USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
1/53
IMPACT FILE – ECON
Impact File – Econ ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Global Econ Collapse Bad (Democracies) ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Global Econ Collapse Bad (Hunger/Terror/Cold War) .............................................................................................................................. 3
Global Econ Collapse Bad (Poverty) ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Global Econ Collapse Bad (Racism) ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Global Econ Collapse Bad (War)............................................................................................................................................................... 6
U.S. Econ Collapse Bad (Competitiveness) ............................................................................................................................................... 7
U.S. Econ Collapse Bad (Disease Spread) ................................................................................................................................................. 8
U.S. Econ Collapse Bad (Heg)................................................................................................................................................................... 9
U.S. Econ Collapse Bad (South Korean Economy) ................................................................................................................................. 10
U.S. Econ Collapse Bad (Terror) ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
U.S. Econ Collapse Bad (War) ................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Economic Growth Bad (Environment) .................................................................................................................................................... 13
Economic Growth Bad (Extinction) ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
Economic Growth Bad (Resource Wars) ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Economic Growth Bad (Terrorism) ......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Economic Growth Bad (War) .................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Economic Growth Bad (Warming) .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Economic Growth Bad – AT: Growth Inevitable .................................................................................................................................... 19
Economic Growth Good (De-Development) ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Economic Growth Good – Democracy .................................................................................................................................................... 21
Economic Growth Good (Domestic Violence) ........................................................................................................................................ 22
Economic Growth Good (Environment) .................................................................................................................................................. 23
Economic Growth Good (Famine) ........................................................................................................................................................... 24
Economic Growth Good (Moral) ............................................................................................................................................................. 25
Economic Growth Good (Overpopulation) .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Economic Growth Good (Poverty) .......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Economic Growth Good (Prolif).............................................................................................................................................................. 28
Economic Growth Good (Racism) ........................................................................................................................................................... 29
Economic Growth Good – Space ............................................................................................................................................................. 30
Economic Growth Good (War) ................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Economic Growth Good (Warming) ........................................................................................................................................................ 32
Deficit Bad (Heg) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Deficit Bad (U.S. China War) .................................................................................................................................................................. 34
Dollar Collapse Bad (Chinese Econ) ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
Dollar Collapse Bad (Heg)....................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Dollar Collapse Bad (Soft Power/Heg) .................................................................................................................................................... 37
High Unemployment Good – Aerospace 1/2 ........................................................................................................................................... 38
High Unemployment Good – Aerospace 1/2 ........................................................................................................................................... 39
High Unemployment Good – Military Recruitment ................................................................................................................................ 40
Chinese Growth Bad (Chinese Arms Race) ............................................................................................................................................. 41
Chinese Growth Bad (Heg) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Chinese Growth Bad (Taiwan) ................................................................................................................................................................ 43
Chinese Growth Bad (U.S. China War) ................................................................................................................................................... 44
Chinese Growth Bad (Warming) ............................................................................................................................................................. 45
Indian Growth Bad (Arms Race) ............................................................................................................................................................. 46
Russian Growth Bad (Arms Buildup) ...................................................................................................................................................... 47
Russian Growth Good (War) ................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Russian Economic Collapse Bad (Loose Nukes and Econ) ..................................................................................................................... 49
Russian Econ Collapse Bad (War) ........................................................................................................................................................... 50
Russian Econ Collapse Good (Nationalism and Econ) 1/2 ...................................................................................................................... 51
Russian Econ Collapse Good (Nationalism and Econ) 2/2 ...................................................................................................................... 52
South Asian Growth Bad (Arms Race) .................................................................................................................................................... 53
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
2/53
GLOBAL ECON COLLAPSE BAD (DEMOCRACIES)
Economic decline causes multiple hotposts of state failure and democratic backsliding
Ferguson 9 [Niall, Professor of History @ Harvard, Harvard Business Review; Jul/Aug2009, Vol. 87 Issue 7/8, p44-53]
Will this financial crisis make the world more dangerous as well as poorer? The answer is almost certainly yes. Apart from the
usual trouble spots -- Afghanistan, Congo, Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Somalia, and Sudan -- expect new outbreaks of
instability in countries we thought had made it to democracy. In Asia, Thailand may be the most vulnerable. At the end of 2007 it
reverted to democracy after a spell of military rule that was supposed to crack down on corruption. Within a year's time the
country was in chaos, with protesters blocking Bangkok's streets and the state banning the People's Power Party. In April 2009 the
capital descended into anarchy as rival yellow-shirted and red-shirted political factions battled with the military. Expect similar
scenes in other emerging markets. Trouble has already begun in Georgia and Moldova. Then there's Ukraine, where economic
collapse threatens to trigger political disintegration. While President Viktor Yushchenko leans toward Europe, his ally-turned-rival
Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko favors a Russian orientation. Their differences reflect a widening gap between the country's
predominantly Ukrainian west and predominantly Russian east. Meanwhile, in Moscow, Putin talks menacingly of "ridding the
Ukrainian people of all sorts of swindlers and bribe-takers." The Crimean peninsula, with its ethnic Russian majority, is the part of
the "Near Abroad" (the former Soviet Union) that Putin most covets. January's wrangle over gas supplies to Western Europe may
have been the first phase of a Russian bid to destabilize, if not to break up, Ukraine. The world's increasing instability makes the
United States seem more attractive not only as a safe haven but also as a global policeman. Many people spent the years from 2001
to 2008 complaining about U.S. interventions overseas. But if the financial crisis turns up the heat in old hot spots and creates new
ones at either end of Eurasia, the world may spend the next eight years wishing for more, not fewer, U.S. interventions.
Economic decline collapses democracy
Halperin 5 [Morton, Senior Vice President of the Center for American Progress and Director of the Open Society Policy Center,
2005, The Democracy Advantage, p. 90, Google Books]
This chapter has made the case that economic stagnation is a threat to democratization. Over 70 percent of democratic backtrackers
experienced economic stagnation in the years preceding their political contraction. Moreover, democratizers with more prolonged
recessions had a greater tendency to revert to authoritarianism. Backtracking under economic duress has been primarily
concentrated in parts of Latin America, Africa, and the former Soviet Union. Nonetheless, democracy has amazing staying power.
In more than 95 percent of the cases of sustained economic contraction, democratizing states did not backtrack. Furthermore, even
for those that eventually did backtrack, 60 percent regained their democratic course after a several-year interval.
Economic Collapse tanks democracy
Petrou 9 [Michael, PhD in History from Oxford, Maclean’s, March 9, Proquest]
History suggests the results will be damaging. Political freedom rarely advances during a worldwide recession. "The current
downturn, if it continues for some period of time, is likely to be very unhelpful for hope that democracy will spread around the
world," says Benjamin M. Friedman, a Harvard University economist and the author of The Moral Consequences of Economic
Growth, in an interview with Maclean's. Friedman argues that political freedom expands during prolonged periods of prosperity,
and contracts during regression or stagnation. It's a thesis echoed by Freedom House's Puddington. "Democracy moves ahead
when diings are flush," he says. "The history of democracy in times of real economic pain and crisis- it's not very good. I'm
certainly hopeful that we're not going to end up like we did in the late 1920s and 1930s. That was a terrible time for world
politics."
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
3/53
GLOBAL ECON COLLAPSE BAD (HUNGER/TERROR/COLD WAR)
Economic collapse exacerbates food scarcity, terrorism and nuclear engagement
Japan Times 8 [October 16, Lexis]
Rising geopolitical risks have been underscored by today's multiple global crises - from a severe global credit crunch and financial
tumult to serious energy and food challenges. Add to that the international failure to stem the spreading scourge of terrorism and
the specter of a renewed Cold War arising from the deterioration in relations between the West and Russia since Moscow's August
retaliatory military intervention in Georgia and subsequent recognition of the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia actions that some portray as the 21st century's first forcible changing of borders. The world clearly is at a turning point,
underscored by the ongoing tectonic shifts in political and economic power.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
4/53
GLOBAL ECON COLLAPSE BAD (POVERTY)
Economic collapse causes poverty
Rosinsky 2006 Ned, University of Dartmouth Department of Psychology, M.D.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/2006_1-9/2006-1/pdf/20-24_601_featpoverty.pdf
Economic collapse kills people. Poverty destroys societies; and social collapse, at its end stages, involves sudden downward changes
in people’s health, due to factors such as loss of jobs, loss of health insurance, homelessness, breakup of families, resort to substance
abuse, psychological collapse, and descent into crime and incarceration. These various downward changes strongly interact. Loss of
job can directly cause loss of health insurance, as well as homelessness due to inability to pay rent or mortgage. Homelessness can
contribute to family breakup, and with this loss of family support, can come psychological collapse. Psychological collapse and family
breakup can lead to substance abuse. Substance abuse can in turn lead to job loss, worsen psychological collapse, and induce a resort
to crime to pay for the drugs, which in turn can lead to more psychological collapse and more disruption to the family. These strong
interactions set up a spiralling downward process, ultimately leading to the total collapse of individuals, Families, and larger social
groups and layers of society. These factors also result in poor nutrition, exposure to infectious disease, violence, and lack of medical
care for treatable illnesses, all culminating in high death rates.
Global economic causes food crisis, economic hardships, and increases poverty
Klare 9 [Michael T. Author and Professor of Peace and World-Security Studies at Hampshire College, March 19,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/the-second-shockwave_b_176358.html]
While the economic contraction is apparently slowing in the advanced industrial countries and may reach bottom in the not-too-distant
future, it's only beginning to gain momentum in the developing world, which was spared the earliest effects of the global meltdown.
Because the crisis was largely precipitated by a collapse of the housing market in the United States and the resulting disintegration of
financial products derived from the "securitization" of questionable mortgages, most developing nations were unaffected by the early
stages of the meltdown, for the simple reason that they possessed few such assets. But now, as the wealthier nations cease investing in
the developing world or acquiring its exports, the crisis is hitting them with a vengeance. On top of this, conditions are deteriorating at
a time when severe drought is affecting many key food-producing regions and poor farmers lack the wherewithal to buy seeds,
fertilizers, and fuel. The likely result: A looming food crisis in many areas hit hardest by the global economic meltdown. Until now,
concern over the human impact of the global crisis has largely been focused -- understandably so -- on unemployment and economic
hardship in the United States, Europe, and former Soviet Union. Many stories have appeared on the devastating impact of plant
closings, bankruptcies, and home foreclosures on families and communities in these parts of the world. Much less coverage has been
devoted to the meltdown's impact on people in the developing world. As the crisis spreads to the poorer countries, however, it's likely
that people in these areas will experience hardships every bit as severe as those in the wealthier countries -- and, in many cases, far
worse. The greatest worry is that most of the gains achieved in eradicating poverty over the last decade or so will be wiped out,
forcing tens or hundreds of millions of people from the working class and the lower rungs of the middle class back into the penury
from which they escaped. Equally worrisome is the risk of food scarcity in these areas, resulting in widespread malnutrition, hunger,
and starvation. All this is sure to produce vast human misery, sickness, and death, but could also result in social and political unrest of
various sorts, including riot, rebellion, and ethnic strife. The president, Congress, or the mainstream media are not, for the most part,
discussing these perils. As before, public interest remains focused on the ways in which the crisis is affecting the United States and the
other major industrial powers. But the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and U.S. intelligence officials, in three
recent reports, are paying increased attention to the prospect of a second economic shockwave, this time affecting the developing
world.Sinking Back Into Penury In late February, the World Bank staff prepared a background paper for the Group of 20 (G-20)
finance ministers meeting held near London on March 13 and 14. Entitled "Swimming Against the Tide: How Developing Countries
Are Coping with the Global Crisis," it provides a preliminary assessment of the meltdown's impact on low-income countries (LICs).
The picture, though still hazy, is one of deepening gloom. Most LICs were shielded from the initial impact of the sudden blockage in
private capital flows because they have such limited access to such markets. "But while slower to emerge," the report notes, "the
impact of the crisis on LICs has been no less significant as the effects have spread through other channels." For example, "many LIC
governments rely on disproportionately on revenue from commodity exports, the prices of which have declined sharply along with
global demand." Likewise, foreign direct investment is falling, particularly in the natural resource sectors. On top of this, remittances
from immigrants in the wealthier countries to their families back home have dropped, erasing an important source of income to poor
communities. Add all this up, and it's likely that "the slowdown in growth will likely deepen the deprivation of the existing poor." In
many LICs, moreover, "large numbers of people are clustered just above the poverty line and are therefore particularly vulnerable to
economic volatility and temporary slowdowns." As the intensity of the crisis grows, more and more of these people will lose their jobs
or their other sources of income (such as those all-important remittances) and so be pushed from above the poverty line to beneath it.
The resulting outcome: "The economic crisis is projected to increase poverty by around 46 million people in 2009."
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
5/53
GLOBAL ECON COLLAPSE BAD (RACISM)
Poor economic conditions cause racism
Progressive 92 (January, p. 7)
That racist and anti-Semitic appeals are more popular during times of economic decline is nothing new; Such demagoguery is an
old and dishonorable tradition in Europe as well as in America. When people are desperate, they will seek out any politician
offering a scapegoat.
Economic decline cause hate crimes
Kim 93 [Marlene, Prof of Labor Studies at Rutgers University, 1993 p. viii]
In addition, anti-immigration sentiment, like hate crimes, ignites when economic times are tough. During the Great Depression
of 1930s, lynchings of African Americans increased and 300,000 Mexican Americans were forcibly bussed back across the
border. Over a hundred years ago, the US prohibited Chinese and later all Asians from immigrating, sanctions that were not
lifted until the 1940s
Economic decline turns racism
New York Times 90 [October 24, Section A; Page 24; Column 4; Editorial Desk]
The emancipation of the slaves did not lead directly to segregation, as it should have if American society was primarily and
fundamentally racist. Rather, segregation arose in response to a threatening biracial political challenge from black and white
farmers in the 1890's to the white elite -- which capitulated to racism after paternalism failed. Segregation collapsed in the face of a
civil rights movement sustained by post-World War II prosperity, while racism is now resurgent in an era of economic decline.
This oversimplified summary is meant to document the assertion that racism has been and continues to be fostered by competition
for limited resources, that is, it is primarily a class issue. It can best be fought by policies for economic and, hence, social justice.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
6/53
GLOBAL ECON COLLAPSE BAD (WAR)
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
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
7/53
U.S. ECON COLLAPSE BAD (COMPETITIVENESS)
Continued decline hurts US competitiveness
Porteous 9 <Bruce (Head of Financial Risk with Standard Life Bank, degree in Mathematical Statistics from Edinburgh University,
PhD in Mathematical Statistics from Cambridge University, business exposure in Marketing, Corporate Finance, Corporate
Development, International Development and Risk Management experience in life insurance, retail banking, health insurance and
asset management financial services sectors, international M & A corporate restructuring experience, The Plain Truth, “Will There Be
a Global Economic Collapse or Recovery,” May 30, 2009, http://plaintruthmagazine.blogspot.com/2009/05/will-there-be-globaleconomic-collapse.html>
One of the results of the current economic crisis is that the Anglo-Saxon Governments no longer have revenue to support their
expensive welfare programs; just at the time when there are the greatest financial demands being placed on them. An aging
population, escalating health-care costs, growing unemployment is blowing out government budgets, causing unsustainable deficits.
Meanwhile the Asian countries, not burdened with such extravagant welfare programs, have been able to use taxation revenue to
invest into developing their domestic economies. As a result the Anglo-Saxon nations have become less competitive in the global
market-place than the Asian economies. Added to this, the lack of domestic savings by the Anglo-Saxon nations has made them
dependent on borrowing from those countries that have large current account surpluses, causing them to slip further behind in
maintaining the standard of living that their people still expect to enjoy.
The end result has been a gradual break-down of the social fabric of western society till today they are crime-ridden, diseased, overindulgent, debt-ridden and self-destructive. The Anglo-Saxon nations are now so heavily indebted to their overseas creditors, that even
an increased amount of export revenues would not enable them to service their external debts. However with falling exports and large
current deficits, it is only a matter of time before they slide into bankruptcy, unless they are able to operate with a current account to
service and repay their international debts. The flow of US dollars into Asia has enabled their economies to obtain the capital to
finance their domestic growth and accumulate overseas reserves. In turn, lending their surplus capital back to the Anglo-Saxon nations
has allowed these countries to obtain the financing to purchase more imports from Asia. This arrangement has worked well up to now
for all concerned, but is not sustainable. However, it is proving very difficult for the Anglo nations to expand exports to the rest of the
world during a global economic recession which is causing a lack of overseas export markets for their goods and services.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
8/53
U.S. ECON COLLAPSE BAD (DISEASE SPREAD)
Economic decline leads to disease spread
Alexander 9 [Brian, Staff Writer, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29599786]
To most Americans, diseases with names like dengue fever, chikungunya, malaria, Chagas and leishmaniasis might sound like
something out of a Victorian explorer’s tales of hacking through African jungles. Yet ongoing epidemics of these diseases are
killing millions of people around the world. Now, disease experts are increasingly concerned these and other infections may
become as familiar in the United States as West Nile or Lyme disease. Few believe Americans face a killer epidemic from tropical
diseases. But scientists who specialize in emerging infectious diseases say such illnesses may become more common here as the
economic downturn batters an already weakened public health system, creating environmental conditions conducive to infectious
diseases spread by insects or other animals. At the same time, such vector-borne diseases are capable of spreading around the
world much more rapidly due to massive south-to-north immigration, rapid transportation, and global trade.
Economic decline causes disease spread
Robertson 9 [Dr Andrew, Physician, June 12th, http://www.physorg.com/news163993567.html]
There are concerns that the financial crisis has already hit tuberculosis control, which has global ramifications, says
Robertson.“There are already indications that funding for TB diagnosis and management is decreasing in developing countries and
a surge of new cases there may flow onto the US and other countries,” he says.Healthcare in developed countries will also suffer if
budgets are cut and incomes fall. Fewer people are accessing private health services in the USA, which will increase the burden on
public health services.Resources for disease surveillance are often cut back during difficult economic times, jeopardising the
systems we rely on to identify and deal with emerging diseases - including the current swine flu epidemics.The 1995 economic
crisis in Mexico led to 27,000 excess deaths in that country alone - but the effect of this far greater, global downturn is currently
“impossible to quantify,” according to Robertson.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
9/53
U.S. ECON COLLAPSE BAD (HEG)
Econ decline turns hegemony
Chicago Tribune 9 (“Realities and Obama's diplomacy” By Robert A. Pape) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chiperspec0308diplomacymar08,0,4785661.story
For nearly two decades, the U.S. has been viewed as a global hegemon—vastly more powerful than any major country in the
world. Since 2000, however, our global dominance has fallen dramatically. During the Bush administration, the self-inflicted
wounds of the Iraq war, growing government debt, increasingly negative current account balances and other internal economic
weaknesses cost the U.S. real power in a world of rapidly spreading knowledge and technology. Simply put, the main legacy of the
Bush years has been to leave the U.S. as a declining power. From Rome to the United States today, the rise and fall of great
nations have been driven primarily by economic strength. At any given moment, a state's power depends on the size and quality of
its military forces and other power assets. Over time, however, power is a result of economic strength—the prerequisite for
building and modernizing military forces. And so the size of the economy relative to potential rivals ultimately determines the
limits of power in international politics. The power position of the U.S. is crucial to the foreign policy aims that it can achieve.
Since the Cold War, America has maintained a vast array of overseas commitments, seeking to ensure peace and stability not just
in its own neighborhood, the Western hemisphere, but also in Europe, Asia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Maintaining these
commitments requires enormous resources, but American leaders in recent years chose to pursue far more ambitious goals than
merely maintaining the status quo.
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
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
10/53
U.S. ECON COLLAPSE BAD (SOUTH KOREAN ECONOMY)
A. US economic instability massively affects South Korea’s economy
BBC 8 [September 17, Lexis]
Seoul, Sept. 17 (Yonhap) - South Korea's top central banker said Wednesday the bank will make efforts to provide liquidity at an
appropriate time following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. On Monday, Lehman Brothers, once America's
fourth-largest investment bank, filed for bankruptcy protection after amassing debts worth $60US billion caused by soured real
estate holdings. The demise of Lehman sent shockwaves across global markets, with South Korea's key stock index tumbling 6.1
per cent to an 18-month low on Tuesday. On the same day, the local currency also plunged to a 49-month low against the US
dollar on deepening woes over economic instability following the collapse of Lehman. "The central bank will spare no effort to
supply liquidity at the right time by buying government bonds directly from the market if needed," Bank of Korea (BOK) Gov.
Lee Seong-tae told the National Assembly. His remarks came one day after the BOK said it would inject dollars into the domestic
won-dollar swap market if necessary, in a potential move to calm market turmoil. South Korea's financial watchdog said earlier in
the day that local financial markets "overreacted" to the collapse of Lehman Brothers on Tuesday, adding that South Korean
firms have enough capacity to cope with overseas instability. "US financial market jitters could affect the South Korean market
temporarily. But local financial firms have enough capacity to cope with overseas instability, and the impact (of the Lehman
demise) should be limited in the local market," Kim Yong-hwan, standing commissioner of the Financial Services Commission
(FSC), told a radio programme.
B. South Korean economic decline causes a destabilizing East Asian arms race and nuclear conflict.
Corey Richardson, Washington-based analyst who covered East Asian security issues as a presidential management fellow with the
US Department of Defense, 9/6/2006, Asia Times, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HI09Dg02.html
A Korea faced with an economic dilemma of such magnitude would find maintaining its conventional military forces at current
levels impossible. At the same time, it would feel more vulnerable than ever, even with US security assurances. For a nation
paranoid about the possibility of outside influence or military intervention, strapped for cash, and obsessed about its position in
the international hierarchy, the obvious route might be to either incorporate North Korean nuclear devices (if they actually exist),
or build their own, something South Korean technicians could easily accomplish. North Korea, after all, has set the example for
economically challenged nations looking for the ultimate in deterrence. One might argue that clear and firm US security
guarantees for a reunified Korea would be able to dissuade any government from choosing the nuclear option. If making
decisions based purely on logic the answer would be probably yes. Unfortunately, the recent Korean leadership has established a
record of being motivated more by emotional and nationalistic factors than logical or realistic ones. Antics over Dokdo and the
Yasukuni Shrine and alienating the US serve as examples. But the continuation of the "Sunshine Policy" tops those. Instead of
admitting they've been sold a dead horse, the Roh administration continued riding the rotting and bloated beast known as the
Sunshine Policy, until all that are left today are a pile of bones, a bit of dried skin, and a few tufts of dirty hair. Roh, however, is
still in the saddle, if not as firmly after North Korea's recent missile tests. Japan must then consider its options in countering an
openly nuclear, reunified Korea without USFK. Already building momentum to change its constitution to clarify its military, it's
not inconceivable that Japan would ultimately consider going nuclear to deter Korea. As in South Korea, there is no
technological barrier preventing Japan from building nuclear weapons. While the details of the race and escalation of tensions
can vary in any number of ways and are not inevitable, that an arms race would occur is probable. Only the perception of threat
and vulnerability need be present for this to occur. East Asia could become a nuclear powder keg ready to explode over
something as childish as the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute between Korea and Japan, a Diaoyu/Senkakus dispute between China and
Japan, or the Koguryo dispute between Korea and China.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
11/53
U.S. ECON COLLAPSE BAD (TERROR)
Economic decline causes terrorism --- increases recruitment and tech
Washington Quarterly 9 (“Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”, April,
http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Burrows.pdf)
In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as
resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle
East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of
technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist
groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational structures,
command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent
collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that
would become narrower in an economic downturn.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
12/53
U.S. ECON COLLAPSE BAD (WAR)
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
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the
front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe.
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 300year 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.
Economic collapse causes nuclear war- extinction
Broward 9 ((Member of Triond) http://newsflavor.com/opinions/will-an-economic-collapse-kill-you/ AD: 7-7-09 )ET
Now its time to look at the consequences of a failing world economy. With five offical nations having nuclear weapons, and four more
likely to have them there could be major consequences of another world war. The first thing that will happen after an economic
collapse will be war over resources. The United States currency will become useless and will have no way of securing reserves. The
United States has little to no capacity to produce oil, it is totatlly dependent on foreign oil. If the United States stopped getting foreign
oil, the government would go to no ends to secure more, if there were a war with any other major power over oil, like Russia or China,
these wars would most likely involve nuclear weapons. Once one nation launches a nuclear weapon, there would of course be
retaliation, and with five or more countries with nuclear weapons there would most likely be a world nuclear war. The risk is so high
that acting to save the economy is the most important issue facing us in the 21st century.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
13/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH BAD (ENVIRONMENT)
On the brink of total environmental catastrophe – change in growth patterns allows the environmental movement to take root
and solve extinction*
Shekhar 9 Manisha, 1/30, Professor in the Research Department of Electronics and Communications @ Centre for Strategic Analysis & Research Dept, Environment does not allow
further economic growth in the world?, http://www.ecommerce-journal.com/articles/12807_environment_does_not_allow_further_economic_growth_in_the_world
The world is currently facing an unprecedented health and environmental Crisis. Despite progress in both the health and the environment
fields, the situation is approaching the brink of global disaster . So extensive and far-reaching are the problems that the future wellbeing of
humanity, together with that of many other life forms on the planet, is in jeopardy. On one level, individuals and communities—especially
those who are poorest, most marginalized and suffering the most discrimination are facing the direct consequences of local environmental destruction, which often
result from exploitative business practices and destructive development projects. Those who are worst off pay with their health for the destruction of their local
environment. On another level, people all over the world are beginning to be affected by regional and global environmental changes.
These drastic environmental problems, e.g. the changing climate and the depletion of the ozone layer, are mainly the result of
unsustainable lifestyles, over consumption and unhealthy patterns of development. Also these environmental problems are likely to hit
the poor and marginalized first—and with the most drastic consequences—but will sooner or later also affect the privileged. Unless curbed (through wide
ranging, structural changes) these global environmental trends threaten to cause havoc to whole ecosystems and essential lifesupporting systems. This may in turn lead to an immense, unprecedented crisis for the whole of humanity . It is thus of utmost relevance
for everyone involved in the People’s Health Assembly to understand the links and interconnections between health, the environment as well as underlying factors
such as social, political and economic structures which determine the current patterns of development. Ultimately, the health and environment crisis relates to
issues of social justice. Analyzing health in an ecological and environmental framework calls for a broad, intersect oral, holistic understanding of health. It shows
how many of the pressing health and environmental problems of today share the same root causes and the same barriers to being effectively tackled and solved. It
encourages a long-term perspective on health and its future challenges. And it provides, through the experiences of the environmental movement, exciting
examples of how people—or ‘civil society’—can successfully influence current thinking and policies. To achieve
environmentally sustainable societies will require drastic changes in the current world order and the formulation of alternative
ways of thinking. Within the environmental movement there is a huge wealth of ideas, experience and visions of what an
alternative—just, environmentally sustainable and people-oriented—society would look like. The health movement can draw on this
experience while, on the other hand, influencing the environmental movement to incorporate human health into their analyses and actions. A closer integration of
the health and environmental movements is essential to counter the present environmentally destructive and exploitative course of development. In order to
solve the current crisis, both humans and the environment must be taken into full account.
Growth leads to environmental collapse and disease epidemics
Shekhar 9 Manisha, 1/30, Professor in the Research Department of Electronics and Communications @ Centre for Strategic Analysis & Research Dept, Environment does not allow
further economic growth in the world?, http://www.ecommerce-journal.com/articles/12807_environment_does_not_allow_further_economic_growth_in_the_world
Throughout time, environmental problems have been some of the most important factors affecting people’s health , both on the individual
and the community level. Floods, plagues and the environmental consequences of war have continuously led to ill health and premature death. However, as the
scale of human societies has steadily increased and technology has developed ever faster, the pressure on the environment has
likewise increased enormously. Fuelled, by a runaway global economic system—which has created both unprecedented affluence
(over consumption) and enormous levels of poverty —environmental deterioration now threaten to increase inequalities and cause
irreversible harm to ecosystems on a global scale. While many environmental problems remain immediate, local problems whose causes may be
relatively easy to understand and for which solutions can be identified (although not necessarily easy to implement), many others are incredibly complex and
difficult to handle. These involve much uncertainty, affect whole continents or even the whole earth, and are the combined result of millions or billions of people’s
behaviors. They are often deeply embedded in societal structures maintained by powerful interests. Even worse, many of the current problems cause irreversible
damage, so we cannot afford to make certain mistakes even once! Moreover, there may be a considerable time lag between the harmful action and the visible
effects. The history of the environment is partly a story of unpredictable, unexpected problems. Often, environmental abuses are absorbed until a
threshold is crossed and a catastrophe results. At this stage it may be too late, or more costly, to reverse the damage. There is no reason to believe that
the future does not have new unpleasant surprises in store. Environmental threats to health Degradation of the environment threatens health both directly and
indirectly; and both immediately and in the long term. The environmental problems we most easily observe are those with immediate and direct effects. People—
and mostly the poorest and the marginalized—get sick from drinking polluted water, eat contaminated food, suffer from exposure to polluted air and poisonous
chemicals, and spend much of their time in harmful working conditions. People’s health suffers in immediate and indirect ways from, for example, food shortages
caused by the environmental degradation of both farmland and forests. Environmental refugees—people who have been forced to leave their homes because of the
destruction of their local environment—often suffer severe hardships and are prone to ill health. Many people are also being killed or maimed in wars fought over
scarce natural resources. Accidents resulting from environmentally induced natural disasters, such as floods caused by the destruction of forests, are another
example of the immediate and indirect effects of environmental degradation. Many environmental threats to health have direct, long-term (delayed delayed) effects
about which awareness may be slow to develop. For example, cancer is increasing rapidly in all areas of the world, largely as a result of exposure to pesticides,
carcinogenic chemical substances included in the goods we consume, and increased exposure to various forms of radiation. These threats concern every person on
the planet, although we might not even know what is making us sick and where it is coming from. Toxic substances accumulate in our bodies and are
mixed in new and potentially lethal ways. Health may result several decades after exposure. Yet, the possible indirect effects of environmental change in the long term
may pose some of the most alarming threats to human health. The disturbance of the world’s climate due to enhanced global warming is already
underway, and may cause severe damage to health. Droughts and floods could kill millions of people and introduce new
epidemics. New scarcity of valuable resources might increase tensions and lead to drastic increases in wars and violent conflicts.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
14/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH BAD (EXTINCTION)
Immediate collapse is the only way to save humanity – otherwise growth will destroy the planet. Things like environmental
collapse assumes the benefits of growth
Dr. Glen Barry 08. Dr. Glen, president and founder of Ecological Internet. [Economic Collapse and Global Ecology]
http://www.countercurrents.org/barry140108.htm
Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only in times of
rapid economic growth. Yet this growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. The
growth machine has pushed the planet well beyond its ecological carrying capacity, and unless constrained, can only lead to human
extinction and an end to complex life. With every economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States, it becomes
more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological sustainability will be embraced. This essay explores the
possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global ecological, economic and social sustainability; it would be
better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later. Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as
its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up fossil fuels and
destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep
connection. Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to failure. Humanity has proven itself
unwilling and unable to address climate change and other environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action on coal,
forests, population, renewable energy and emission reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the economy. Yet, the losers -primarily fossil fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not dependent upon their deadly products.
Perpetual economic growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible. Global ecological
sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural
capital. Whole industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities emerge in solar energy and
environmental restoration This critical transition to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not happening on any scale.
The challenge is how to carry out necessary environmental policies even as economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The
natural response is going to be liquidation of even more life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate policies, to vainly try to
maintain high growth and personal consumption. We know that humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over
coming decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained during years of economic downturns,
resource wars, reasonable demands for equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in some places? If efforts
to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is assured.
Bright greens take the continued existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all species including humans as
the ultimate truth and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible in a time of economic collapse is crucially dependent upon whether
enough ecosystems and resources remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies.
It may be better for the Earth and humanity's future that economic collapse comes sooner rather than later, while more ecosystems and
opportunities to return to nature's fold exist. Economic collapse will be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African
famine. There will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil. Many will be killed as balance returns to
the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food and that their identity is more than what they own. Yet there is some justice,
in that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier time of it, even as those super-consumers living in massive
cities finally learn where their food comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life. Economic collapse now means humanity and
the Earth ultimately survive to prosper again. Human suffering -- already the norm for many, but hitting the currently materially
affluent -- is inevitable given the degree to which the planet's carrying capacity has been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most
away from societal strife of a much greater magnitude as the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter medicine now, and
recover while emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
15/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH BAD (RESOURCE WARS)
Economic growth ensures famine through resource depletion—this will spark global resource wars.
Milbrath 89 (Lester, Professor Emeritus of Political science and Sociology at SUNY-Buffalo, Envisioning a Sustainable Society, pp.
343-344, AD: 7-6-9)
Trying to solve our nested set of ecological/economic problems only with technological fixes is like treating an organic failure
with a bandage. The key difficulties, which will be ignored by that strategy are that biospheric systems will change their patterns
and there will be an increasing squeeze on resources. As global human population continues to grow, and these new people
demand economic growth to fulfill their needs, there will be unbearable pressure for resources. Soils will be depleted. Farmland
will be gobbled up into urban settlements. Water will become scarce, more polluted, and very high priced. Forests will be depleted
faster than they can regenerate. Wilderness will nearly disappear. The most easily extracted mineral deposits will be exhausted.
We will search the far corners of the globe, at very high economic and environmental cost, for more minerals and possible
substitutes for those that are being depleted. Fossil fuels, especially petroleum, will constantly diminish in supply and rise in price.
Worst of all, biospheric systems will react to our interference by no longer working the way we have counted on. International
competition for scarce mineral and fuel resources could become intense and bloody. The highly developed nations are likely to try
using their money and/or military power to garner the bulk of the resources for their own use. (It is difficult to imagine that a big
power would allow its supply of critical fuels or minerals to be cut off without putting up a fight.) At best, those actions will only
postpone the inevitable adjustment. The poorest nations (usually those with the densest populations) will be unable to maintain
even subsistence levels—they are likely to suffer widespread famine and disease. All of this frantic activity will have devastating
impacts on the ecosphere. Climate change will debilitate every ecosystem and economy. Ultraviolet radiation will increase, as will
acid rain and toxic poisoning of our air, soil, and water. In addition, we can expect more and more soil depletion, loss of crop land,
mismanagement of water resources, oil spills, devastating accidents (Bhopal, Chernobyl), deforestation, spreading deserts,
extinction of species, loss of wildlife, and air and water pollution. With disrupted biospheric systems and severe resource
shortages, I cannot imagine that it will be possible to sustain growth in material throughput. We may be able to grow in
nonmaterial ways (increasing knowledge, artistic output, games, and so forth), but material growth cannot continue. Our endeavor
not to change will have failed to forestall change; instead, we will become victims of change.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
16/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH BAD (TERRORISM)
Growth causes terrorism.
Ted Trainer, 2002. Senior Lecturer at the School of Social Work, University of New South Wales. “If You Want Affluence, Prepare
for War,” Democracy & Nature 8.2, Ebsco.
Again, there is an extensive literature documenting these and many other cases.43 Herman and O’Sullivan present a table showing
that in recent decades the overwhelming majority of terrorist actions, measured by death tolls, have been carried out by Western states.
‘State terror has been immense, and the West and it’s clients have been the major agents.’44 Any serious student of international
relations or US foreign policy will be clearly aware of the general scope and significance of the empire that rich countries operate, and
of the human rights violations, the violence and injustice this involves. Rich world ‘living standards’, corporate prosperity, comfort
and security could not be sustained at anywhere near current levels without this empire, nor without the oppression, violence and
military activity that keep in place conventional investment, trade and development policies. It should therefore be not in the least
surprising that several hundred million people more or less hate the rich Western nations. This is the context in which events like those
of 11 September must be understood. It is surprising that the huge and chronic injustice, plunder, repression and indifference evident
in the global economic system has not generated much greater hostile reaction from the Third World, and more eagerness to hit back
with violence. This is partly explained by the fact that it is in the interests of Third World rulers to acquiesce in conventional
development strategies.
The impact is extinction.
Yonah Alexander, Inter-University for Terrorism Studies Director and Professor, WASHINGTON TIMES, August 28, 2003, p. A20.
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
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
17/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH BAD (WAR)
Growth leads to great power conflict
Sachs 8 Jeffrey, Professor of Sustainable Development, A User’s Guide to the Century,
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=18682
THE NEW world order is therefore crisis prone. The existence of rapidly emerging regional powers, including Brazil, China and
India, can potentially give rise to conflicts with the United States and Europe. The combination of rapid technological diffusion
and therefore convergent economic growth, coupled with the natural-resource constraints of the Anthropocene, could trigger
regional-scale or global-scale tensions and conflicts. China’s rapid economic growth could turn into a strenuous, even hot,
competition with the United States over increasingly scarce hydrocarbons in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. Conflicts
over water flow in major and already-contested watersheds (among India, Bangladesh and Pakistan; China and Southeast Asia;
Turkey, Israel, Iraq and Jordan; the countries of the Nile basin; and many others) could erupt into regional conflicts.
Disagreements over management of the global commons—including ocean fisheries, greenhouse gases, the Arctic’s newly
accessible resources, species extinctions and much more—could also be grounds for conflict.
Economic Upswings statistically cause wars – 71% see great power wars and correlation is even stronger
Goldstein 85 (Joshua S, Poli Sci @ MIT, International Studies Quarterly vol. 29, No. 4, Dec 1985,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600380, p. 421- 423) ET
Columns 5 and 6 show the incidence ofwar years during upswings and downswings- column 5 measuring as a war year any year in
which a great power war was in progress; column 6 measuring only years in which very major wars were in progress. The first
measure matches the upswing/downswing pattern from 1595 on, except for two periods (1747-1761 and 1917-1939). Overall, 71
percent of the upswing years saw great power wars in progress, as compared with 50 percent of the downswing year The correlation is
stronger for the incidence of very major wars (column 6). There were no wars this severe before 1595, but after 1595 the
upswing/downswing pattern matches the ups and downs of war incidence with only one exception (1917-1939 slightly higher than
1893-1916). Of the upswing years, 40 percent saw very major great power war in progress, as compared with only 6 percent of the
downswing years
These will be nuclear
Goldstein, 85 [Joshua, International studies quarterly, v29, n4, p411-444, “Kondratieff Waves as War Cycles,” jstor]
First, the incidence of great power war is declining-more and more 'peace' years separate the great power wars. Second, and related, the great power wars are
becoming shorter. Third, however, those wars are becoming more severe-annual fatalities during war increasing more than a hundredfold over the five centuries. Fourth (and more tentatively), the war cycle may be gradually lengthening in each successive era, from about 40
years in the first era to about 60 years in the third. The presence of nuclear weapons has continued these trends in great power war from the
past five centuries-any great power wars in this era will likely be fewer, shorter and much more deadly.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
18/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH BAD (WARMING)
Economic growth fuels climate change- root cause
Godhaven 9 (Merrick, staff writer, Organic Consumers assocociation, http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18583.cfm ,
7.15.10)
Technology is part of the solution to climate change. But only part. Techno-fixes like some of those in the Guardian's Manchester
Report simply cannot deliver the carbon cuts science demands of us without being accompanied by drastic reductions in our
consumption. That means radical economic and social transformation. Merely swapping technologies fails to address the root
causes of climate change. We need to choose the solutions that are the cheapest, the swiftest, the most effective and least likely to
incur dire side effects. On all counts, there's a simple answer - stop burning the stuff in the first place. Consume less. There is a
certain level of resources we need to survive, and beyond that there is a level we need in order to have lives that are comfortable
and meaningful. It is far below what we presently consume. Americans consume twice as much oil as Europeans. Are they twice
as happy? Are Europeans half as free? Economic growth itself is not a measure of human well-being, it only measures things with
an assessed monetary value. It values wants at the same level as needs and, while it purports to bring prosperity to the masses, its
tendency to concentrate profit in fewer and fewer hands leaves billions without the necessities of a decent life. Techno-fixation
masks the incompatibility of solving climate change with unlimited economic growth. Even if energy consumption can be reduced
for an activity, ongoing economic growth eats up the improvement and overall energy consumption still rises. We continue
destructive consumption in the expectation that new miracle technologies will come and save us.
And, continued accelerated climate change will annihilate humanity
Tickel 8 (Oliver, , Climate Researcher. The Gaurdian, 8-11-2008 “”,
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.
Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a fourdegree 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
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
19/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH BAD – AT: GROWTH INEVITABLE
Growth isn’t inevitable – the recession provides the perfect time to transition – the world understands that growth led us to
economic downturn
Fletcher 9 (Nick, 3-30-9, Prosperity without growth”, The worlds resources, http://www.stwr.org/economic-sharingalternatives/prosperity-without-growth-transition-to-a-sustainable-economy.html)
The pursuit of economic growth was one of the root causes of the financial crisis, and governments should respond to the recession
by abandoning growth at all costs in favour of a more sustainable, greener system, says a report out today. Before this week's G20
summit, the Sustainable Development Commission, an independent adviser to the government, says the developed world's reliance
on debt to fuel its relentless growth has created an unstable system that has made individuals, families and communities vulnerable
to cycles of boom and bust. The benefits of growth have also been delivered unequally, with a fifth of the world's population
earning only 2% of global income. Inreased consumption also has disastrous environmental consequences, including the
degradation of some 60% of the world's ecosystems. According to the SDC, the global economy is almost five times larger than it
was 50 years ago, and if it continues to grow at the same rate it would be 80 times larger by the end of the century. "Faced with
the current recession, it is understandable that many leaders at the G20 summit will be anxious to restore business as usual," said
Professor Tim Jackson, economics commissioner at the SDC. "But governments really need to take a long, hard look at the effects
of our single-minded devotion to growth - effects which include the recession itself. "It may seem inopportune to be questioning
growth while we are faced with daily news of the effects of recession, but allegiance to growth is the most dominant feature of an
economic and political system that has led us to the brink of disaster. Not to stand back now and question what has happened
would be to compound failure with failure: failure of vision with failure of responsibility. Figuring out how to deliver prosperity
without growth is more essential now than ever." The report - called Prosperity without growth? - calls on governments to develop
a sustainable economic system that does not rely on ever-increasing consumption. The SDC's proposals to achieve this include:
improving financial and fiscal prudence, as well as giving priority to investment in public assets and infrastructure over private
affluence; allowing individuals to flourish by tackling inequality, sharing available work, improving work-life balance and
reversing the culture of consumerism; and establishing ecological limits on economic activity. The report concludes: "The clearest
message from the financial crisis is that our current model of economic success is fundamentally flawed. For the advanced
economies of the western world, prosperity without growth is no longer a utopian dream. It is a financial and ecological necessity."
The recession has caused the “zero growth” idea to be pushed into politics – the transition would be feasible now
Jackson 9 (Tim, Prosperity without growth, Sustainable development commission, 3-26-9, http://www.sdcommission.org.uk/pages/redefining-prosperity.html)
The economy is geared, above all, to economic growth. Economic policy in the current recession is all about returning to growth –
but an economic crisis can be an opportunity for some basic rethinking and restructuring. Two objectives other than growth –
sustainability and wellbeing – have moved up the political and policy-making agenda in recent years, challenging the overriding
priority traditionally given to economic growth. SDC's "Redefining Prosperity" project has looked into the connections and
conflicts between sustainability, growth, and wellbeing. As part of a two year programme of work, we commissioned thinkpieces,
organised seminars, and invited feedback. This project has now resulted in a major SDC report: 'Prosperity without Growth?: the
transition to a sustainable economy' by Professor Tim Jackson, SDC’s Economics Commissioner. Prosperity without growth?
analyses the relationship between growth and the growing environmental crisis and 'social recession'. In the last quarter of a
century, while the global economy has doubled, the increased in resource consumption has degraded an estimated 60% of the
world’s ecosystems. The benefits of growth have been distributed very unequally, with a fifth of the world’s population sharing
just 2% of global income. Even in developed countries, huge gaps remain in wealth and well-being between rich and poor. While
modernising production and reducing the impact of certain goods and services have led to greater resource efficiency in recent
decades, our report finds that current aspirations for 'decoupling' environmental impacts from economic growth are unrealistic. The
report finds no evidence as yet of decoupling taking place on anything like the scale or speed which would be required to avoid
increasing environmental devastation. Prosperity without growth? proposes twelve steps towards a sustainable economy and
argues for a redefinition of "prosperity" in line with evidence about what contributes to people’s wellbeing. SDC intends to
generate discussion and debate on the challenges on the issues that Prosperity without Growth? raises. We have sent the report to
the Prime Minister, government leaders in the devolved administrations, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other government
ministers, as well as business and civil society leaders.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
20/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD (DE-DEVELOPMENT)
Economic growth critical to resistance and positive moral economic revolution
Friedman 6 (Benjamin, prof of political econ @ Harvard U,
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/friedman/files/The%20Moral%20Consequences%20of%20Economic%20Growth.pdf, February 6, AD: 7/6/09)
Greater affluence means, among many other things, better food, bigger houses, more travel, and improved medical care. It means that more people can afford
a better education. It may also mean, as it did in most Western countries during the twentieth century, a shorter work-week that allows more time for family and
friends. Moreover, these material benefits of rising incomes accrue not only to individuals and their families but to communities and
even to entire countries. Greater affluence can also mean better schools, more parks and museums, and larger concert halls and sports arenas, not to mention
more leisure to enjoy these public facilities. A rising average income allows a country to project its national interest abroad, or send a man to the moon. All these
advantages, however, lie chiefly in the material realm, and we have always been reluctant to advance material concerns to the highest plane in our value system.
Praise for the ascetic life, and admiration for those who practice self-denial have been continual themes in the religions of both West and East. So, too, have
warnings about the dangers to man’s spiritual wellbeing that follow from devotion to money and luxury, or, in some views, merely from wealth itself. Even the
aristocratic and romantic traditions, which rest on the clear presumption of having wealth, are nonetheless dismissive of efforts to pursue it. Furthermore, even
when people plainly acknowledge that more is more, less is less, and more is better, economic growth rarely means simply more.
The dynamic process that allows living standards to rise brings other changes as well. More is more, but more is also different. The
qualitative changes that accompany economic growth—including changes in work arrangements, in power structures, in our
relationship to the natural environment— have nearly always generated resistance. The anti-globalization protests in the streets of Seattle,
Genoa, and Washington, D.C., and even on the outskirts of Davos, reflect a long-standing line of thinking. the forces that create “the wealth of nations,” JeanJacques Rousseau instead admired the “noble savage, arguing that mankind’s golden age had occurred not only before industrialization but before the advent of
settled agriculture. Seventy-five years later, as prominent Victorians were hailing the “age of improvement,” Karl Marx observed the raw hardships that advancing
industrialization had imposed on workers and their families, and devised an economic theory of how matters might (and in his mind, would) become better,
together with a political program for bringing that supposedly better world into existence. Although Communism is now mostly a relic where it exists at all,
romantic socialism, combining strains of Marx and Rousseau, continues to attract adherents, as do fundamentalist movements that celebrate the presumed purity of
preindustrial society. The Club of Rome’s influential “Limits to Growth” report and the “Small is Beautiful” counterculture of the 1970s, the mounting
concerns over the impact on the environment of economic expansion, especially since the 1980s, and most recently the
antiglobalization movement mounted in opposition to the World Trade Organization and against foreign investment more
generally are all echoes of the same theme, which is thoroughly familiar today. Environmental concerns in particular have expanded from their
initial focus on the air and water to encompass noise pollution, urban congestion, and such fundamental issues as the depletion of nonrenewable resources and the
extinction of species. In recent years, the force of competition in global markets and the turmoil of an unsettled world financial system have inflicted visible
hardships on large numbers of people both in the developing world and in countries that are already industrialized, just as they have created opportunities and given
advancement to many others. As in the past, the plight of those who are affected adversely—Indonesians who faced higher food prices when their currency
plunged, Argentinians who found their savings blocked when the country’s banking system collapsed, textile workers throughout the developing world who cannot
compete with low-cost factory production in China—has led not only to calls for reform of the underpinnings of economic growth but to outright opposition.
What marks all these forms of resistance to the undesirable side effects of economic expansion or of the globalization of economic
growth is that, just as with earlier strands of religious thinking, in each case they are accompanied by a distinctly moral overtone.
Ever larger segments of our society accept that it is not just economically foolish but is morally wrong for one generation to use up
a disproportionate share of the world’s forests, or coal, or oil reserves, or to deplete the ozone or alter the earth’s climate by filling
the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. While pleas on behalf of biological diversity sometimes appeal to practical notions like the potential use of yet-tobe-discovered plants for medicinal purposes, we also increasingly question our moral right to extinguish other species. Opposition to the global spread of markets is
often couched as much in terms of the moral emptiness of consumerism as in the tangible hardships sometimes imposed by world competition and unstable
financial systems. But if a rising standard of living makes a society more open and tolerant and democratic, and perhaps also more
prudent on behalf of generations to come, then it is simply not true that moral considerations argue wholly against economic
growth. Growth is valuable not only for our material improvement but for how it affects our social attitudes and our political
institutions— in other words, our society’s moral character, in the term favored by the Enlightenment thinkers from whom so
many of our views on openness, tolerance, and democracy have sprung. The attitude of people toward themselves, toward their
fellow citizens, and toward their society as a whole is different when their living standard is rising from when it is stagnant or
falling. It is likewise different when they view their prospects and their children’s prospects with confidence as opposed to looking
ahead with anxiety or even fear. When the attitudes of the broad majority of citizens are shaped by a rising standard of living, over
time that difference usually leads to the positive development of—to use again the language of the Enlightenment— a society’s
moral character. Hence questions about economic growth are not a matter of material versus moral values. Yes, economic growth
often does have undesirable effects, such as the disruption of traditional cultures and damage to the environment, and yes, some of
these are a proper moral concerns that we are right to take into account. But economic growth bears social and political
consequences that are morally beneficial as well. Especially for purposes of evaluating different courses for public policy, it is
important that we take into account not only the familiar moral negatives but these moral positives as well.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
21/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD – DEMOCRACY
Economic decline causes multiple sites of state failure and democratic backsliding
Ferguson 9 Niall ,Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87 Issue 7/8,
July/aug 9) ET
Will this financial crisis make the world more dangerous as well as poorer? The answer is almost certainly yes. Apart from the
usual trouble spots -- Afghanistan, Congo, Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Somalia, and Sudan -- expect new outbreaks of
instability in countries we thought had made it to democracy. In Asia, Thailand may be the most vulnerable. At the end of 2007 it
reverted to democracy after a spell of military rule that was supposed to crack down on corruption. Within a year's time the country was in chaos, with
protesters blocking Bangkok's streets and the state banning the People's Power Party. In April 2009 the capital descended into anarchy as rival yellow-shirted
and red-shirted political factions battled with the military. Expect similar scenes in other emerging markets. Trouble has already begun in
Georgia and Moldova. Then there's Ukraine, where economic collapse threatens to trigger political disintegration. While President Viktor
Yushchenko leans toward Europe, his ally-turned-rival Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko favors a Russian orientation. Their differences reflect a widening
gap between the country's predominantly Ukrainian west and predominantly Russian east. Meanwhile, in Moscow, Putin talks menacingly of "ridding the
Ukrainian people of all sorts of swindlers and bribe-takers." The Crimean peninsula, with its ethnic Russian majority, is the part of the "Near Abroad" (the
former Soviet Union) that Putin most covets. January's wrangle over gas supplies to Western Europe may have been the first phase of a
Russian bid to destabilize, if not to break up, Ukraine. The world's increasing instability makes the United States seem more
attractive not only as a safe haven but also as a global policeman. Many people spent the years from 2001 to 2008 complaining
about U.S. interventions overseas. But if the financial crisis turns up the heat in old hot spots and creates new ones at either end
of Eurasia, the world may spend the next eight years wishing for more, not fewer, U.S. interventions.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
22/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE)
AND a bad economy turns domestic violence
ABC News 10/30/2010: Economy slows domestic violence progress.
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2010/10/30/20101030goodyear-shelter-director-economy-threatens-domesticviolence-progress.html
But shelters and other services for domestic violence victims have taken a hit from the economy.
Funding from government and private sources as well as individual donors has declined, forcing shelters and organizations to cut
staffing and trim programs. Domestic violence funding has been cut by about $3 million, or 25 percent, from the state budget in the
past 2 1/2 years, said Allie Bones, executive director of the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence. As a result, shelters "are
really getting down to the basics of what they can provide." Other resources that shelters connect residents with such as job and
housing assistance also have lost funding or been eliminated. The loss of those outside resources creates barriers for victims trying to
rebuild their lives independent of their abuser. "Domestic violence shelters are not . . . just a place to sleep and get food. They provide
services that help women and children and men who have been victims of domestic violence rebuild their lives and so they provide
critical life-saving services, and they have been impacted by these cuts," Bones said. "Having less resources available for victims puts
them in a situation where they might have to return to an abusive situation." If shelters and domestic violence programs continue to
lose resources, it could have a detrimental effect on the progress made in the past few years, Denial said. Resources need to be
restored or stabilized so "we can continue on in our efforts to provide this community with the resources necessary to help those who
are not safe in their homes," he said. Otherwise, "we'll find all those efforts being reversed, . . . leaving this community very much
vulnerable to a return to an epidemic level of violence and safety issues and concerns that we experienced 20 years ago," he said.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
23/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD (ENVIRONMENT)
Growth solves the environment
Panayotou 2k (Theodore, John Sawhill Lecturer in Environmental Policy, Faculty Associate at the Center for International
Development, member of Core Faculty of Sustainable Development, Faculty Fellow of the Environmental Economics Program at
Harvard University, “Economic Growth and the Environment”, Center for international Development at Harvard University, July,
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidwp/pdf/056.pdf)
At the other extreme, are those who argue that the fastest road to environmental improvement is along the path of economic growth:
with higher incomes comes increased demand for goods and services that are less material intensive, as well as demand for improved
environmental quality that leads to the adoption of environmental protection measures. As Beckerman puts it, “The strong correlation
between incomes, and the extent to which environmental protection measures are adopted, demonstrates that in the longer run, the
surest way to improve your environment is to become rich”.58 Some went as far as claiming that environmental regulation, by
reducing economic growth, may actually reduce environmental quality
Growth is key to the environment
Schoon 9 (Nick, editor of PrintWeek sister title The ENDS Report, “Why green growth is impossible”, ENDS Report, 4/1, lexis)
Growth is also treated as gospel by Britain's two great carbon-reduction barons, Lords Nicholas Stern and Adair Turner. In their
government-commissioned writings on how to tackle climate change, both see GDP growth as providing the resources required to
decarbonise the economy and invest in new infrastructure (ENDS Report 382, pp34-36 and 407, pp14-15). Both argue that in return
for a small lowering of the growth rate for a few decades, we can save ourselves from much heavier economic damage caused by
rampant climate change later on. This is the latest variation on a theme played by business people and politicians since the modern
environmental movement's birth in the 1970s. Only economic growth, they argued, can provide the resources to deal with
environmental problems. The conflict which green fundamentalists depicted between free market economies and planetary protection
was false. Environmental problems were far worse in poor, undeveloped countries and those with decrepit command economies. It is
a message that sounds more natural coming from business and the political right, but New Labour seized on it for its 'modernisation'
agenda. As the economy became more digital, knowledge-based, resource-efficient and 'weightless', environmental quality would
improve. There was no need to preach unpopular messages to voters about making do with less to save the Earth. During these days
of recession there is a new twist - saving the Earth can save the global economy. Leaders like Gordon Brown tell us that investment in
cutting carbon can help restore growth.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
24/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD (FAMINE)
Economic growth is the only solution to famine.
Mahder 8 (Ethiopian Development Website, “Addressing the root cause of famine and poverty in Ethiopia,” September 27, 2008,
http://mahder.com/pdf/Addressing_the_root_cause_of_famine_and_poverty_in_Ethiopia..pdf, AD: 7-6-9) BL
It is well established that there is a strong correlation between famine and economic development or growth. Economic growth
leads to development and reduction in poverty and famine. Real economic growth embracing and benefiting all the citizens of a
country produces safety mechanisms which are of vital importance in alleviating or avoiding displacements and live destruction
emanating from famine. The suffering and significant loss of lives resulting from persistent famines which are hitting Ethiopia
could not be avoided or even mitigated owing to the shrinking economy or increasing poverty in the country. On the other hand,
one can can not avoid but face the irony of Ethiopia failing to be self sufficient and feed its population despite possessing all the
potential to do so. Thus a critical examination of the major stumbling block or factor acting as a bottleneck and preventing the
country from eradicating or even coping with famine is necessary.
Economic development empirically averts famine.
Norberg 3 (Johan, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, In Defense of Global Capitalism, p. 33-34, AD: 7-6-9) BL
Such is the triumph of the “green revolution.” Higher-yield, more-resistant crops have been developed, at the same time as sowing,
irrigation, manuring, and harvesting methods have improved dramatically. New, efficient strains of wheat account for more than
75 percent of wheat production in the developing countries, and farmers there are estimated to have earned nearly $5 billion as a
result of the change. In southern India, the green revolution is estimated to have boosted farmers' real earnings by 90 percent and
those of landless peasants by 125 percent over 20 years. Its impact has been least in Africa, but even there the green revolution has
raised maize production per acre by between 10 and 40 percent. Without this revolution, it is estimated that world prices of wheat
and rice would be nearly 40 percent higher than they are today and that roughly another 2 percent of the world's children—children
who are now getting enough to eat—would have suffered from chronic malnourishment. Today's food problem has nothing to do
with overpopulation. Hunger today is a problem of access to the available knowledge and technology, to wealth, and to the secure
background conditions that make food production possible. Many researchers believe that if modern farming techniques were
applied in all the world's agriculture, we would already be able, here and now, to feed another billion or so people. 10 The
incidence of major famine disasters has also declined dramatically, largely as a result of the spread of democracy. Starvation has
occurred in states of practically every kind—communist regimes, colonial empires, technocratic dictatorships, and ancient tribal
societies. In all cases they have been centralized, authoritarian states that suppressed free debate and the workings of the market.
As Amartya Sen observes, there has never been a famine disaster in a democracy. Even poor democracies like India and Botswana
have avoided starvation, despite having a poorer food supply than many countries where famine has struck. By contrast,
communist states like China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, Ethiopia, and North Korea, as well as colonies like India under the
British Raj, have experienced starvation. This shows that famine is caused by dictatorship, not by food shortage. Famine is induced
by leaders destroying production and trade, making war, and ignoring the plight of the starving population. Sen maintains that
democracies are spared starvation for the simple reason that it is easily prevented if the rulers of a society wish to prevent it. Rulers
can refrain from impeding the distribution of food, and they can create jobs for people who would not be able to afford food
purchases in times of crisis. But dictators are under no pressure: they can eat their fill however badly off their people are, whereas
democratic leaders will be unseated if they fail to address food distribution problems. Additionally, a free press makes the general
public aware of the problems, so that they can be tackled in time. In a dictatorship, even the leaders may be deceived by
censorship. Much evidence suggests that China's leaders were reassured by their own propaganda and their subordinates' laundered
statistics while 30 million people died of starvation during “the Great Leap Forward” between 1958 and 1961. 11
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
25/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD (MORAL)
Growth is the only moral option available
Freidman 6 (Benjamin M, William Joseph Maier Professor of Political Economy at Harvard, “THE MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF
ECONOMIC GROWTH”, Society, January/February, http://www.springerlink.com/content/3q5kabxbuw28yql8/fulltext.pdf)
But if a rising standard of living makes a society more open and tolerant and democratic, and perhaps also more prudent on behalf of
generations to come, then it is simply not true that moral considerations argue wholly against economic growth. Growth is valuable
not only for our material improvement but for how it affects our social attitudes and our political institutions- in other words, our
society's moral character, in the term favored by the Enlightenment thinkers from whom so many of our views on openness, tolerance,
and democracy have sprung. The attitude of people toward themselves, toward their fellow citizens, and toward their society as a
whole is different when their living standard is rising from when it is stagnant or falling. It is likewise different when they view their
prospects and their children's prospects with confidence as opposed to looking ahead with anxiety or even fear. When the attitudes of
the broad majority of citizens are shaped by a rising standard of living, over time that difference usually leads to the positive
development of--to use again the language of the Enlightenment-- a society's moral character. Hence questions about economic growth
are not a matter of material versus moral values. Yes, economic growth often does have undesirable effects, such as the disruption of
traditional cultures and damage to the environment, and yes, some of these are a proper moral concerns that we are right to take into
account. But economic growth bears social and political consequences that are morally beneficial as well. Especially for purposes of
evaluating different courses for public policy, it is important that we take into account not only the familiar moral negatives but these
moral positives as well. It is no less essential to understand the proper relationship between public policies and private initiatives
regarding economic growth. Here, too, positive moral consequences of rising living standards significantly change the story
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
26/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD (OVERPOPULATION)
Economic growth solves population growth
Hollander 3 Jack, professor emeritus of Energy and Resources at the University of California, Berkeley, Oakland Tribune, ln
The picture is very different in the developing countries. Poverty itself is the environmental villain, and poor people are its victims.
One example is the population problem. An absolute requirement for a future sustainable environment is a stable global
population, yet traditionally the poorest countries produced explosive population- growth rates. The large families in these
countries were the result of high expected death rates from hunger, infectious diseases, contaminated water, lack of health care,
resources and education. Now, as income slowly rises in the developing countries, one can see the beginnings of a trend toward
population stability. In every country with per-capita annual income over $5,000 (1994 dollars), the fertility rate (average number
of children per woman) has dropped to the point where it is not higher than, and in some cases lower than, the minimum
replacement level (2.1 children per woman). Even in Sri Lanka, where per-capita income is under $1,000, the fertility rate is only
at replacement level.
Extinction
Otten 1 Edward Otten, Professor of Emergency Medicine and Pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati, 2000-2001,
http://www.ecology.org/biod/population/human_pop1.html
The exponential growth of the human population, making humans the dominant species on the planet, is having a grave impact on
biodiversity. This destruction of species by humans will eventually lead to a destruction of the human species through natural
selection. While human beings have had an effect for the last 50,000 years, it has only been since the industrial revolution that the
impact has been global rather than regional. This global impact is taking place through five primary processes: over harvesting,
alien species introduction, pollution, habitat fragmentation, and outright habit destruction.
And global wars
Ehrlich and Ehrlich 6 Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, faculty at Stanford University, 9-30-2006, New Scientist
Much of today's population growth is occurring in rural regions in the developing world, sparking tension both within and between
nations as increasing numbers of young people migrate to cities and to wealthier countries looking for a better life. In the US,
where large numbers of illegal immigrants enter the country in search of work, opinions on immigration are already sharply
divided. Western European nations have tended to accept limited immigration from developing countries as a way to augment their
workforce. Here too illegal immigration is increasingly a problem, as thousands of people flee overcrowded labour markets in poor
African and Asian countries in search of jobs. In many developing countries, numbers of young working-age people are rising by
up to 3 per cent per year. Dissatisfaction is inevitable where populations of mostly young people face high unemployment,
poverty, poor healthcare, limited education, inequity and repressive government. Revolutions and political unrest most often occur
in developing nations with growing populations. Unemployed, disaffected young men provide both public support and cannon
fodder for terrorism. The majority of terrorists behind 9/11 and attacks in Europe, for instance, have been young adult men. This is
also the demographic group responsible for most crime globally. Expanding populations also create rising demands for food,
energy and materials. The strain this puts on ecosystems and resources in developing countries is compounded by demands from
industrialised nations keen to exploit everything from timber and tropical fruits to metals and petroleum. Shortages of fresh water
are increasingly common, jeopardising food production among many other problems. Rising oil prices may now be signalling the
end of cheap energy, which also poses a threat to successful development. At the same time, mounting evidence of global warming
makes reducing fossil-fuel use imperative. If the 5 billion-plus people in developing nations matched the consumption patterns of
the 1.2 billion in the industrialized world, at least two more Earths would be needed to support everyone. Politicians and the public
seem utterly oblivious to what will be required to maintain crucial ecosystem services and an adequate food supply in the face of
rapid climate change and an accelerated loss of biodiversity. The future looks grim, unless patterns of consumption change - with
rich nations causing less environmental damage and poor ones consuming more, but adopting the newest, cleanest and most
efficient technologies for energy use and production of goods and services. It seems likely that by 2050 nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons of mass destruction will be in the hands of most nations and many subnational groups. Imagine a well-armed
world, still split between rich and poor, with unevenly distributed resources and a ravaged environment. Unless we act now, future
generations will not have to imagine.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
27/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD (POVERTY)
Growth solves poverty – US imports, credit, and commodity prices
Haass 8 [Richard. President of the Council on Foreign Relations. November 8,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122611110847810599.html]
The recession is sure to strengthen trade protectionism. This is a big setback, as trade offers the ideal noninflationary stimulus. It is
also a boon to developing countries, and one way to link countries in a web of dependencies that restrains nationalist impulses. The
combination of recession and no global trade accord will reduce U.S. imports, which in turn will slow growth around the world,
increasing poverty and straining political stability in many countries. Many countries are already suffering from slower growth,
much lower stock values, scarce credit and reduced exports. Others are reeling from lower commodity prices. We should not be
surprised when governments fail and societies suffer from violence.
Poverty outweighs nuclear war
Gilligan 96 James, professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, and a
member of the Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence. Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and
its Causes.. P. 191-196.
The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict.
Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political
violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those by genocide—or about eight
million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000) deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two
million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was clear that
even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on
the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year
period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated
on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral
violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to
which of the two forms of violence—structural or behavioral—is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are
inextricably related to each other, as cause to effect.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
28/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD (PROLIF)
Economic growth is the surest way to stop proliferation
Burrows & Windram 94 [William & Robert, Critical Mass, p. 491-2]
Economics is in many respects proliferation’s catalyst. As we have noted, economic desperation drives Russia and some of the
former Warsaw Pact nations to peddle weapons and technology. The possibility of considerable profits or at least balanced
international payments also prompts Third World countries like China, Brazil, and Israel to do the same. Economics, as well as
such related issues as overpopulation, drive proliferation just as surely as do purely political motives. Unfortunately, that subject is
beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that, all things being equal, well-of, relatively secure societies like today’s Japan
are less likely to buy or sell superweapon technology than those that are insecure, needy, or desperate. Ultimately, solving
economic problems, especially as they are driven by population pressure, is the surest way to defuse proliferation and enhance true
national security.
Economic affluence deters proliferation tendencies- North Korea proves
Japan Times 8 [October 23, Lexis]
South Korea, which is enjoying unprecedented prosperity, is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with North Koreans' economic
despair. Probably no two neighboring countries have such a huge economic gap, let alone countries that share the same ethnic and
historical background. The danger is that such a discrepancy can become a source of instability and conflict. To overcome its
economic deficiencies and attain social stability, the North has no choice but to abandon its nuclear weapons program and move
toward reform and greater openness. South Korea is trying to persuade the North to make this strategic decision. We are more than
willing to help the North achieve economic growth, which is almost always the source of peace and security. As such, North
Korea's economic recovery is vital for an enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
29/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD (RACISM)
Growth is key to preventing racism and civil violence
Freidman 6 (Benjamin M, William Joseph Maier Professor of Political Economy at Harvard, “THE MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF
ECONOMIC GROWTH”, Society, January/February, http://www.springerlink.com/content/3q5kabxbuw28yql8/fulltext.pdf)
" The consequence of the stagnation that lasted from the mid-1970s until the mid-1990s was, in numerous dimensions, a fraying of the
U.S. social fabric. It was no coincidence that during this period popular antipathy to immigrants resurfaced to an extent not known in
the United States since before World War I1, and in some respects not since the 1880s when intense nativism spread in response to
huge immigration at a time of protracted economic distress. It was not an accident that after three decades of progress toward bringing
the country's African-American minority into the country's mainstream, public opposition forced a rolling retreat from affirmative
action programs. It was not mere happenstance that, for a while, white supremacist groups were more active and visible than at any
time since the 1930s, antigovernment private "militias" flourished as never before, and all the while many of our elected political
leaders were reluctant to criticize such groups publicly even as church burnings, domestic terrorist attacks, and armed standoffs with
law enforcement authorities regularly made headlines. Nor was it coincidental that the effort to "end welfare as we know it"-- a widely
shared goal, albeit for different reasons among different constituencies--often displayed a vindictive spirit that was highly
uncharacteristic of the United States in the postwar era. With the return of economic advance tbr the majority of Americans in the
mid-1990s, many of these deplorable tendencies began to abate. In the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns, for example, neither
antiimmigrant rhetoric nor resistance to affirmative action played anything like the role seen in the elections in 1996 and especially
1992. While hate groups and antigovernment militias have not disappeared, they have again retreated toward the periphery of the
nation's consciousness. Nonetheless, much of the legacy of those two decades of stagnation remains. While it has become
commonplace to speak of the importance of "civil society," many observers increasingly question the vitality of American thought on
the attitudes and institutions that comprise it. Even our public political discourse has lately lost much of its admittedly sparse civility,
foundering on personal chargcs, investigations, and reverberating recriminations
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
30/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD – SPACE
Economic growth is key to expanding space exploration
Elhefnawy 8 (Nader, prof @ u of Miami, The Space Review, Sep 29-8, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1220/1 ) ET
No less important is the expansion of the economic base that would have to support such endeavors, a point which rarely gets much
attention. There is an obvious reason why that approach is often ignored: the common claim that the limits to growth on Earth
mandate a turn to the exploitation of space. (Such arguments are not exclusive to the writers of the 1970s. John S. Lewis posits that the
failure to do so will mean “civilization collapses to subsistence agriculture by 2030” in his 1996 book Mining the Sky.) However, this
is far from being the only reason. The plain truth is that relying on terrestrial economic expansion to endow us with the resources for
eventual space expansion will mean admitting the most exciting things are further off than we would like, outside the time frame of
“meaningful” discussions of what public policy should be or what private business can do. Besides, it makes for a less compelling and
attractive story than the idea of a technological revolution just over the horizon that opens up the heavens to all of us—especially if
one is a market romantic when it comes to these matters (see “Market romanticism and the outlook for private space development”,
The Space Review, September 2, 2008) Nonetheless, that is what one would have to assume given the state of the art. Additionally,
however, while space launch costs (and other, related costs) may drop in real terms in the coming decades, it is safe to say that any
viable future spacefaring society will also see them drop markedly in relative terms. The United Nations predicts the rise of Gross
World Product (GWP) to about $140 trillion by 2050, more than twice today’s level, and this is still rather conservative next to some
previous periods of comparable length. A repeat of the growth of 1950–1990, for instance, would likely result in a GWP in the $250–
350 trillion range. And of course, if one goes in for that sort of thinking, the growth we could realize if the predictions of futurists like
Ray Kurzweil pan out would absolutely explode those numbers. Of course, some caution is in order. Given the challenges the world
now faces, including tight energy supplies, ecological degradation, and financial instability (and the huge uncertainties involved in not
just space, but other technologies like molecular engineering and robotics), it is easy to picture even the modest numbers supplied by
the UN proving overoptimistic.
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
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
31/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD (WAR)
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
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the
front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe.
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 300year 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.
Growth prevents conflicts that lead to nuclear war
Friedberg and Schoenfeld 8 Aaron, professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, Gabriel, Visiting
Scholar @ Witherspoon Institute, The Dangers of a Diminished America, WSJ, 10/21, Proquest
Pressures to cut defense spending, and to dodge the cost of waging two wars, already intense before this crisis, are likely to mount. Despite the
success of the surge, the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Precipitous withdrawal -- attractive to a sizable swath of the electorate before the financial
implosion -- might well become even more popular with annual war bills running in the hundreds of billions. Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow
stronger as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. Even before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among
many Democrats and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow. 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. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic
competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic
performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending
heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking
unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these
countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
32/53
ECONOMIC GROWTH GOOD (WARMING)
Economic growth key to solve warming
Anderson 4 [Terry L. professor of economics at Montana State University, Ph.D. in economics
http://www.perc.org/articles/article446.php]
Hansen's essay concludes on an optimistic note, saying "the main elements [new technologies] required to halt climate change
have come into being with remarkable rapidity." This statement would not have surprised economist Julian Simon. He saw the
"ultimate resource" to be the human mind and believed it to be best motivated by market forces. Because of a combination of
market forces and technological innovations, we are not running out of natural resources. As a resource becomes more scarce,
prices increase, thus encouraging development of cheaper alternatives and technological innovations. Just as fossil fuel replaced
scarce whale oil, its use will be reduced by new technology and alternative fuel sources. Market forces also cause economic
growth, which in turn leads to environmental improvements. Put simply, poor people are willing to sacrifice clean water and air,
healthy forests, and wildlife habitat for economic growth. But as their incomes rise above subsistence, "economic growth helps to
undo the damage done in earlier years," says economist Bruce Yandle. "If economic growth is good for the environment, policies
that stimulate growth ought to be good for the environment."
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
33/53
DEFICIT BAD (HEG)
Debt Kills Heg
Seib 10 [Gerald F. Seib, assistant managing editor and the executive Washington editor of The Wall Street Journal, “US status,
security weakened by deficit” 2/3/10, lexis]
THE US federal budget deficit has graduated from pressing national concern into a fully fledged national security threat, as the US government this
year will borrow one of every three dollars it spends, with many of those funds coming from China. The budget plan released yesterday by the White House
shows a $US1.6 trillion ($1.8 trillion) deficit this year, $US1.3 trillion next year, $US8.5 trillion for the next 10 years combined -- assuming congress enacts US
President Barack Obama's proposals to start bringing it down, and that the proposals work. The numbers are seen as an economic and domestic problem but they have ramifications for the US's ability to continue playing its
US government's heavy borrowing from foreign countries will weaken the US's standing and its freedom to
act, while it strengthens China and other world powers including cash-rich oil producers. It puts long-term defence spending at risk and undermines
the US system as a model for developing countries -- it reduces the aura of power that has been a great intangible asset for presidents for more than a century. ``We've reached a
point now where there's an intimate link between our solvency and our national security,'' said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a
senior national security adviser in both the first and second Bush presidencies. ``What's so discouraging is that our domestic politics don't seem to be up to the challenge. And the whole
world is watching.'' The classic, narrow definition of national security threats already has expanded in ways that make traditional foreign policy thinking antiquated, with the list of US security
concerns now including dependence on foreign oil and global warming, for example. But the budget deficits also threaten Americans'
national security as they make the US vulnerable to foreign pressures. The US has about $US7.5 trillion in accumulated debt held by the public, about half of that in the hands of
traditional global role. Experts warn the
investors abroad. Each American next year will chip in more than $US800 just to pay interest on this debt and the situation means the US government is dependent on the largesse of foreign creditors and subject to the whims
A foreign government, through the actions of its central bank, could put pressure on the US in a way its military
never could. Even under a more benign scenario, a debt-ridden US is vulnerable to a run on the US dollar that begins abroad. Either way, Mr Haass
says, ``it reduces our independence''. Chinese power is growing as a result. A lot of the deficit is being financed by China, which is
selling the US many billions of dollars of manufactured goods, then lending the accumulated dollars back to the US. The IOUs are stacking up in
Beijing. So far this has been a mutually beneficial arrangement, but it is slowly increasing Chinese leverage over American consumers and the US government. At
some point, the US may have to bend its policies before either an implicit or explicit Chinese threat to stop the merry-go-round. Just last weekend,
for example, the US angered China by agreeing to sell Taiwan $US6.4 billion in arms. At some point, will the US face economic servitude to China that would make
such a policy decision impossible? This year, thanks in some measure to continuing high costs from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US
will spend a once-unthinkable $US688bn on defence. Staggering as the defence outlays are, the deficit is twice as large. The much smaller budgets for the the US's other international
operations -- diplomacy, assistance for friendly nations -- are dwarfed even more dramatically by the deficit. These national security budgets have been largely sacrosanct in the
era of terrorism. But unless the deficit arc changes, at some point they will come under pressure for cuts. The US model is being
undermined before the rest of the world. This is the great intangible impact of yawning budget deficits. The image of an invincible US
had two large effects over the last century or so. First, it made other countries listen when Washington talked. And second, it often
made other peoples and leaders yearn to be like the US. Sometimes that produced jealousy and resentment among leaders, but often it
drew to the top of foreign lands leaders who admired the US and wanted their countries to emulate it. Such leaders are good allies. The
Obama administration has pledged to create a bipartisan commission charged with balancing the budget, except for interest payments,
by 2015. The damage deficits can do to the US's world standing is a good reason to hope the commission works.
of international financial markets.
Heg prevents nuclear war.
Khalilzad ’95 (Zalmay, RAND Corporation, Washington Quarterly, “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the
Cold Water”, 18:2, Spring, L/N)
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
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
34/53
DEFICIT BAD (U.S. CHINA WAR)
Failure to reduce debt causes U.S.-China leadership switch
Seib 10 [Gerald F. Seib, assistant managing editor and the executive Washington editor of The Wall Street Journal, “US status, security weakened by deficit” 2/3/10, lexis]
THE US federal budget deficit has graduated from pressing national concern into a fully fledged national security threat, as the US government this
year will borrow one of every three dollars it spends, with many of those funds coming from China. The budget plan released yesterday by the White House
shows a $US1.6 trillion ($1.8 trillion) deficit this year, $US1.3 trillion next year, $US8.5 trillion for the next 10 years combined -- assuming congress enacts US
President Barack Obama's proposals to start bringing it down, and that the proposals work. The numbers are seen as an economic and domestic problem but they have ramifications for the US's ability to continue playing its
US government's heavy borrowing from foreign countries will weaken the US's standing and its freedom to
act, while it strengthens China and other world powers including cash-rich oil producers. It puts long-term defence spending at risk and undermines
the US system as a model for developing countries -- it reduces the aura of power that has been a great intangible asset for presidents for more than a century. ``We've reached a
point now where there's an intimate link between our solvency and our national security,'' said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a
senior national security adviser in both the first and second Bush presidencies. ``What's so discouraging is that our domestic politics don't seem to be up to the challenge. And the whole
world is watching.'' The classic, narrow definition of national security threats already has expanded in ways that make traditional foreign policy thinking antiquated, with the list of US security
concerns now including dependence on foreign oil and global warming , for example. But the budget deficits also threaten Americans'
national security as they make the US vulnerable to foreign pressures. The US has about $US7.5 trillion in accumulated debt held by the public, about half of that in the hands of
traditional global role. Experts warn the
investors abroad. Each American next year will chip in more than $US800 just to pay interest on this debt and the situation means the US government is dependent on the largesse of foreign creditors and subject to the whims
A foreign government, through the actions of its central bank, could put pressure on the US in a way its military
never could. Even under a more benign scenario, a debt-ridden US is vulnerable to a run on the US dollar that begins abroad. Either way, Mr Haass
says, ``it reduces our independence''. Chinese power is growing as a result. A lot of the deficit is being financed by China, which is
selling the US many billions of dollars of manufactured goods, then lending the accumulated dollars back to the US. The IOUs are stacking up in
Beijing. So far this has been a mutually beneficial arrangement, but it is slowly increasing Chinese leverage over American consumers and the US government. At
some point, the US may have to bend its policies before either an implicit or explicit Chinese threat to stop the merry-go-round. Just last weekend,
for example, the US angered China by agreeing to sell Taiwan $US6.4 billion in arms. At some point, will the US face economic servitude to China that would make
such a policy decision impossible? This year, thanks in some measure to continuing high costs from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US
will spend a once-unthinkable $US688bn on defence. Staggering as the defence outlays are, the deficit is twice as large. The much smaller budgets for the the US's other international
operations -- diplomacy, assistance for friendly nations -- are dwarfed even more dramatically by the deficit. These national security budgets have been largely sacrosanct in the
era of terrorism. But unless the deficit arc changes, at some point they will come under pressure for cuts. The US model is being undermined before the
rest of the world. This is the great intangible impact of yawning budget deficits. The image of an invincible US had two large effects over the
last century or so. First, it made other countries listen when Washington talked. And second, it often made other peoples and leaders
yearn to be like the US. Sometimes that produced jealousy and resentment among leaders, but often it drew to the top of foreign lands
leaders who admired the US and wanted their countries to emulate it. Such leaders are good allies. The Obama administration has
pledged to create a bipartisan commission charged with balancing the budget, except for interest payments, by 2015. The damage
deficits can do to the US's world standing is a good reason to hope the commission works.
of international financial markets.
The Switch leads to a massive power war
David, Zweig, Director of the Center on China’s Transnational Relations at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and Bi Jianhai, post-doc at the Center, 05, Foreign Affairs, “China’s Global Hunt for Energy”, September/October, proquest
Although China's new energy demands need not be a source of serious conflict with the West in the long term, at the moment, Beijing and
Washington feel especially uneasy about the situation. While China struggles to manage its growing pains, the United States, as the
world's hegemon, must somehow make room for the rising giant; otherwise, war will become a serious possibility. According to the power
transition theory, to maintain its dominance, a hegemon will be tempted to declare war on its challengers while it still has a power advantage.
Thus, easing the way for the United States and China--and other states to find a new equilibrium will require careful management , especially
of their mutual perceptions.
Extinction
Straits Times 00 (“No One Gains In War Over Taiwan”, 6-25, Lexis)
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
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
national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable.
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
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
nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability,
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
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
35/53
DOLLAR COLLAPSE BAD (CHINESE ECON)
Dollar strength key to Chinese economic stability
Karabell 2009 (“Why Beijing Wants a Strong Dollar,”; May 28 newyorktimes.com)
But even if there were buyers, the issue is deeper than economics. China's investments in the U.S. are as much a political decision as
an economic one. They represent the culmination of two decades of assiduous efforts on the part of the Chinese government and many
U.S. companies to bind the two economies together. Until recent months, the common understanding of the relationship between
China and the U.S. was that China produced cheap stuff that Americans bought. But that was always just one aspect of a much more
intertwined relationship, one that entails significant growth for U.S. companies as they sell to Chinese consumers and provide support
for China's industrial build-out. The Chinese government has actively tethered its economic and political stability to the U.S. To some
degree, China's holdings prove the old adage: If a bank lends you $1 million, you've got a problem; but if a bank lends you $10
million, the bank has a problem. With so much invested in the U.S., China can no more tolerate a severe U.S. implosion than
Americans can. Any action taken by China to imperil the economic stability of the U.S. would be an act of mutually-assured
destruction.
Chinese economic collapse ensures asian conflict - escalates
Plate 2003 (Tom, Professor at UCLA, The Straights Times, “Neo-cons a bigger risk to Bush than Chin,” 6-28-2003)
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 cant
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
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
36/53
DOLLAR COLLAPSE BAD (HEG)
US dollar collapse would end US hegemony
Champion 3 [Scott Share International Staff Writer, June (http://64.233.167.104/search?
q=cache:c7OliQOGgIEJ:shareno.net/dollarcollapse.htm+economic+collapse+and+hegemony&hl=en]
The problem with this approach for the Bush administration is that there are great risks to a weak dollar policy. The world
economy is awash in dollars, and when there is too much of something the price or value usually drops, sometimes precipitously.
If confidence in the dollar or dollar assets, such as Treasury bonds, declines, the world may, at some point, reconsider its
involvement with US assets. The results of such a reappraisal could be anything from mildly damaging to catastrophic. Seventyfive per cent of the world’s central-bank assets are held in US dollars (as Treasury bonds). These bankers do not want their
primary asset to suffer a significant decline. Many nations, like Japan, recycle their trade surpluses into US dollars by purchasing
and holding US Treasury bonds. They do this out of self-interest. In the case of Japan, it helps to weaken the yen relative to the
dollar. It is hard to imagine the Japanese reversing this policy, as it would harm their own corporations. However Japan, together
with the rest of the world, holds nearly a third of total US Treasury debt. If these countries were to stop buying Treasuries, let
alone start selling the ones they already own, the US would be in serious trouble. What should concern the US authorities about a
weak dollar policy is that the decline could spin out of control. When the global stock-market crash predicted in this magazine
occurs, international support for the dollar will likely evaporate as countries sell dollar assets to shore up their own ailing
economies. If this happens, the US will have great difficulty funding its historically large budget and trade deficits. At a most
inopportune time, the US may be forced to raise interest rates sharply to attract the capital to meet its obligations. This would be a
further blow to an ailing economy. A collapsing US stock market would almost certainly usher in a period of deflation for the
American economy. Recent statements by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and New York ‘Fed’ governor Bernacke
make clear that the Fed is concerned about deflation and stands ready to print an unlimited supply of dollars to fight this
eventuality. These statements are unprecedented in the 90-year history of the US Federal Reserve Bank and are tantamount to a
declaration that they stand willing to destroy the value of the dollar in the event of a serious crisis. Today, many forces are coming
together that could lead to a collapse of the US dollar. Among these are its oversupply, low interest rates, the need to fight
deflation, continuing stock-market declines, and a potential derivatives meltdown [see Share International May 1990] It is highly
likely that in the not-too-distant future all of these factors will come into play simultaneously. In addition, many of the world’s
financiers, central bankers, and government officials cannot be pleased with the economic and foreign policies of the Bush
administration. They well know that the continued recycling of capital into US assets serves, at least in part, to allow the US to
dominate the world. If the people who control the world’s capital were to decide, for whatever reason, to cease buying Treasury
securities and to liquidate those they own, the dollar would collapse and the US would experience an unprecedented economic
shock. Were this to happen, the world would witness the end of American hegemony.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
37/53
DOLLAR COLLAPSE BAD (SOFT POWER/HEG)
Dollar primacy is singularly key to soft power hegemony
Kirshner 2008 (Jonathan, Department of Government, Cornell University; Dollar primacy and American power: What’s at stake;
August; web.rollins.edu/~tlairson/seminar/dollarprime.pdfU BH)
The key currency role of the dollar also provides to the US not only overt power via its enhanced autonomy and discretion, it
increases the po- litical influence and capacity of the US, via what has been called ‘structural power ’. There are two distinct (if
related) strands of thought on structural power that are relevant here, one associated with Susan Strange and the other with Albert
Hirschman. Strange’s conception of structural power owes something to Woody Allen; as with aspiring playwrights, for hegemons,
90% of structural power is just showing up. Simply by its enormous size, a dominant state creates the context in which political
interactions take place – often without even the intention of doing so. Thus, for example, any discussion of the inter- national
monetary system takes place in the context of dollar primacy. Of course, structural power can also be quite purposeful, although it is
ex- pressed not by ‘relational’ power or coercion over specific outcomes, but via agenda setting – ‘the power to decide how things
shall be done, the power to shape frameworks within which states relate to each other ’.25 The strand of structural power associated
with Hirschman emphasizes how the pattern of economic relations between states can transform the calculation of political interest.
States (and private actors within states) that use the dollar (and especially those that hold their reserves in dollars) develop a vested
interest in the value and stability of the dollar. Once in widespread use, the fate of the dollar becomes more than just America’s
problem – it becomes the problem off all dollar holders (to varying de- grees from case to case). Even those that simply peg to the
dollar as part of a broader international economic strategy also have an interest in fu- ture of the greenback even without signing on
as ‘stakeholders’ the way large holders of dollars have, advertantly or not, as they accumulate dollar denominated assets.26 In the
contemporary system, then, dollar primacy increases both the ‘hard power ’ and the ‘soft power ’ of the US Regarding the former,
Amer- ica’s coercive capacity is enhanced by its greater autonomy to run deficits and to adopt policies that would otherwise elicit a
countervailing market reaction. As for the latter, the structural benefits afforded to the US can be classified under Nye’s definition of
‘soft power ’ – getting others to want what you want them to want. For Strange the weight of the dollar benefits the US by
necessitating that relevant political arenas will be operate in such a way that cannot but account for American interests. For
Hirschman, the US gains because participation in a dollar-based international monetary or- der both shapes the perceived selfinterests of states and of many private actors within states, and also, more concretely, by creating stakeholders in the fate of the
dollar.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
38/53
HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT GOOD – AEROSPACE 1/2
Job loss ensures higher-level aerospace students
SSB ‘6, (“Issues affecting the future of the U.S. Space Science and Engineering Workforce: Interim Report”, Aeronautics and Space
Engineering Board, pg 16)
As with all natural science and engineering enrollment, first-time, full-time, graduate enrollment in aerospace engineering and space
science mirrors unemployment trends. Higher unemployment in general encourages graduate enrollment, because students are more
likely to elect to stay in or enter graduate school when they cannot get jobs. Despite the concern about a precipitous decline in
applications from foreign students after 2001, the number of first-time, full-time graduate students enrolled in natural science and
engineering fields grew slightly between 2000 and 2003 (the most recent date available). Increased graduate enrollment by U.S.
citizens and permanent residents more than compensated for the reduction in foreign students.
That’s key to the US aerospace primacy
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)
If current trends continue, the United States will not have the specialized workforce necessary to support future U.S. primacy in space.
Indeed, there is a major crisis in the aerospace industry, both in terms of sustaining the current workforce and developing the
workforce of the future. With the reductions in defense spending that followed the end of the Cold War, the United States lost over
600,000 scientific and technical aerospace jobs.68 According to the Aerospace Industries Association, total industry employment went
from 1,120,800 in 1990 down to 637,300 in 2007. In the space sector alone, employment slipped from 168,500 to 75,200 over the
same period of time.69 Of the employees that remained following the initial post-Cold War cuts, it is suggested that 27 percent of
America’s aerospace technical workforce is now eligible for retirement. This is simply the continuation of a wave of retirements that
began some time ago70 The Aerospace Industries Association contends that nearly 60 percent of the U.S.-aerospace workforce was at
least 45 years old in 2007. What is significant is that because many began their careers relatively young, a large number will be
eligible for retirement in the next decade. Clearly, the workforce that supported U.S. space primacy during and immediately following
the Cold War will need to be replenished with the infusion of new talent. The ability of the United States to fill the void left by
retirements is in question. Currently, the portion of those workers 34 or younger has declined from 32 percent in 1992 to 16 percent in
2003. About 70,000 students each year receive undergraduate degrees in engineering in the United States. Subtracting the 15,000
degrees in non-space related engineering fields (civil, automotive, mining and transportation engineers) about 55,000 graduates are
qualified for aerospace work. Of those, approximately 20 percent are international students who are expected to return home upon
graduation. That leaves about 44,000 graduates per year for all American companies, not only aerospace firms. Given that a single
leading aerospace company expects to hire 50,000 engineers in the next five years, the challenge of replenishing the aerospace
workforce becomes a challenge. It is compounded by the fact that fewer students are earning degrees in math and science—from
undergraduate to doctorate—while at the same time, there is an ongoing shortage of math and science teachers. 71
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
39/53
HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT GOOD – AEROSPACE 1/2
Aerospace competiveness is the vital internal link to U.S. global hegemony
Walker et al, 02- Chair of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners (Robert, Final
Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners, November,
http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf )
In order to defend America and project power, the nation needs the ability to move manpower, materiel, intelligence information and
precision weaponry swiftly to any point around the globe, when needed. This has been, and will continue to be, a mainstay of our national security
strategy. The events of September 11, 2001 dramatically demonstrated the extent of our national reliance on aerospace capabilities and related military contributions to
homeland security. Combat air patrols swept the skies; satellites supported real-time communications for emergency responders, imagery for recovery, and intelligence
on terrorist activities; and the security and protection of key government officials was enabled by timely air transport. As recent events in Afghanistan and
Kosovo show, the power generated by our nation’s aerospace capabilities is an—and perhaps the —essential ingredient in force
projection and expeditionary operations . In both places, at the outset of the crisis, satellites and reconnaissance aircraft, some unmanned, provided critical
strategic and tactical intelligence to our national leadership. Space-borne intelligence, command, control and communications assets permitted the
rapid targeting of key enemy positions and facilities. Airlifters and tankers brought personnel, materiel, and aircraft to critical
locations .And aerial bombardment, with precision weapons and cruise missiles, often aided by the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Predator
unmanned vehicle, destroyed enemy forces. Aircraft carriers and their aircraft also played key roles in both conflicts. Today’s military aerospace
capabilities are indeed robust, but at significant risk. They rely on platforms and an industrial base— measured in both human capital
and physical facilities—that are aging and increasingly inadequate . Consider just a few of the issues: • Much of our capability to defend America and project power
depends on satellites . Assured reliable access to space is a critical enabler of this capability. As recently as 1998, the key to near- and mid-term space access was the
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle(EELV), a development project of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the U. S. Air Force. EELV drew primarily on commercial
demand to close the business case for two new launchers, with the U.S. government essentially buying launches at the margin. In this model, each company partner
made significant investments of corporate funds in vehicle development and infrastructure, reducing the overall need for government investment. Today, however,
worldwide demand for commercial satellite launch has dropped essentially to nothing—and is not expected to rise for a decade or more—while the number of available
launch platforms worldwide has proliferated . Today, therefore, the business case for EELV simply does not close, and reliance on the economics of a commerciallydriven market is unsustainable . A new strategy for assured access to space must be found. • The U.S. needs unrestricted access to space for civil,
commercial, and military applications .Our satellite systems will become increasingly important to military operations as today’s
information revolution, the so-called “revolution in military affairs,” continues, while at the same time satellites will become
increasingly vulnerable to attack as the century proceeds. To preserve critical satellite net-works, the nation will almost certainly need
the capability to launch replacement satellites quickly after an attack. One of the key enablers for “launch on demand” is reusable space launch, and yet
within the last year all work has been stopped on the X-33 and X-34 reusable launch programs • The challenge for the defense industrial base is to have the capability to
build the base force structure, support contingency-related surges, provide production capacity that can increase faster than any new emerging global threat can build up
its capacity, and provide an “appropriate” return to shareholders. But the motivation of government and industry are different. This is a prime detraction for wanting to
form government-industry partnerships. Industry prioritizes investments toward near-term, high-return, and high-dollar programs that make for a sound business case
for them. Government, on the other hand, wants to prioritize investment to ensure a continuing capability to meet any new threat to the nation. This need is cyclical and
difficult for businesses to sustain during periods of government inactivity. Based on the cyclic nature of demand, the increasing cost/complexity of new systems, and the
slow pace of defense modernization, aerospace companies are losing market advantages and the sector is contracting. Twenty-two years ago, today’s “Big 5” in
aerospace were 75 separate companies, as depicted by the historical chart of industry consolidation shown in Chapter 7. • Tactical combat aircraft have been a
key component of America’s air forces. Today, three tactical aircraft programs continue: the F/A-18E/F (in production), the F/A-22
(in a late stage of test and evaluation), and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (just moving into system design and development). Because of the recentness
of these programs, there are robust design teams in existence. But all of the initial design work on all three programs will be completed by 2008. If the nation were
to conclude, as it very well may, that a new manned tactical aircraft needs to be fielded in the middle of this century, where will we
find the experienced design teams required to design and build it, if the design process is in fact gapped for 20 years or more?
American decline threatens 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 from the French
. 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.
empire and its allies--to notice while it conquered Canada
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
40/53
HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT GOOD – MILITARY RECRUITMENT
Low US jobs lead to military recruitment
Herald News ‘9 (Maryam Roberts, “Economic downturn is boost for ranks”, 3-30-09, Lexis)
One sector benefiting from the economic downturn is military recruitment , often at the expense of enlistees. Hard times are forcing people to
make life-changing decisions, especially those who have little choice but to join the military. We’ve lost 3.3 million jobs in the last six
months alone, as the unemployment rate has vaulted over the 8 percent bar. The job market is terrible, and higher education is becoming more unaffordable, as
colleges slash their financial assistance and raise tuition. Welfare support for young mothers is dwindling, with states tossing
thousands off the rolls. For the poor and the unemployed, who are disproportionately people of color, the military is one of the only institutions with
resources to help them — or their children. Military recruiters already recruit larger numbers from low-income and communities of color. Blacks and Latinos are
consistently overrepresented in the armed forces, especially in enlisted ranks. In 2008, all four branches of the armed forces met their recruiting goals
for the federal fiscal year, as 185,000 men and women signed up for service. This was the highest number of people joining since
2003. The number will likely rise, as the economy gets worse.
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
overseas threats must be countered before they can
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
flows directly from the basic bipartisan view of American foreign policy makers since World War II that
directly threaten this country’s shores, that the basic stability
States, and so on. Meanwhile, the world’s 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
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
might convince many Americans that the war there truly was lost—but the costs of reaching such a conclusion would be enormous.
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
The only serious response to this international environment is to develop armed forces capable of protecting America’s vital interests
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
larger set of worries.
throughout this dangerous time. Doing so requires a
the ones now under way in Iraq and Afghanistan.
American decline threatens 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 from the French
. 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.
empire and its allies--to notice while it conquered Canada
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
41/53
CHINESE GROWTH BAD (CHINESE ARMS RACE)
Chinese economic growth is used to increase defense budgets and build up military
Shah 7/7 (Anup, founder of global issues, 7.7.10, global issues, http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending,)
Also, “China and India, the world’s two emerging economic powers, are demonstrating a sustained increase in their military
expenditure and contribute to the growth in world military spending. In absolute terms their current spending is only a fraction of
the USA’s. Their increases are largely commensurate with their economic growth.”
Chinese economic growth allows it to spend more on weapons- 2008 proves
Shah 7/7 (Anup, founder of global issues, 7.7.10, global issues, http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending,)
The last point refers to rapidly developing nations like China and India that have seen their economies boom in recent years. In
addition, high and rising world market prices for minerals and fossil fuels (at least until recently) have also enabled some nations
to spend more on their militaries. China, for the first time, ranked number 2 in spending in 2008.
Arms races cause global war
Cross 6/17 (Giles, Our Future Planet, 6.17.10, http://www.ourfutureplanet.org/news/400-war-the-global-arms-race-is-one-of-themore-shocking-aspects-of-humanity- )
There are plenty of campaigning organisations out there looking to put an end to profit from war. Among them is the International
Crisis Group (ICS), which works to put an end to worldwide conflict. Back in 2008 the group reported on how and why arms races
can potentially boil over; ‘Two states wedged between Europe and Iran are locked in an arms race and preparing for war. The
international community, particularly the EU, might be able to slow down Armenia and Azerbaijan’s slide toward another
devastating conflict. ‘Attempts to broker peace over the past dozen years have failed, and worse, a massive arms build up has
started. Boosted by oil revenues, Azerbaijan increased its military spending by a record 51 per cent in 2004/05, and then raised it a
further 82 per cent in 2006. ‘The shopping spree has so far included large numbers of multi launch rocket systems, new artillery,
tanks and both F-15 and Mig-29 fighters. In 2007 President Ilham Aliyev promised to make Azerbaijan’s military spending equal
to Armenia’s entire state budget. ‘But Armenia is hardly a tortoise in this race. Though its military budget is only about a quarter
of its neighbour’s, it last year spent some $280 million on weapons, another record.’ More recently, in March 2009, the same
group reported on fears that a space arms race was developing in Korea. ‘Space race dynamics are among the likely Pyongyang
motivations for the Taepodong-2 launch.’ explained the report, describing North Korean aspirations. ICS reckoned every advance
in technology and development raised the risks of an arms race.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
42/53
CHINESE GROWTH BAD (HEG)
Chinese economic growth endangers US heg
O'Connell 6 (Meghan, Research Associate at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, “China Threatens To
Rival American Power Status,” United Press International, June 22,
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_Threatens_To_Rival_American_Power_Status.html, AD: 7-6-9)
But the gap between America's dominance and China's power seems to be lessening . The debate is no longer about whether China has the
military strength to pose a threat, but what to do about it, said Daniel Blumenthal, commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
"China is probably the only country in the world that can compete with the United States militarily and actually pose a challenge to
its hegemony," Blumenthal said, pointing to what he called a serious peacetime military buildup by China over the last 10 years. The United States has been
shoring up its alliances around the region, he continued, with countries such as Japan, India, Vietnam and Mongolia all concerned about what China's military rise
means. Because of the nation's military expansion, intervention should China attack Taiwan can no longer be accomplished at a low cost, said Randall Schriver,
former deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. And though China has been bulking up its military presence along borders near Taiwan,
Schriver said that the nation's vision extends far beyond the small island to regional and global contingencies. "The game is on in Asia, and the United States has to
be engaged," Schriver said, emphasizing the growing global importance of Asia. According to the National Intelligence Council, Schriver said, by 2020, Asia will
hold 56 percent of the world's population, six of the 10 largest militaries, three of the four largest economies, and six of the 10 largest energy consumers. By
contrast, Schriver added, the NIC expects the population of the Middle East to compose only 4 percent of the world's total in 2020. "The whole center of
gravity of the earth and human existence is moving to Asia ," Schriver said, explaining that the United States needs a policy that will develop
relations with the rest of Asia while confronting China. You get Asia right by getting China right and you get China right by getting Asia right, Schriver said. Yet
in an age of globalization, any moves by China or the United States would have grand influence in areas beyond the military. "Economic setbacks and crises
of confidence could slow China's emergence as a full-scale great power," the National Intelligence Council wrote in its 2020 Project report on
global trends for the future. "Beijing's failure to maintain its economic growth would itself have a global impact ."
U.S. hegemony prevents nuclear war
Khalilizad 95 (Zalmay Khalilizad, director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program @ RAND & former US Ambassador to
Afghanistan) "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," Washington Quarterly, Spring, Proquest,
AD: 7-7-09
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 — understood as 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
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
43/53
CHINESE GROWTH BAD (TAIWAN)
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
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
44/53
CHINESE GROWTH BAD (U.S. CHINA WAR)
Chinese Economic growth causes US/ China conflict over power- escalation ensured
Hileman 7/5 (Garrick, financial consultant and trader for private corporations, 7.5.10, Seeking Alpha,
http://seekingalpha.com/article/213101-is-a-u-s-china-economic-war-on-its-way ) ET
The Chinese have been driving a very hard bargain with the rest of the world with their managed currency policy. China has
benefitted tremendously from joining the open world economy. However, free trade is not an inalienable sovereign right. China's
growing economic power comes with the role of being a responsible global actor by playing by the same rules as its trading
partners. The U.S. has grown weary of waiting for the Chinese government to come around at a time when it is also economically
weakened. In short, the time has come for the renminbi to be revalued upward or U.S. action will occur. What is China's realpolitik
calculation? China's leadership, emboldened for example by the failure of the U.S. to navigate the world away from a near
financial collapse and Google's recent blink, is growing more confident. It is reasonable to assume that China will increasingly flex
its economic muscles and may reject the U.S.'s request for a change in its currency policy. The Chinese government stubbornly
detests public pressure from foreign government officials. Yet the Chinese leadership appears to only move when they are forced
to do so. And often when they do finally make a change, as with the most recent renminbi move, they barely budge. At the same
time, it is highly unlikely the U.S. will quietly surrender its role as the world's dominant superpower. And the pressure is growing
to take swift, assertive action on the renminbi as calls to "do something" grow louder in the face of a deteriorating domestic
economy.
US – China war would escalate into nuclear extinction
Straits Times 2k ( Strait Times, 6.25.2k)
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.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
45/53
CHINESE GROWTH BAD (WARMING)
Chinese growth destroys ecosystems and is one of the biggest contributors to global warming
Manila 9 (writing about a speech by Haruhiko Kuroda, President of the Asian Development Bank),
http://www.spacedaily.com/2006/090616061106.c4k3t4t7.html , Space Daily)
Asia's rapid economic growth in recent years has contributed significantly to climate change and environmental pollution, the head
of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) warned on Tuesday. In response to this, "it is imperative that we escalate our efforts to put
the region on a path of low-carbon growth," bank president Haruhiko Kuroda told an ADB forum on climate change. "Rapid
development has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty while bringing the region as a whole to higher living
standards. Along with this economic expansion, however, has been a rise in environmental pollution including greenhouse gas
emissions," he said. He said the developing countries of Asia now account for one-third of global emissions brought about by
energy consumption, deforestation and land use. "Unless measures are taken now, Asia's share of global greenhouse gas emissions
could increase to more than 40 percent by 2030," he said. The ADB was trying to address this and had provided almost 1.7 billion
dollars for "projects with clean energy components," including wind power projects in China and India, he said. Asian countries
are also seeking ways to stimulate growth without hurting the environment, "including development of renewable energy and other
environmentally sustainable technologies," he said.
Warming forms a high way to extinction, slaughtering billions through starvation, flooding and disease
Hui Min 7 (Neo Straits Times Europe Bureau staff writer) http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070304/070406-14.htm#st)
TOP climate scientists issued their bleakest assessment yet on global warming yesterday, with a warning that billions of people
could go thirsty as water supplies dry up and millions more may starve as farmlands become deserts. Poor tropical countries that are least
to blame for causing the problem will be worst hit, said the report. Small island states, Asia's big river deltas, the Arctic, and sub- Saharan Africa are also at risk.
Global warming could also rapidly thaw Himalayan glaciers that feed rivers from India to China, and bring heat waves to Europe and North America. The dire
warnings came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The final text of a 21-page Summary for Policymakers was agreed on after an allnight session marked by serious disputes. Scientists from more than 100 countries made up the panel. Their report forms the second of a four-part climate
assessment, with the final section to be released early next month in Bangkok. Its findings are approved unanimously by governments and will guide policy on
issues such as extending the United Nation's Kyoto Protocol, the main plan for capping greenhouse gas emissions, beyond 2012. The grim 1,400-page report issued
yesterday said change, widely blamed on human emissions of greenhouse gases, was already under way in nature. The IPCC noted that damage to the
earth's weather systems was changing rainfall patterns, punching up the power of storms and boosting the risk of drought, flooding
and stress on water supplies. Some scientists even called the degree-by-degree projection a 'highway to extinction'. Add 1 deg C to
the earth's average temperatures and between 400 million and 1.7 billion more people cannot get enough water. Add another 1.8
deg C and as many as two billion people could be without water, and about 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the world's species face
extinction. More people will also start dying because of malnutrition, disease, heat waves, floods and droughts. This could happen
as early as 2050. 'Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent,' said the report.
University of Michigan ecologist Rosina Bierbaum, former head of the United States' IPCC delegation, said: 'It is clear that a
number of species are going to be lost.' Mr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, said: 'It's the poorest of the poor in the
world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit. 'This does become a global
responsibility in my view.' Still, some scientists accused governments of watering down the forecasts. They said China, Russia and Saudi Arabia had raised
most objections overnight, seeking to tone down some findings. Other participants also said the US, which pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 saying it was
too costly, had toned down some passages. Dr Pramod Kumar Aggarwal, one of the authors of the report, told The Straits Times that temperature increases
could lead to crop failure and rising prices, with dire consequences for the poor. 'In Asia, you are talking about millions or billions
of people,' he said.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
46/53
INDIAN GROWTH BAD (ARMS RACE)
India uses economic growth to increase weapons modernization
Arnett 97 (Eric, Arms Control Today vol 27 no. 5, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/arnett.htm , Aug 97) ET
First, Pakistani planners may not be as sanguine about Indian capabilities, and the fears and perceptions of Pakistanis are the
central issue. From Islamabad's perspective, it increasingly appears that most of the major arms suppliers are cooperating with
India, even those that have already sold systems to Pakistan. Some of the systems that have been supplied, especially the Armat
anti-radar missile, can be very effective even in the hands of less-skilled pilots. The quality and likely effectiveness of other
systems are very difficult to judge without much greater transparency on the part of the IAE Second, Indian society is set to
progress at an unprecedented rate, potentially enjoying economic growth and modernization that are likely to dramatically increase
the budget and competence of the country's armed forces. As relations with China improve, even more of India's military potential
can be focused on Pakistani contingencies. Even if IAF strike squadrons have some weaknesses now, U.S. policymakers should
not be betting against substantial improvements in Indian technological proficiency in the near future, especially since U.S. firms
are contributing to the technological base of both the civilian and military sectors.
And most of India’s economy goes to arms- economic growth would be funneled there
Arnett 97 (Eric, Arms Control Today vol 27 no. 5, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/arnett.htm , Aug 97) ET
India and Pakistan have been rivals since their creation as separate states in 1947. Even though there have been many small scale
conflicts between the two countries, the nuclearization of the region is believed to bring stability at higher levels of violence. The
retarded economic growth in both countries could be associated with the ongoing arms race between the two countries, as scarce
resources are allocated for military purposes. In this paper the nature of the arms race between India and Pakistan has been
examined by employing Toda-Yamamoto’s approach to VAR non-causality for the time period 1949-2000. The empirical findings
indicate that there is bi-directoral causality between the two countries military expenditures. Moreover, the causality between
military expenditure and economic growth has been investigated. The empirical results indicate that there is a bi-directional
causality between military burden and economic growth in India. However, for Pakistan causality is from economic growth to
military expenditure. There is no empirical evidence of causality from military burden to economic growth in Pakistan.
And, the impact is extinction
Fai 1 (Ghulam Nabi, director of Kashmiri American Council¸WA Times, 7.8.1) ET
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. Their defense budgets are climbing despite
widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
47/53
RUSSIAN GROWTH BAD (ARMS BUILDUP)
When Russia experiences economic growth they buy more arms to increase their military influence
Saradzhyan 8 (Simon, research fellow @ Harvard, Warfare.RU, http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2279&catid=239 ) ET
There are cardinal changes in what is going on in the world and the armed forces need to be prepared for […] wars of the future," according to the minister, who
also holds the rank of deputy prime minister and is one of the possible contesters in the 2008 presidential race. In line with the Defense Ministry's 2007-2015
armament program, the Russian military will spend a total of 300 billion rubles on procurement this year alone, according to Ivanov.
Russia's defense budget has been growing steadily thanks to economic growth fuelled by high oil prices and a consumer boom. As a result of
the surge in federal budget revenues, the Defense Ministry quadrupled its budget from 214 billion rubles in 2001 to 821 billion this
year. Experts say the Defense Ministry's shopping spree reflects the Kremlin's desire to transform the continuing economic resurgence
into geopolitical dividends by beefing up conventional forces while maintaining the strategic nuclear forces' so-called assured destruction capability
of in order to flex muscles in the adjacent neighborhoods in the short -to-medium term and across the globe in the longer term. "The
procurement plan demonstrates that Russia at least wants to acquire capability to project military-political influence at least on the
regional level [..]," Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) and member of the Defense Ministry's Public
Council, told ISN Security Watch in a Saturday phone interview. Ivan Safranchuk, director of the Moscow office of the Washington, DC-based World Security
Institute, concurred. "This is a sign that Russia wants to expand projection of its influence in the world, " Safranchuk told ISN Security Watch in a Wednesday
phone interview. The experts specifically pointed out that talk of procuring new aircraft carriers was one sign that Russia was seeking to expand its zone of
influence. The decision to procure more could be made in 2009, the statement quoted Ivanov as saying. The Russian navy currently has one Soviet-era aircraft
carrier and would have to build new ones from scratch since the sole maker of this ship in Soviet times is located in now-independent Ukraine. As part of the
shopping spree, the military will procure a total of 31 ships for the navy in 2007-2015, according to Ivanov. The ministry will also procure new arms for 40 tanks,
97 infantry and 50 airborne battalions in line with the 2007-2017 programs, he said.
And increased arms in Russia would embolden other enemies to attack the us- causes global war and crashes US heg
Simes, 7 (Dimitri, Pres of Nixon center, pub of Nat’l Interest, Foreign Affairs, nov/dec 7) ET
But if the current U.S.-Russian relationship deteriorates further, it will not bode well for the United States and would be even
worse for Russia. The Russian general staª is lobbying to add a military dimension to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and
some top officials are beginning to champion the idea of a foreign policy realignment directed against the West. There are also
quite a few countries, such as Iran and Venezuela, urging Russia to work with China to play a leading role in balancing the United
States economically, politically, and militarily. And post-Soviet states such as Georgia, which are adept at playing the United
States and Russia officials against each other, could act in ways that escalate tensions. Putin’s stage management of Moscow’s
succession in order to maintain a dominant role for himself makes a major foreign policy shift in Russia unlikely. But new Russian
leaders could have their own ideas—and their own ambitions—and political uncertainty or economic problems could tempt them
to exploit nationalist sentiments to build legitimacy. If relations worsen, the un Security Council may no longer be available—due
to a Russian veto—even occasionally, to provide legitimacy for U.S. military actions or to impose meaningful sanctions on rogue
states. Enemies of the United States could be emboldened by new sources of military hardware in Russia, and political and security
protection from Moscow. International terrorists could find new sanctuaries in Russia or the states it protects.And the collapse of
U.S.- Russian relations could give China much greater flexibility in dealing with the United States. It would not be a new Cold
War, because Russia will not be a global rival and is unlikely to be the prime mover in confronting the United States. But it would
provide incentives and cover for others to confront Washington, with potentially catastrophic results. It would be reckless and
shortsighted to push Russia in that direction by repeating the errors of the past, rather than working to avoid the dangerous
consequences of a renewed U.S.-Russian confrontation. But ultimately,Moscow will have to make its own decisions.Given the
Kremlin’s history of poor policy choices, a clash may come whether Washington likes it or not.And should that happen, the United
States must approach this rivalry with greater realism and determination than it has displayed in its halfhearted attempts at
partnership.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
48/53
RUSSIAN GROWTH GOOD (WAR)
Russian growth prevents war with the US
Bronwen 9 (Maddox, Chief Foreign Commentator for The Times, The Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwe n_maddox/article6 652936.ece )
The most interesting and unexpected ingredient in the Russia-US summit is how well the Russian leaders have managed the financial
turmoil. That changes in their favour, slightly, the dynamics of the meeting, which otherwise turn on that peculiar Russian mix of extremes of strength and
weakness. On one hand, President Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister, hold cards that matter hugely to any US president: nuclear missiles; oil; gas;
one of the world’s largest armies; friendship with Iran; influence, obsessively deployed, over the Caucasus and Central Asia; a permanent seat — and veto — on
the United Nations Security Council. On the other, there is the reality of Russia’s vulnerability on every count of finance, trade, and military strength. There are the
big, bald statistics of its shrinking population (although that may be reversing), falling life expectancy (although that is suddenly improving), and stubborn poverty.
Most painfully, too, there is the memory of the Soviet era and the incredulity at the sharpness of the reversal. The US team has made clear that in its
calculation, the strengths make it worth its while trying to “reset” the relationship. But the weaknesses mean that if the attempt fails, Russia
could be relegated behind more pressing problems. The element that might change this calculation is the Russian leaders’ recent skilful management of the
economy. It not only points to surefootedness in economic management, which their rhetoric has not often suggested. It offers hope
that Russia may find its way out of its current sour resentment, and autocratic rule, and into a more stable future. A World Bank report
last month spelt out the unexpected upside to Russia’s otherwise unsurprising suffering during the crisis. Yes, there has been plenty of damage. Real gross domestic
product is expected to shrink by about 7.9 per cent this year (compared with a global fall in output of 2.9 per cent). That is a big shock after a decade of high
growth, driven by high oil and gas prices. The stock market lost two thirds of its value in the five months to November 2008. Unemployment could now rise to 13
per cent and poverty to 17.4 per cent by the end of the year, the bank warned, noting that the middle class would also shrink by a tenth, or more than six million
people, to just over half the population. However, the bank, which called the Government’s response “swift, co-ordinated, and comprehensive”, noted that
Russia’s leaders had moved quickly to cut spending as the oil price fell (including pushing through an aggressive rethinking of the
military). They had arranged a large stimulus, and had responded to the plunge in foreign reserves (figures yesterday showed a net capital
inflow of $7.2 billion in the second quarter of 2009, after $35 billion flowed out in the first quarter). The worst effects of the crisis were perhaps past, the bank
suggested. If — a huge if — Russia took the chance to reform old industries, and made them more competitive, then it could come out of the crisis with a more
modern, diversified economy. There are a few slight signs that Russia’s leaders might seize that chance, such as the overhaul of the military (arms, and rules for
conscription). Alternatively, they will persist with their technique of blaming others for their problems, and focusing on external threats, not obstacles at home.
President Obama’s quest of trying to find a new deal to cut stockpiles of nuclear missiles is an honourable one. But its success will
depend on whether Russia can be persuaded out of the mindset in which the expansion and success of the European Union and
Nato are a threat. The US has had much less success with Russia than with China in persuading it of the value of becoming part of
international organisations and laws. Not much in Putin’s or Medvedev’s recent behaviour suggests that they are that way inclined.
All the same, the weakness of modern Russia, clutching the few great prizes of its recent past, in the form of missiles and oil wells while the rest lies in tatters, is
one point of leverage. So is the Russian leaders’ astute reaction to the crisis, which they dubbed the failure of capitalism. That shows
that they can set ideology aside and take quick steps in the country’s interest. That can only be a hopeful sign for Russia’s chances
of becoming a less fearful and more modern state.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
49/53
RUSSIAN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE BAD (LOOSE NUKES AND ECON)
Russian economic collapse causes the Russian arsenal to fall into terrorist hands
Sheldon Filger 2009: Russian Economy Faces Disastrous Free Fall Contraction. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldonfilger/russian-economy-faces-dis_b_201147.html
It just may be possible that U.S. President Barack Obama's national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major economic meltdown in
Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence community have already concluded that the
Global Economic Crisis represents the greatest national security threat to the United States, due to its facilitating political instability in
the world. During the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for guarding the nation's nuclear arsenal went
without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperate personnel would illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist
organizations. If the current economic crisis in Russia were to deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal
remain? It may be that the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous consequence.
Russian loose nukes cause nuclear war
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.
Organizations such as the Russian military and Minatom are now operating in circumstances of great stress. Money is in short
supply, paychecks are irregular, living conditions unpleasant ... [D]isorder within Russia and the resulting strains within the
military could easily cause a lapse or a breakdown in the Russian military's guardianship of nuclear weapons. n38 Accordingly,
there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from Russia as a result
of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era nuclear security measures. n39 Terrorist
groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country
possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another
subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." n40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will
steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a
highly destructive nuclear weapon. n41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to
constructing a workable weapon are not significant. n42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to deliver a
nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it
was built. n43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the
first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. n44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War
eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. n45
This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. n46 Although the
economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid
and who are too young to retire, n47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear
knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. n48 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. n49 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 fullscale nuclear conflict. n50 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. n51
This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, n52 as
well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.
n53
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
50/53
RUSSIAN ECON COLLAPSE BAD (WAR)
Russian economic decline causes nuclear
Filger 9 (Sheldon, founder of Global Economic Crisis, The Huffington Post,, 5.10.9, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldonfilger/russian-economy-faces-dis_b_201147.html )
In Russia, historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is rarely encountered in other major
industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of the former Soviet Union that led to its political downfall. Similarly,
Medvedev and Putin, both intimately acquainted with their nation's history, are unquestionably alarmed at the prospect that
Russia's economic crisis will endanger the nation's political stability, achieved at great cost after years of chaos following the
demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests are occurring among rank and file workers facing unemployment or nonpayment of their salaries. Recent polling demonstrates that the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding
rapidly. Beyond the political elites are the financial oligarchs, who have been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and
executive jets in a desperate attempt to raise cash. Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where economic collapse
is not out of the question, the impact will go far beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome would be for the Global Economic
Crisis. There is a geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context. Despite its economic vulnerabilities
and perceived decline from superpower status, Russia remains one of only two nations on earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient
scope and capability to destroy the world as we know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev and Prime Minister
Putin who will be lying awake at nights over the prospect that a national economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and
destabilizing social and political upheaval. It just may be possible that U.S.
Russian collapse causes a global nuclear war
David 99 (Steven, Professor of Political Science at The Johns Hopkins University, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb) ET
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
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.
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,
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
51/53
RUSSIAN ECON COLLAPSE GOOD (NATIONALISM AND ECON) 1/2
Russian economic collapse weakens Putin hardliners – solves back for their collapse bad scenarios and Russian nationalism
ANDERS ÅSLUND (Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He is the author of Russia’s Capitalist
Revolution: Why Market Reform Succeeded and Democracy Failed and coauthor of The Russian Balance Sheet.) 5/28/2009: The
Kremlin’s Crisis. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65098/anders-%C3%83%C2%A5slund/the-kremlins-crisis
In June 2008, even as the world economy began to crumble, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was sanguine about his country's economic prospects.
"We have no crisis," he said. For the moment, he was on top of it all. Russia's economy had grown by seven percent every year from 1999 to 2007, and Putin was
predicting that it would surpass Germany as the fifth-largest economy in the world by 2020. This, however, would soon prove to be
an illusion. At first, Putin and his allies in the Kremlin continued to act invincible, either in denial or opportunistic about the threat the crisis posed. But as the crisis
deepened, more liberal figures close to President Dmitri Medvedev were able to push through an initial round of much-needed economic
policy adjustments. The third phase of the Russian response will become clear over the next few months, as the Kremlin chooses either to continue down the path of reform or to halt structural changes. The crisis
hit Russia after a decade of high economic growth. By early August 2008, thanks to a steady balance of payment surpluses, Russia had accumulated international currency reserves of $598 billion, the third largest in the
the price of oil -- which had peaked in July at $147 per barrel -- started to
plummet. In December, it hit a low of $35 per barrel, a potentially devastating change of fortune for a country in which commodities account
for 85 percent of all exports. After the outbreak of the war in Georgia last August, Russia's stock market started plunging relentlessly, dropping a total of
world. Inflation plateaued at 15 percent; if anyone worried, it was about the Russian economy overheating. But then
80 percent from its height in May to its nadir in October. New revelations emerged about Russia's oligarchs -- it turned out they had borrowed more than anybody realized -- and much of their wealth vanished. Within a few
months, two-thirds of the country's 100 wealthiest were no longer billionaires. Russia's first anticrisis response was to refinance the foreign loans of strategic Russian companies -- most notably Russian Aluminum -- and pour
liquidity into the banking system. Putin and his allies who control large state corporations were not scared by the crisis. Instead, they saw it as an opportunity to nationalize large private firms and began to spread rumors about
major nationalization of metallurgical and mining companies. The Kremlin believed the oil-price decline to be temporary and thus that both businesses and consumers with hard-currency loans would be shielded from huge
losses. This proved wrong, with serious consequences: in November, the Russian Central Bank abandoned its peg to a basket of dollars and euros, undertaking a gradual devaluation of the ruble. The public responded by
shifting savings to dollars and euros. At the same time, the central bank tried to expand liquidity, but it was instantly transformed into foreign currency. The result was that by the end of January Russia had lost $212 billion,
or more than one-third of its currency reserves. In the first quarter of 2009, GDP fell by 9.5 percent compared to the first quarter of 2008, and industrial production declined by 14 percent. Falling exports, which have driven
the decline, are set to plummet by nearly 50 percent this year. Naturally, the sudden economic crisis has hurt the population at large. In December, real disposable income fell by 12 percent, in sharp contrast to the steep rise in
Private foreign
debt has also become an acute problem. Russia's consumers and businesses owe an estimated $500 billion -- approximating the total
market capitalization of the Russian stock market. The main reason for this substantial private foreign debt is Russia's poor banking
system, half of which belongs to five state banks that are mostly devoted to the Kremlin's funny business . The many private banks are too
small to serve the country's largest companies, which are forced to borrow abroad, incurring considerable risks from currency fluctuations. The crisis has revealed
how little Putin has done for the well-being of the Russian population during his time in office. The high economic growth of the last
decade has been driven by market transformation, free capacity, and high oil prices. Putin has been responsible for none of the above
and has done nothing to help the country's current business environment, which is awful and getting worse. Most shocking is Russia's
extraordinary corruption. According to Transparency International, Russia is the 33rd most corrupt country out of 180 countries. (The only country richer in terms of per capita and more corrupt than Russia is
Equatorial Guinea.) One consequence is that Russia cannot undertake major infrastructure projects. Its road network, for example, has not expanded since Putin came to power in 2000. Putin is no longer
president, but he remains the most powerful figure in the country. Meanwhile, Medvedev has repeatedly stated that he makes the ultimate decisions. The personal relationship
real income most Russians had experienced over the last several years. Official unemployment has reached 9.5 percent, but the government has decided to stop publishing such unfortunate numbers.
between Putin and Medvedev might be cordial, but behind them are people of very different inclinations. Andrei Piontkovsky, a liberal critic of the Kremlin, has labeled the Putin group the "bunker" and the Medvedev group
The Putin group consists of hard-liners from the former Soviet security
services who were close to Putin in St. Petersburg and Dresden, Germany. The Medvedev club is comprised of younger professionals, lawyers, and
economists who are ambitious technocrats hoping for political survival. The crisis has delivered a rude shock to Russia's hard-liners
and given reform a chance. The first victory for the reformers came with the revised government budget and anticrisis plan released in March. The new
budget radically revised several optimistic -- and unrealistic -- assumptions made in the fall. Now, for example, GDP is estimated to fall by six
"February 1917," in reference to the revolution that led to the abdication of Czar Nicholas II.
percent, instead of growing by six percent, and instead of having a surplus of 3.7 percent, the budget is expected to have a deficit equal to 7.4 percent of GDP.
Although the earlier government policy of nationalization seems to have been abandoned, there remains a danger that a return of high
oil prices will allow Putin and the Kremlin hard-liners to push back. Russia thus faces a stark choice: either it embraces economic
reforms and cleans up rampant corruption, or it continues Putin's course of authoritarianism and reliance on commodity exports.
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
52/53
RUSSIAN ECON COLLAPSE GOOD (NATIONALISM AND ECON) 2/2
Nationalist revival causes US-Russian nuclear war.
Victor Israelyan, was a Soviet ambassador, diplomat, arms control negotiator, and leading political scientist, 1998 Winter, Washington Quarterly.
The first and by far most dangerous possibility is what I call the power scenario. Supporters of this option would, in the name of a
"united and undivided Russia," radically change domestic and foreign policies. Many would seek to revive a dictatorship and take
urgent military steps to mobilize the people against the outside "enemy." Such steps would include Russia's denunciation of the
commitment to no-first-use of nuclear weapons; suspension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I and refusal to ratify
both START II and the Chemical Weapons Convention; denunciation of the Biological Weapons Convention; and reinstatement of a
full-scale armed force, including the acquisition of additional intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, as well as medium- and
short-range missiles such as the SS-20. Some of these measures will demand substantial financing, whereas others, such as the denunciation and refusal to ratify arms
control treaties, would, according to proponents, save money by alleviating the obligations of those agreements. In this scenario, Russia's military planners would shift
Western countries from the category of strategic partners to the category of countries representing a threat to national security. This will revive the strategy of nuclear
deterrence -- and indeed, realizing its unfavorable odds against the expanded NATO, Russia will place new emphasis on the first-use of nuclear weapons, a trend that is
underway already. The power scenario envisages a hard-line policy toward the CIS countries, and in such circumstances the problem of the Russian diaspora in those
countries would be greatly magnified. Moscow would use all the means at its disposal, including economic sanctions and political ultimatums, to ensure the rights of
ethnic Russians in CIS countries as well as to have an influence on other issues. Of those means, even the use of direct military force in places like the Baltics cannot be
ruled out. Some will object that this scenario is implausible because no potential dictator exists in Russia who could carry out this
strategy. I am not so sure. Some Duma members -- such as Victor Antipov, Sergei Baburin, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and Albert
Makashov, who are leading politicians in ultranationalistic parties and fractions in the parliament -- are ready to follow this path to
save a "united Russia." Baburin's "Anti-NATO" deputy group boasts a membership of more than 240 Duma members. One cannot help but remember that when
Weimar Germany was isolated, exhausted, and humiliated as a result of World War I and the Versailles Treaty, Adolf Hitler took it upon himself to "save" his
country. It took the former corporal only a few years to plunge the world into a second world war that cost humanity more than 50 million lives. I do not believe that
Russia has the economic strength to implement such a scenario successfully, but then again, Germany's economic situation in the 1920s was hardly that strong either.
Thus, I am afraid that economics will not deter the power scenario's would-be authors from attempting it. Baburin, for example, warned that any political leader
who would "dare to encroach upon Russia" would be decisively repulsed by the Russian Federation "by all measures on heaven and
earth up to the use of nuclear weapons." n10 In autumn 1996 Oleg Grynevsky, Russian ambassador to Sweden and former Soviet arms control negotiator,
while saying that NATO expansion increases the risk of nuclear war, reminded his Western listeners that Russia has enough missiles to destroy both the
United States and Europe. n11 Former Russian minister of defense Igor Rodionov warned several times that Russia's vast nuclear arsenal could become
uncontrollable. In this context, one should keep in mind that, despite dramatically reduced nuclear arsenals -- and tensions -- Russia and the United States
remain poised to launch their missiles in minutes. I cannot but agree with Anatol Lieven, who wrote, "It may be, therefore, that with all the new Russian
order's many problems and weaknesses, it will for a long time be able to stumble on, until we all fall down together."
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program – Bob Wells
USF Debate 2010-2011
Gonzo
Impact File - Econ
53/53
SOUTH ASIAN GROWTH BAD (ARMS RACE)
South asian countries use military growth to increase arms including missiles and jets
Global military 10 ( 3.17.10, Global Military News, http://www.global-military.com/southeast-asian-countries-to-purchase-weaponsand-the-possibility-of-war-greatly-increased-the-south-china-sea.html)
A report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s report on the security situation in South Asia, causing the
relevant foreign media reports. British “Financial Times” reported that China’s military rise, the South Asian countries have
increased their armaments, large-scale imports of modern weapons. The Reuters news agency predicts that due to recently
discovered in the South Hey marine resources, making the conflict broke out between the countries concerned the possibility of
greatly increased dramatically in some countries to buy modern weapons, but also neighboring countries and even caused a chain
reaction throughout the region. Britain’s “Financial Times” published on March 15 article said that the Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Arms Transfers Project senior research fellow Simon – Weizmann Institute (Siemon Wezeman)
Military analysts have warned that China is growing modernization of military forces, neighboring Southeast Asian countries have
increased investment in national defense and procurement. In recent years, some Southeast Asian countries in recent years,
“substantial” to buy advanced submarines, fighter jets and long-range missiles, its aim is to possible future rainy day conflict in the
South China Sea, the region’s territorial disputes are likely to evolve into a war. He said: “Although the Southeast Asian countries
have not publicly expressed concerns about China’s military buildup, but they are thought to this issue, and are used to purchase
advanced weapons and ways to express their position. 15 years ago, in the South China Sea, the same conflicting time, these
countries do not have the ability to compete. Now, if someone in the area and attack these fields, things will become very
dangerous. ”Many Southeast Asian countries because of the armed forces resigned to the 1997 Asian financial crisis led to the
situation of military equipment behind the building, in the recent economic upturn began to have to buy arms. According to the
article, although these countries to buy advanced weapons from the driving force is the domestic, regional and more strategic
considerations, most national governments, and not directly by name China as a direct target
Arms race in asia threatens nuclear war
Feffer 8 (John, co director of foreign policy in focus @ Institute for policy studies, 3.19.8, Asia Pacific Journal,
http://www.japanfocus.org/-John-Feffer/2704)
The arms race in Northeast Asia and the Asia Pacific threatens to overwhelm all talk of peace in the region. Northeast Asia is
where four of the world's largest military forces -- those of the United States, China, Russia, and Japan, three of them leading
nuclear powers -- confront each other – in addition to the two Koreas that sit astride the most dangerous flash point. Together, the
countries participating in the Six-Party Talks account for approximately 65% of world military expenditures, with the United
States responsible for roughly half the global total.
These arms races will go nuclear and reignite conflicts in India and Pakistan, Korea, and Taiwan leading to extinction
Cirincione 2k (Joseph, president of Ploughshares Fund, Foreign Policy, 3.22.00) ET
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