap. NNI [National Nanotechnology Initiative] policy today opposes not only research on molecular manufacturing, but also open dialog on its scientific basis and potential consequences.” Drexler does not mention China by name. To do so would be a sacrilege, an obscenity, an act of war. But he makes the case powerfully by saying: “In a competitive world, the denialist policies of the NNI place us on a path to unilateral disarmament. Continuation of those policies thus poses a grave threat.” The Chinese specialists from among the Chinese dissidents have been studying—under the auspices of our Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc. and under the guidance of its manager Isak Baldwin—the development in China of post-nuclear super weapons in seven fields, including molecular nanotechnology. Here is the Web site “Nano Science and Technology Network” of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Translated from the Chinese: Extinction Anissimov Aug 2 2007 Michael, a science/technology writer and consultant, “Existential Risks: Serious Business” This does seem true, and admonitions about global warming may be partially to blame, as well as terrorist fearmongering (some of which may also, in fact, be wellfounded). Anthropogenic global warming is a reality, yes, but I don’t think it’s an existential risk, especially not in the next few decades. Bombardment with warnings on anthropogenic climate change, as well as terrorist attacks, is desensitizing the populace to warnings of existential risk. I’m not saying such warnings are a bad thing, just pointing out the fact that they’re desensitizing us. The fact that the most severe risks have to do with technologies just barely beginning to roll off the assembly lines — advanced AI and robotics, and synthetic biology — doesn’t help matters either. But, as always, you, the reader, can refuse to be a part of the problem. You can take existential risk seriously, and refuse to write off those who discuss these dangers, like Martin Rees and Stephen Hawking, as “Doomsayers”. For most of the past 10,000 years, catastrophic technological risk has been impossible. Even global thermonuclear war would be more likely to kill off 10% or 20% of the population rather than 99% or 100%. And if you care about the long-term future of humankind as a whole, killing a billion and killing everyone makes a hell of a lot of difference. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 209/212 U.S. RUSSIA WAR BAD (DOOMSDAY MACHINE) Russia war causes extinction – triggers multiple doomsday devices which will set off in response to a nuclear attack—this isn’t a myth and the most qualified expert in the field says it exists. Ron Rosenbaum, award winning journalist and author, 8/31/2007. “The Return of the Doomsday Machine?” Slate, http://www.slate.com/id/2173108/pagenum/all/. "The nuclear doomsday machine." It's a Cold War term that has long seemed obsolete. And even back then, the "doomsday machine" was regarded as a scary conjectural fiction. Not impossible to create—the physics and mechanics of it were first spelled out by U.S. nuclear scientist Leo Szilard—but never actually created, having a real existence only in such apocalyptic nightmares as Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. In Strangelove, the doomsday machine was a Soviet system that automatically detonated some 50 cobaltjacketed hydrogen bombs pre-positioned around the planet if the doomsday system's sensors detected a nuclear attack on Russian soil. Thus, even an accidental or (as in Strangelove) an unauthorized U.S. nuclear bomb could set off the doomsday machine bombs, releasing enough deadly cobalt fallout to make the Earth uninhabitable for the human species for 93 years. No human hand could stop the fully automated apocalypse. An extreme fantasy, yes. But according to a new book called Doomsday Men and several papers on the subject by U.S. analysts, it may not have been merely a fantasy. According to these accounts, the Soviets built and activated a variation of a doomsday machine in the mid-'80s. And there is no evidence Putin's Russia has deactivated the system. Instead, something was reactivated in Russia last week. I'm referring to the ominous announcement—given insufficient attention by most U.S. media (the Economist made it the opening of a lead editorial on Putin's Russia)—by Vladimir Putin that Russia has resumed regular "strategic flights" of nuclear bombers. (They may or may not be carrying nuclear bombs, but you can practically hear Putin's smirking tone as he says, "Our [nuclear bomber] pilots have been grounded for too long. They are happy to start a new life.") These twin developments raise a troubling question: What are the United States' and Russia's current nuclear policies with regard to how and when they will respond to a perceived nuclear attack? In most accounts, once the president or Russian premier receives radar warning of an attack, they have less than 15 minutes to decide whether the warning is valid. The pressure is on to "use it or lose it"—launch our missiles before they can be destroyed in their silos. Pressure that makes the wrong decision more likely. Pressure that makes accidental nuclear war a real possibility. Once you start to poke into this matter, you discover a disturbing level of uncertainty, which leads me to believe we should be demanding that the United States and Russia define and defend their nuclear postures. Bush and Putin should be compelled to tell us just what "failsafe" provisions are installed on their respective nuclear bombers, missiles, and submarines—what the current provisions against warning malfunctions are and what kinds of controls there are over the ability of lone madman nuclear bombers to bring on the unhappy end of history. As for the former Soviet Union, the possible existence of a version of a doomsday machine is both relevant and disturbing. In the Strangelove film, the Soviet ambassador tells the president and generals in the U.S. war room that the device was designed to deter a surprise attack, the kind of attack that might otherwise prevent retaliation by "decapitating" the Soviet command structure. The automated system would insure massive world-destroying retaliation even if the entire Soviet leadership were wiped out—or had second thoughts. As a result, some referred to it as the "dead hand" doomsday device. It is Dr. Strangelove himself, the madman U.S. nuclear strategist played by Peter Sellers, who detects the flaw in this plan. After being apprised of the system's existence by the Soviet ambassador, and the likelihood of its being triggered by a U.S. bomber on an unauthorized mission to nuke its Soviet target, Dr. Strangelove exclaims: Yes, but the ... whole point of the doomsday machine ... is lost ... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh? In other words, a doomsday machine kept secret is no good for deterrence, only for retaliation by extinction. Did the Soviets actually design a variation on a doomsday device and not tell us about it? And could an accidental or terrorist nuclear attack on Putin's Russia (by Chechens, for instance) trigger an antiquated automated deadhand system and launch missiles capable of killing tens, maybe hundreds, of millions at unknown targets that might include the United States? Up until Aug. 10 of this year, I would have thought these questions were best consigned to the realm of apocalyptic film fantasy. But on that day I came upon a startling essay in the London Times Literary Supplement. It was a review (titled "Deadly Devices") of a book recently published in the United Kingdom: Doomsday Men: The Real Dr. Strangelove and the Dream of the Superweapon by nuclear-age historian P.D. Smith of University College London. (It will be out in the United States in December.) The TLS reviewer, Christopher Coker (who is on the faculty of the London School of Economics), asserted that the book demonstrates that "only after the Berlin Wall had been breached and ... the Cold War began to thaw did military analysts realize the Russians had actually built a version of the [doomsday] device. The details of this top-secret Soviet system were first revealed in 1993 by Bruce G. Blair, a former American ICBM launch control officer, now one of the country's foremost experts on Russian arms. Fearing that a sneak attack by American submarine-launched missiles might take Moscow out in 13 minutes, the Soviet leadership had authorized the construction of an automated communication network, reinforced to withstand a nuclear strike. At its heart was a computer system similar to the one in Dr. Strangelove. Its code name was Perimetr. It went fully operational in January 1985. It is still in place." For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 210/212 U.S. RUSSIA WAR GOOD (HEG) US would attack Russia first, devastating their nuclear and second strike-capabilities- four reasons AND attacking Russia is key to hegemony Artyukov and Trukhachev ‘6 /Independent writers and researchers for Pravda, Russian News, “US capable of wiping out Russia’s nuclear capacity in a single strike”, CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON GLOBALIZATION: Independent research and media group, March/ For the first time in the last 50 years the USA is on the verge of attaining ultimate domination with regard to nuclear weapons. This means that Russia is no longer able to keep up with the United States. If a conflict were to break out, the USA would be able to quickly and with impunity attack Russian territory, and Russia would have no means to mount a response. This is roughly the message of an article published in the latest edition of the American journal Foreign Affairs. Its authors calculated that in comparison with the USSR, the amount of strategic bombers at Russia’s disposal has fallen by 39%, intercontinental ballistic missiles by 58% and the number of submarines with ballistic missiles by 80%. “However the true scale of the collapse of the Russian arsenal is much greater than can be judged from these figures,” they write. “The strategic nuclear forces now at Russia's disposal are barely fit to be used in battle.” Russian radar is now incapable of detecting the launch of American missiles from submarines located in some regions of the Pacific Ocean. Russian anti-air defense systems might not manage to intercept B-2 stealth bombers in time, which could easily mean that they are able to inflict a strike with impunity on Russian nuclear forces. If Russian missile forces continue to decrease at the current rate, then in about 10 years only isolated missiles, which the American anti-missile defense is capable of intercepting, will be able to deliver a retaliatory blow. “It will probably soon be possible for the USA to destroy the strategic nuclear potential of Russia and China with a single strike,” says the article. The article’s authors come to the conclusion that all this may stabilize the worldwide hegemony of the USA and sustain the foreign policy course of the USA, which aims to prevent the appearance of another power centre in the world of equal strength, and to exclude the possibility of weaker nations undermining American positions in key regions around the world, such as the in Persian Gulf. A war with Russia is inevitable—winning is essential for US dominance Telegraph, 07 [Adrian Blomfield, “Retired generals predict US-Russia war”] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557726/Retired-generals-predict-US-Russia-war.html] Capitalising on the increasingly bellicose rhetoric in Moscow, a group of influential retired generals yesterday said the United States was preparing to invade Russia within a decade. Interviewed by Komsomolskaya Pravda, Russia's biggest circulation newspaper, the four senior generals - who now direct influential military think tanks - said the United States had hatched a secret plan to seize the country's vast energy resources by force. "The US is both laying the ground and preparing its military potential for a war with Russia," said Gen Leonid Ivashov, a former joint chief of staff. "Anti-Russian sentiment is being fostered in the public opinion. The US is desperate to implement its century-old dream of world hegemony and the elimination of Russia as its principal obstacle to the full control of Eurasia." American primacy solves extinction – withdrawal would be the largest mistake in the history of geopolitics Bradley A. Thayer (Associate Professor in the Dept. of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University) 2007 American Empire: A Debate, “Reply to Christopher Layne” p 118 To abandon its leadership role would be a fundamental mistake of American grand strategy. Indeed, in the great history of the United States, there is no parallel, no previous case, where the United States has made such a titanic grand strategic blunder. It would surpass by far its great mistake of 1812, when the young and ambitious country gambled and declared war against a mighty empire, the British, believing London was too distracted by the tremendous events on the Continent—the formidable military genius of Napoleon and the prodigious threat . The citizens of the United States cannot pretend that, by weakening ourselves, other countries will be nice and respect its security and interests. To suggest this implies a naiveté and innocence about international politics that would be charming, if only the consequences of such an opinion were not so serious. Throughout its history, the United States has never refrained from acting boldly to secure its interests. It should not be timid now. Many times in the great history of the United States, the country faced difficult decisions—decisions of confrontation or appeasement--and significant threats--the British, French, Spanish, Germans, Italians, Japanese, and Soviets. It always has recognized those threats and faced them down, to emerge victorious. The United States should have the confidence to do so now against China not simply because to do so maximizes its power and security or ensures it is the dominant vice in the world's affairs, but because it is the last, best hope of humanity. from the French empire and its allies--to notice while it conquered Canada For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 211/212 U.S. RUSSIA WAR GOOD (MODERNIZATION) 1/2 Russia is rapidly modernizing their military capacity—this makes a future war unwinable McDermott, 09 [Roger—Radio Free Europe, “Russia’s Armed Forces Undergoing 'Unparalleled' Transformation”, http://www.rferl.org/content/Russias_Armed_Forces_Undergoing_Fundamental_Transformation/1798944.html] In the aftermath of the Russia-Georgia war of August 2008, Russia's political and military elites embarked on a highly ambitious program to reform and modernize the armed forces by 2020. That program envisages abandoning the mass-mobilization principle in favor of forming mobile, permanent-readiness forces, capable of reacting to the order to deploy within "one hour." In April 2009, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Denis Blair said in unclassified written answers to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the ongoing reshaping of Russia's ground forces will enable it to "militarily dominate" most of its neighbors. Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov has been castigated by some domestic opponents who argue that his reform will destroy the Russian Army. Yet, dramatically downsizing its oversized officer corps to maximize efficiency, switching from a division-based to a brigade-based table of organization, and reforming the General Staff Academy and the system of military education pale in comparison with the huge challenges involved in modernizing its aging equipment and weapons inventory. Many aspects of the reform agenda are so radical, far-reaching, and multifaceted that Western and Russian commentators have failed to identify the key elements. One widespread misconception is related to the affordability of the plan to downsize the officer corps by 205,000 by 2012. Since doing so will undoubtedly be very costly, especially in light of the current economic crisis, many dismissed this as another failed bid to reform the structures. In fact, Western interpretations of these reforms have consistently underestimated key aspects of the program, assessing it primarily in terms of Russian economic potential and stressing the officer downsizing. Many aspects of the present agenda, currently far advanced, are thus missed, ignored, or simply ridiculed as signs of impending failure. They include the speed of transferring to brigade structures; overhauling the system of military education; radically changing the General Staff Academy; introducing a civilian chaplaincy; rewriting the manuals on combat training; and focusing on noncommissioned-officer (NCO) training and testing the new structures. 'New Look' By June 2009, the mass mobilization, division-based system had already largely disappeared. In its place, more than half the required brigades were already formed and exercises and training were geared to testing and developing these new structures. The Russian media coined the phrase "new look" to describe these monumental changes. However, there appears to be something more going on than simply concentrating on appearance; this is no public-relations campaign. Indeed, it is impossible to understand the ongoing transformation of the Russian armed forces by measuring it in terms of Western paradigms, such as its inability to conduct noncontact warfare, or by emphasizing the armed forces' lack of sophisticated modern weaponry. The Russian military is changing fast; few are able to perceive the sheer breathtaking scale of these changes, and the familiar methods of assessing its conventional capabilities are passing into history. Analysts, commentators, and decision makers on all sides are unable to fit the "new look" Russian military into a familiar pattern. One thing is clear: By the end of this year, the Russian Army will be unrecognizable. While the main focus of the reform campaign is to produce mobile, permanent-readiness formations capable of intervention within a relatively short period, which some might perceive as a Western paradigm, in reality any improvement to Russia's conventional forces will have implications for the country's foreign and defense policies. While it is very likely that the structures that emerge will still compare unfavorably with Western militaries, they will nonetheless meet the needs of a modern and potentially resurgent Russia, enhancing its capability to project power within its "near abroad." What must be stressed is that the current condition of these forces is so decrepit and desperately in need of modernizing that the reform agenda will not contribute to improving "interoperability" with NATO forces for future peace support operations. Such a benevolent strategy would require both political will and intensive supporting programs agreed between Moscow and NATO. Both are unrealistic given the shift in the geopolitical landscape after the Georgia war and the ongoing opposition in Moscow towards any future eastward expansion of the alliance. Moreover, without these programs, the lives of allied personnel could be potentially jeopardized by any ill-conceived plan to create interoperability. Indeed, analyses of the Russian military in the wake of the Georgia conflict, which exposed many of its conventional failings, concentrated on its future military requirements in precisely this context. For instance, although one key feature of the large-scale military exercises Kavkaz 2009 in late June was to test the new brigade structures under an "antiterrorist" guise, those exercises appeared to rehearse an improved version of intervention in Georgia. [continues] For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Gonzo and Lison Things Go Boom! 212/212 U.S. RUSSIA WAR GOOD (MODERNIZATION) 2/2 [continued] Unrecognizable Much of the reform program also appears hurried, such as introducing widespread changes within the manning system before a revised military doctrine (expected in late 2009) is published. On August 10, President Dmitry Medvedev sent a bill to the Duma that constitutes the legal basis for future intervention by the Russian military abroad in protection of its citizens or its national interests. Until the reforms are completed, it is difficult to extrapolate policy implications, but one thing is clear: By the end of this year, the Russian Army will be unrecognizable. The challenges are immense. For example, can the ailing defense industry, whose weaknesses have recently been highlighted by the test failures of the new Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), meet the demands to modernize equipment and weapons? Those seemingly endless conventional requirements range from modern communications equipment to new platforms for the air force and ships and submarines for the navy -- a huge undertaking given the present severe economic constraints and the shortage of skilled defense industry engineers. Russia may instead procure some Western weapons and equipment; it has recently concluded contracts with Israel for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and communications technology from the French defense company Thales. There are evidently other challenges, ranging from establishing a reformed system of military education, revising combat training, and decommissioning more than 200,000 officers by 2012. The modernization of the equipment inventory will almost certainly take longer than planned. However, one fundamental aspect that may take a generation to resolve relates to the future role of noncommissioned officers (NCOs). In essence, the delegation of decision making and a culture of promoting individual initiative embodied in the NCO concept will take considerable time, energy, and commitment in the Russian context: it is entirely new and will unsettle many traditionalists. It is a truism that generals invariably assume the next war will be a carbon copy of the last. Since Russia's first military intervention beyond its borders in the Georgia war last year, the Russian military leadership has actively pursued an analysis of the "lessons learned" from that campaign. Granted, this partly fed into the overall effort to embark on the sweeping reforms now under way. But historically the Russian military has proven adroit in rapidly assimilating the lessons of previous conflicts or learning during the course of a larger conflagration, such as the response to Barbarossa in 1941. The extent of the changes under way is unparalleled in the history of the Russian armed forces since the end of World War II, perhaps even earlier. Western militaries can only now begin to study and monitor these transformations, while those closer to Russia (in Central Asia, for instance) are already privately admitting new difficulties in conducting joint exercises or training. Intentionally or not, this process will undermine most NATO military training programs in the former Soviet Union. While any comment on the policy implications is premature, it is likely that the Russian conventional armed forces will emerge in the next few years as an unrivaled dominant force within the former Soviet space; capable of sudden, decisive intervention, with minimal damage to the country's international credibility. Now is key, No first-strike capacity now but submarine upgrades will guarantee second-strike capability in the future RFE, 08 [Radio Free Europe, “Russia Hopes To Deploy New Nuclear Missile Next Year”] http://www.rferl.org/Content/Russia_Hopes_To_Deploy_New_Nuclear_Missile_Next_Year/1293420.html ] MOSCOW (Reuters) -- Russia hopes to deploy a new submarine-launched nuclear missile next year, underlining Moscow's determination to upgrade its nuclear strike forces, a senior defense official has been quoted as saying. Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin, head of armaments for the Russian armed forces, told the Defense Ministry newspaper "Krasnaya zvezda" that Russia's recent war with Georgia "compels us to rethink the current state of the armed forces and how they should develop further". President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have both pledged to extend Russia's recent military build-up with extra funds to buy new, high-tech arms. On October 1, Putin announced an extra $3.1 billion of spending next year, partly to replace equipment lost in the Georgia war. But despite the billions of dollars spent since Putin came to power as president in 2000, Russia's million-strong armed forces remain poorly equipped, badly paid, and reliant on a large proportion of unwilling conscripts. Defense analysts based in Moscow say much of the extra spending has not reached the front line because of corruption or mismanagement and many weapons programs are running late. One of these is the Bulava, a submarinelaunched long-range nuclear missile that Putin says will be capable of penetrating any missile defenses -- a reference to Washington's plans for a new global system to shoot down hostile missiles. For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
