Good and Bad – 1NC [1/2]
No one knows what is good and bad. Reject the aff’s judgments, even if we lose all life on earth—
Kirkland, professor of Asian religions and Taoism at the University of Georgia, 2001
(Russell, “'Responsible Non-Action' in a Natural World: Perspectives from the Neiye, Zhuangzi, and Daode
jing,” Daoism and Ecology: Ways within a Cosmic Landscape,
http://kirkland.myweb.uga.edu/rk/pdf/pubs/ECO.pdf)
In the Taoist classic Huai-nan-tzu, one finds a famous story of a man who suddenly finds himself the
unexpected owner of a new horse. His neighbors congratulate him on his good fortune, until his son falls from
the horse and breaks his leg. The man's neighbors then act to console him on his bad fortune, until army
conscriptors arrive and carry off all the able-bodied young men, leaving the injured young man behind as
worthless. The lesson of the story is that when an event occurs, we are quick to judge it as fortunate
or unfortunate, but our judgments are often mistaken, as later events often prove.6 And one of the
most heavily stressed lessons of the Chuang-tzu is that humans quickly judge events on the basis of what we
accept on the basis of simplistic assumptions — e.g., that life is inherently better than death — and that the wise
person learns to question and discard such assumptions, and forego such judgments regarding events. When
Chuang-tzu's wife died, Chuang-tzu does not argue that the world is a better place for her absence, or that his
life is improved by his sudden new freedom. In fact, there is no issue in the passage of whether the world is
better off with Chuang-tzu's wife alive or dead. The only issue in the passage is that people are born and that
people later die, and to ignore that basic fact would display culpable stupidity. The very same lesson is
impressed upon the reader of the previous passage, regarding the sudden transformation of a character's
elbow. What we are taught in that passage is that life is a process of ineluctable change and transformation, and
that humans would be profoundly wrong and clearly silly to object to such change. Another element of the
lesson is that the nature of human life is not separate from, or other than, the nature of nonhuman life. When
one says that "life is ineluctable change, and we must accept such change with serenity," one is speaking about
"life" in such a way that it clearly involves the lives of individual humans just as fully as it involves the events
that occur in the broader world, and vice versa. Imagine the story of the death of Chuang-tzu's wife involving,
instead, the death of the species we call whooping cranes: Chuang-tzu would, in that case, patiently point out to
his deeply caring but deeply shallow friend that he had indeed felt grief to see such beautiful birds come to their
end, but had gone on to engage in appropriate rational reflection upon the nature of life, and had come to
accept the transitory nature of all such creatures, just as in the present story Chuang-tzu had come to accept
the transitory nature of his own spouse. If one must learn to accept with serenity the death of someone we love,
someone without whose life our own life would have never been what it is, wouldn't the author urge us to
accept that the death of some birds, birds that have never played a role in our lives the way that one's deceased
spouse had done, is an event that we should accept with equanimity? If change catches up with us, even to
the extent that the planet that we live on should become permanently devoid of all forms of life,
the response of the author of these passages would logically be that such is the nature of things, and
that crying over such a sudden turn of events would be very silly indeed, like a child crying over a spilt glass of
milk, or the death of some easily replaceable goldfish. The only reason that a child cries over the death of a
goldfish is that he or she has become irrationally attached to that creature as it exists in its present form, and
has formed an immature sentimental bond to it. As adults, we appreciate the color and motion of fish in our
aquaria, but seldom cry over the death of one of its inmates: we know very well that to cry over the death of
such a fish would be silly and a sign of juvenile behavior. As our children grow, we teach them, likewise, never
to follow their raw emotional responses, but rather to govern their emotions, and to learn to behave in a
responsible manner, according to principles that are morally correct, whether or not they are emotionally
satisfying. If, for instance, one were to see a driver accidentally run run over one's child or beloved, one's first
instinct might be to attack the driver with a righteous fury, falsely equating emotional intensity and violent
action with the responsible exercise of moral judgment. In general, we work to teach ourselves and each other
not to respond in that way, to take a course of self-restraint, curbing emotion, lest it propel us into actions that
will later, upon calm reflection, be revealed to have been emotionally satisfying but morally wrong. If I saw my
child run down by a car, it might give me great emotional satisfaction to drag the driver from her car and beat
her to death. But it might well turn out that she had in fact done nothing wrong, and had been driving legally
and quite responsibly when a careless child suddenly ran into her path, giving her no time to stop or to evade
the child. Because we have all learned that the truth of events is often not apparent to the parties that are
experiencing them, we generally work to learn some degree of self-control, so that our immediate emotional
reaction to events does not mislead us into a foolish course of action. Now if we take these facts and transfer
them into our consideration of Chuang-tzu and Mencius on the riverbank, that episode should, logically, be
read as follows. If Mencius feels an emotional urge to jump into the river to save the baby, his emotional
response to the baby's presence there must be seen as immature and irresponsible. After all, one might muse,
one never knows, any more than the man with the horse, when an event that seems fortunate is actually
unfortunate, or vice versa. What if the baby in the water had been the ancient Chinese equivalent of Adolf
Hitler, and the
saving of young Adolf — though occasioned by the deepest feelings of compassion, and a deep-felt veneration
for "life" — led to the systematic extermination of millions of innocent men, women, and children? If
one knew, in retrospect, that Hitler's
atrocities could have been totally prevented by the simple moral act of refraining from leaping to save an
endangered child, would one not conclude, by sound moral reasoning, that letting that particular baby drown
would have represented a supremely moral act? How, Chuang-tzu constantly challenges us, how can we
possibly know what course of action is truly justfied? What if, just for the sake of argument, a dreadful plague
soon wipes out millions of innocent people, and the pathogen involved is soon traced back to an organism that
had once dwelt harmlessly in the system of a certain species of bird, such as, for instance, the whooping crane?
In retrospect, one can imagine, the afflicted people of the next century — bereft of their wives or husbands,
parents or children — might curse the day when simple-minded do-gooders of the twentieth-century had
brazenly intervened with the natural course of events and preserved the cursed specied of crane, thereby
damning millions of innocents to suffering and death. We assume that such could never happen, that all living
things are somehow inherently good to have on the planet, that saving the earthly existence of any life-form is
somehow inherently a virtuous action. But our motivations in such cases are clearly, from a Taoist point of
view, so shallow and foolish as to warrant no respect. If Mencius, or a sentimental modern lover of "life," were
to leap into the river and save a floating baby, he or she would doubtless exult in his or her selfless act of moral
heroism, deriving a sense of satisfaction from having done a good deed, and having prevented a terrible
tragedy. But who can really know when a given event is truly a tragedy, or perhaps, like the horse that breaks a
boy's leg, really a blessing in disguise. Since human wisdom, Chuang-tzu suggests, is inherently incapable of
successfully comprehending the true meaning of events as they are happening, when can we ever truly know
that our emotional urge to save babies, pretty birds, and entertaining sea-mammals is really an urge that is
morally sound. The Taoist answer seems to be that we can never be sure, and even if the extinction of
Chuangtzu's wife or of the whooping crane really brought no actual blessing to the world, such events are
natural and proper in the way of life itself, and to bemoan such events is to show that one is no more insightful
about life than a child who sentimentally cries over the loss of a toy, a glass of milk, a beloved pet, or even her
mommy, run over by a drunken driver. The Taoist lesson seems, in this regard, to be the same in each case:
things happen, and some things cause us distress because we attach ourselves sentimentally to certain
people, objects, and patterns of life; when those people, objects, or patterns of life take a sudden or drastic turn
into a very different direction, a mature and responsible person calms his or her irrational emotions, and
takes the morally responsible course of simply accepting the new state of things.’
Take no action to create desired ends—
Kirkland, professor of Asian religions and Taoism at the University of Georgia, 1996
(Russell, “The Book of the Way,” Great Literature of the Eastern World,
http://kirkland.myweb.uga.edu/rk/pdf/pubs/DAODE.pdf)
Specifically, the Tao is humble, yielding, and non-assertive. Like a mother, it benefits others selflessly: it gives
us all life and guides us safely through it, asking nothing in return. This altruistic emphasis of the Daode jing
has seldom been noticed, but it is one of the most important lessons that it draws from the observation of the
natural world. Water, for instance, is the gentlest and most yielding of all things, yet it can overcome the
strongest substances, and cannot itself be destroyed. More importantly, however, water lives for others: it
provides the basis of life for all things, and asks nothing in return. If we learn to live like water does, we will be
living in accord with the Tao, and its Power (De) will carry us safely through life. Such a way of life is called
wuwei, usually translated as "non-action." Wuwei means foregoing all activity intended to effect desired
ends. Instead, one should follow one's natural course and allow all other things to do likewise, lest our willful
interference disrupt things' proper flow. Few modern readers have ever grasped the full radicality of the ideal
of wuwei. Many of us today (like the ancient Chinese Confucians and Mohists) look at the world and see
things that we think need correcting. The Daode jing would actually have us do nothing whatsoever
about them. The repeated phrase "do nothing, and nothing will be undone" admonishes us to trust the Tao -the natural working of things -- and never to do anything about anything. Actually, such is the most that
anyone can do, because the Tao -- as imperceptible as it is -- is the most powerful force in existence, and
nothing can thwart its unceasing operation.
1nc K
Plan’s expansion of competitive markets operates within the logic of vulgar economics
as a new wave capitalist securitization that will destroy the planet and create the
condition for genocide between the north-south divide
Vote neg to endorse the struggle against capitalist immorality—calls for reform will fail
it’s try or die for the alt to create structural change
Amin, director of the African office (in Dakar, Senegal) of the Third World Forum, an international nongovernmental association for research and
debate, and chair of the World Forum for Alternatives. He is the author of numerous books and articles, November 09 (Samir, “Capitalism
and the ecological footprint”, Monthly Review, http://www.monthlyreview.org/091102amin.php)
Our Ecological Footprint by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees (1996) instigated a major strand in radical
social thinking about construction of the future.
The authors not only defined a new concept — that of an ecological footprint — they also developed a metric
for it, whose units are defined in terms of “global hectares,” comparing the biological capacity of
societies/countries (their ability to produce and reproduce the conditions for life on the planet) with their
consumption of resources made available to them by this bio-capacity.
1. The authors’ conclusions are worrying. At the global level, the bio-capacity of our planet is 2.1 global hectares
(gha) per capita (i.e., 13.2 billion gha per 6.3 billion inhabitants). In contrast, the global average for
consumption of resources was already — in the mid-1990s — 2.7 gha. This “average” masks a gigantic
imbalance, the average for the Triad (Europe, North America, and Japan) having already reached a multiple of
the order of four magnitudes of the global average. A good proportion of the bio-capacity of societies in the
South is taken up by and to the advantage of these centers.
In other words, the current expansion of capitalism is destroying the planet and humanity. This expansion’s
logical conclusion is either the actual genocide of the peoples of the South — as “over-population” — or, at the
least, their confinement to ever increasing poverty. An eco-fascist strand of thought is being developed that
gives legitimacy to this type of “final solution” to the problem.
2. The interest of this work goes beyond its conclusions. For it is a question of a calculation (I use the term
“calculation,” rather than “discourse,” deliberately) put in terms of the use value of the planet’s resources,
illustrated through their measurement in global hectares (gha), not in dollars.
The proof is therefore given that social use value can be the subject of perfectly rational calculation. This proof
is decisive in its import, since socialism is defined in terms of a society founded on use value and not on
exchange value. And defenders of capitalism have always held that socialism is an unreal utopia because —
according to them — use value is not measurable, unless it is conflated with exchange value (defined in terms of
“utility” in vulgar economics).
Recognition of use value (of which the measurement of economic footprints is but one good example) implies
that socialism should be “ecological,” indeed can only be ecological, as Altvater proclaims (“solar socialism” or
“no socialism”). But it also implies that this recognition is impossible in any capitalist system, even a
“reformed” one, as we shall see.
3. In his time, Marx not only suspected the existence of this problem, he had already expressed it through his
rigorous distinction between use value and exchange value (wealth and value), conflated in vulgar economics.
Marx explicitly said that the accumulation of capital destroys the natural bases on which that accumulation is
built: man (the alienated, exploited, dominated, and oppressed worker) and the earth (symbol of natural riches
at the disposal of humanity). And whatever might be the limitations of this way of putting it, trapped within its
own era, Marx’s analysis nonetheless remains an illustration of a clear consciousness (beyond intuition) of the
problem, which deserves to be recognised.
It is regrettable, therefore, that the ecologists of our time, including Wackernagel and Rees, have not read
Marx. This would have allowed them to take their own proposals further, to grasp their revolutionary import,
and, of course, to go further than Marx himself on this topic.
4. This deficiency in modern ecology facilitates its capture by the ideology of vulgar economics, which occupies
a dominant position in contemporary society. This capture is already under way and, indeed, considerably
advanced.
Political ecology (such as that proposed by Alain Lipietz) was located from the beginning within the gamut of
the “pro-socialist,” political Left. Subsequently, “green” movements (and then political parties) located
themselves in the Center Left, through their expressed sympathy with social and international justice, their
critique of “waste,” and their concern with the fate of workers and “poor” peoples. But, apart from the diversity
of these movements, we should note that none of them has established a rigorous relationship between the
authentic socialist dimension necessary to rise to the challenge and a recognition, no less necessary, of the
ecological dimension. To achieve this relationship, we should not ignore the wealth/value distinction
emphasized by Marx.
Capture of ecology by vulgar ideology operates on two levels: on the one hand, by reducing measurement of use
value to an “improved” measurement of exchange value, and on the other, by integrating the ecological
challenge with the ideology of “consensus.” Both these maneuvers undermine the clear realization that ecology
and capitalism are, by their nature, in opposition.
5. This capture of ecological measurement by vulgar economics is making huge strides. Thousands of young
researchers in the United States, and their imitators in Europe, have been mobilized in this cause.
The “ecological costs” are, in this way of thinking, assimilated to external economies. The vulgar method of
measuring cost/benefit in terms of exchange value (itself conflated with market price) is then used to define a
“fair price,” integrating external economies and diseconomies.
It goes without saying that the work — reduced to mathematical formulas — done in this traditional area of
vulgar economics does not say how the “fair price” calculated could become that of the actual current market. It
is presumed, therefore, that fiscal and other “incentives” could be sufficient to bring about this convergence.
Any proof that such a convergence would really occur is entirely absent.
In fact, as can already be seen, oligopolies have seized hold of ecology to justify the opening up of new fields to
their destructive expansion. Francois Houtart provides a conclusive illustration of this in his work on biofuels.
Since then, “green capitalism” has been part of the obligatory discourse of men/women in positions of power,
on both the Right and the Left, in the Triad, and the CEOs of oligopolies. The ecology in question, of course,
conforms to the vision known as “weak sustainability” (the notion that it is possible for the market to substitute
for all national resources/forces, none of which is indispensable in defining a sustainable path) — in other
words, the complete commodification of the “rights of access to the planet’s resources.” Joseph Stiglitz, in a
report of the UN commission which he chaired, openly embraced this position at the United Nations General
Assembly, June 24-26, 2009, proposing “an auction of the world’s resources (fishing rights, licences to pollute,
etc.).” This is a proposal that quite simply comes down to sustaining the oligopolies in their ambition to
mortgage further the future of the peoples of the South.
6. The capture of ecological discourse by the political culture of the consensus (a necessary expression of the
conception of capitalism as the end of history) is equally well advanced.
This capture has an easy ride. For it is responding to the alienation and illusion that feed the dominant culture,
that of capitalism. An easy ride because this culture is actual, and holds a dominant place in the minds of the
majority of human beings, in the South as well as the North.
In contrast, the expression of the demands of the socialist counterculture is fraught with difficulty — because
socialist culture is not there in front of our eyes. It is part of a future to be invented, a project of civilization,
open to the creativity of the imagination. Slogans (such as “socialization through democracy and not through
the market” and “the transfer of the decisive level for decision making from the economic and political levels to
that of culture”) are not enough, despite their power to pave the way for the historical process of
transformation. For what is at stake is a long, “secular” process of societal reconstruction, based on principles
other than those of capitalism, in both the North and the South — a process that cannot be supposed to take
place “rapidly.” But construction of the future, however far away, begins today.
Midterms 1NC
A. GOP will win the House now.
Nate Silver, NYT, “G.O.P. Now Projected to Gain 53 House Seats,” 10/27/2010, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/choppyday-in-house-forecast-projected-g-o-p-gains-inch-forward-to-53-seats/#more-2783
Republicans strengthened their position in a couple of districts that received fresh polling from The Hill. In particular, John Spratt, the
longtime Democratic incumbent in South Carolina’s 5th congressional district, was shown 10 points behind the Republican, Mick Mulvaney. Because the
district had not received polling in some time, the poll has a lot of influence on Mr. Spratt’s forecast. The model now gives him just a 12 percent chance of
holding his seat, a sharp decline from 53 percent yesterday.
The chances for two other Democrats, John Salazar in the Colorado 3rd district, and Baron Hill in the Indiana 9th, also dropped on The
Hill’s polling.
But the same set of polls contained good news for other Democrats whom it tested, like Leonard Boswell in the Iowa 3rd district,
and the two Democratic incumbents in the Dakotas, Earl Pomeroy and Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, although both Mr. Pomeroy and Ms. Herseth-Sandlin
are still rated as underdogs in the model.
Another Democrat to see her odds improve today was Colleen Hanabusa in the Hawaii 1st district, who was given a 5-point lead in a new poll that
ordinarily has a strong Republican lean. Ms. Hanabusa is one of two Democrats favored to knock off a Republican incumbent, along with Cedric
Richmond of the Lousiana 2nd district in New Orleans.
The Democrats’ position on the generic ballot also improved slightly, particularly with a Marist College poll showing them in an overall tie with
Republicans among likely voters, a better result than most other recent polls.
But this improvement was offset by a series of downgrades made by CQ Politics, which changed its ratings in a
couple dozen races, almost all of the changes favoring Republicans. The model gives a heavy emphasis to the race ratings issued
by CQ and the three other agencies that it tracks.
Overall, the model resolved these changes
in favor of Republicans, who added one more seat to their projected
total for the second evening in a row. The model’s best guess is that the new Congress will be composed of 203
Democrats and 232 Republicans: a net gain of 53 seats for the G.O.P.
B. Action on immigration is key to Dem victories.
Lawrence, 8/12/10 – Washington, DC-based immigration policy specialist (Stewart J. “Obama and Latinos.” Counterpunch.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lawrence08122010.html)
President Obama’s
decision to sue Arizona over its proposed immigration enforcement law may have reflected the administration’s
election-year politics, a
way of stigmatizing the GOP, and rallying the liberal faithful, especially Latinos. A Gallup poll in June found that
Latinos were increasingly disaffected from Obama and his policies, while the President’s favorability rating with Whites and
honest judgment that such laws are repugnant and violate federal authority. But the lawsuit was also calculated
Black was unchanged. From a high of 69% in January, Obama's rating with Latinos had fallen 12 points to 57%. Among Spanish-speaking Latinos, the
drop was even more precipitous: 25%. According to Gallup, the slide was largely due to Obama’s failure to pursue
comprehensive immigration
reform, a cause that is near and dear to the country’s fastest-growing ethnic
constituency, which some pollsters rightly refer to as the “sleeping giant” of American politics.
But thus far the Obama gambit isn’t working - and that spells trouble. According to the most recent polls, a
majority of Latinos - nearly 60%, in fact - are still disappointed with his handling of immigration. Unless that
perception is reversed, the Democrats face electoral disaster this November .
Without a strong Latino turnout in at least 30-35 congressional races where their votes could sway the outcome,
the GOP is almost certain to recapture the House, regaining control of the key committee and subcommittee
chairmanships that will shape the nation's policy agenda – including immigration - leading up to 2012. And Republicans could also
win a majority of the governorships and state legislatures which would allow them to dominate the upcoming federal redistricting process, influencing
the composition of the House for at least another decade – perhaps two.
C. GOP-controlled House gets SKFTA passed
Green, 9/13 – senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Matt, 9/13/10. “[Viewpoint] U.S. midterm elections and us.” http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2925891)
Americans came back from a three-day holiday the week of September 7 to see new public opinion poll numbers from
most of the news media confirming that the Democrats will take a major hit in mid-term Congressional elections in
November. The general favorability rating for Republicans and Democrats is now roughly even after several years in
which the Democrats had a significant lead, and polls in specific House and Senate races have influential political analysts
predicting the Republicans will take the House of Representatives and could take the Senate as well. Politics is always a
guessing game, but by some calculations these are the most dismal polls for an incumbent party before a mid-term
election in over fifty years. This is not an election about U.S.-Korea relations or even foreign policy, of course. The big
issues are a lack of new U.S. jobs and concern that the Federal Government has grown too large and fiscally irresponsible
under Barack Obama’s administration. (Many also blame the final Bush years for this as well, but he is not running this
time). That said, a change of leadership in the House and maybe the Senate could have some impact on U.S.-Korea
relations. One potentially positive impact could be on the U.S.-Korea FTA (Korus). When President Obama announced
that he wanted to pass Korus by the end of the year, over 100 Democratic members of Congress sent him a letter
expressing their opposition to the FTA. Republicans in the House are much more supportive of free trade than
Democrats, and Obama could have the numbers to pass Korus if he were willing to work with a new Republican majority.
(Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has to approve all commercial treaties). There is a precedent for this. Bill Clinton
ran for president in 1992 under the slogan, “It’s the economy stupid,” and initially pushed more protectionist and
interventionist economic policies after he was elected. When the Republicans took the House in November 1994, they cut
spending for Clinton’s industrial policy initiatives and forced a rethink about economic strategy in the White House.
Clinton ended up advancing the North America Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), which had been negotiated by the
administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, and he did so by reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans
over some strong objections within his own caucus. There is some speculation that Obama may do the same thing this
time. He has already highlighted trade promotion as one way to create new jobs and his political advisors will be looking
for some area where they can make progress with an opposition-controlled Congress.
That’s key to US-ROK relations – failure to pass SKFTA after the midterm tanks them
Snyder et al, 10 – adjunct senior fellow for Korea studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, director of the Center for
U.S.-Korea Policy at the Asia Foundation and Pacific Forum at CSIS (Scott A, June. With Charles L. Pritchard, John H.
Tilelli, and the CFR Independent Task Force. “U.S. Policy Toward the Korean Peninsula.” Council on Foreign Relations
Independent Task Force Report No. 64.
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Korean_PeninsulaTFR64.pdf)
The KORUS FTA also helps bind the United States and South Korea more closely together strategically, economically, and
politically.52 The economic significance of the KORUS FTA is substantial, but the oppor- tunity to bring South Korea closer
to the United States as a partner— especially given that China is currently South Korea’s primary trade and investment
partner—is significant. Failure to approve the agree- ment would send a negative message: that despite South Korea’s role
and significance as one of the top twenty economies in the world, there are limits to U.S. economic and, by extension,
strategic cooperation with South Korea. Following U.S. midterm elections and in the context of steady U.S. economic
improvement, ratification of the KORUS FTA should be a top Obama administration priority for 2011.
US-ROK relations key to prevent a North Korean nuclear crisis
Pritchard et al, 09 – President of the Korea Economic Institute (Charles L, 6/16. With John H. Tilelli Jr., Chairman and
CEO, Cypress International, and Scott A. Snyder, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Korea Studies, CFR. “A New Chapter for U.S.South Korea Alliance.” Council on Foreign Relations.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/19635/new_chapter_for_ussouth_korea_alliance.html)
While all eyes have been trained on North Korea's belligerent and aggressive actions in recent weeks, it is important to
note that the U.S.-South Korea alliance has emerged as a linchpin in the Obama administration's efforts to successfully
manage an overcrowded global agenda, and a pivotal tool for safeguarding U.S. long-term interests in Asia. When South
Korea's President Lee Myung-bak meets with President Barack Obama at the White House Tuesday, the two leaders must
effectively address three main areas: policy coordination to address North Korea's nuclear threat, the development of a
global security agenda that extends beyond the peninsula, and collaboration to address the global financial crisis as South
Korea takes a lead on the G-20 process. By conducting a second nuclear test in May, followed by a number of missile
launches, North Korea has forced its way onto the Obama administration's agenda. First and foremost, effective U.S.South Korea alliance coordination is critical to managing both the global effects of North Korea's nuclear threat on the
nonproliferation regime and the regional security challenges posed by potential regime actions that lead to further crisis in
the region. North Korea's internal focus on its leadership succession, and the apparent naming of North Korean leader
Kim Jong-il's little-known and inexperienced youngest son as his successor, make the task of responding to North Korea's
aggressive and destabilizing actions all the more challenging. Both deterrence and negotiation must be pursued on the
basis of close consultations. Presidents Obama and Lee must also develop coordinated contingency plans in the event of
internal instability in North Korea. Through effective U.S.-South Korea alliance coordination, it should be possible to forge
a combined strategy capable of managing the nuclear, proliferation, and regional security dimensions of North Korea's
threat. A coordinated position would also strengthen the administration's hand in its efforts to persuade China to put
pressure on North Korea.
North Korean crisis causes nuclear war and triggers every impact
Hayes and Green, 10 - *Victoria University AND **Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute (Peter and Michael, ““The Path Not Taken, the Way Still Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia”, 1/5,
http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/10001HayesHamalGreen.pdf)
The consequences of failing to address the proliferation threat posed by the North Korea developments, and related
political and economic issues, are serious, not only for the Northeast Asian region but for the whole international
community. At worst, there is the possibility of nuclear attack1, whether by intention, miscalculation, or merely accident,
leading to the resumption of Korean War hostilities. On the Korean Peninsula itself, key population centres are well within
short or medium range missiles. The whole of Japan is likely to come within North Korean missile range. Pyongyang has a
population of over 2 million, Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million. Even a
limited nuclear exchange would result in a holocaust of unprecedented proportions. But the catastrophe within the region
would not be the only outcome. New research indicates that even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our
global climate far more quickly than global warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of
even a limited nuclear exchange involving approximately 100 Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be
noted that the United States currently deploys warheads in the range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual warheads equivalent
in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas).The studies indicate that the soot from the fires produced would lead to a
decrease in global temperature by 1.25 degrees Celsius for a period of 6-8 years.3 In Westberg’s view: That is not global
winter, but the nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature than at any time during the last 1000 years. The
temperature over the continents would decrease substantially more than the global average. A decrease in rainfall over the
continents would also follow...The period of nuclear darkness will cause much greater decrease in grain production than
5% and it will continue for many years...hundreds of millions of people will die from hunger...To make matters even
worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the stratosphere would cause a huge reduction in the Earth’s protective
ozone.4 These, of course, are not the only consequences. Reactors might also be targeted, causing further mayhem and
downwind radiation effects, superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin left by nuclear next-use. Millions of refugees
would flee the affected regions. The direct impacts, and the follow-on impacts on the global economy via ecological and
food insecurity, could make the present global financial crisis pale by comparison. How the great powers, especially the
nuclear weapons states respond to such a crisis, and in particular, whether nuclear weapons are used in response to
nuclear first-use, could make or break the global non proliferation and disarmament regimes. There could be many
unanticipated impacts on regional and global security relationships5, with subsequent nuclear breakout and geopolitical
turbulence, including possible loss-of-control over fissile material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war, and aftermath
chain-reaction affects involving other potential proliferant states. The Korean nuclear proliferation issue is not just a
regional threat but a global one that warrants priority consideration from the international community.
1NC EU Brain Drain DA
A. Unique internal link—EU’s increasing immigration measures to maintain competitiveness
Nielson, 09 (Johanna, B.A. University of Victoria, Thesis submitted for masters degree European Graduate Studies, “The Blue
Card”, April 2009, https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/7097)
Thus, the Commission felt that it was high time to review immigration policies for the longer terms, in particular an
economic migration strategy. This discussion led to the adoption of a Policy Plan on Legal Migration for the period of
2007-2009. It lists the actions and legislations that the Commission intends to take in order to pursue a consistent
development of the EU legal migration policy. 93 The Policy Plan envisages the adoption of five legislative proposals: a
general Framework Directive and four specific directives on labour immigration. The attempt with this package of
legislative measures is to lay down simplified admission procedures and conditions for specific categories of migrants
(highly skilled workers, seasonal workers, remunerated trainees and intra-corporate transferees) and to secure the legal
status of third-country workers already residing in Member States. 94 The Policy Plan is an important document because
it “defines a road-map for the remaining period of the Hague Programme (2006-2009) and lists the actions and legislative
initiatives that the Commission intends to take, so as to pursue the coherent development of EU legal migration policy.” 95
Hence, the proposal for a Council directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the
purpose of highly qualified employment (EU Blue Card), which the EC published in October of 2007, is part of the Policy
Plan’s actions and legislative initiatives. It was amended by the European Parliament in early November 2008 and on
November 20th the Parliament voted on the proposal and it was backed despite divisions between the different political
groups. 96 The central principle of this proposal is the enhanced freedom to access labour markets that comes with Blue
Card status for TCNs. The proposal is presented together with the proposal for a ‘Framework Directive’, which is in
accordance with the December 2005 Policy Plan on Legal Migration. The proposal aims to improve the EU’s ability to
attract and where necessary retain third-country highly skilled workers. The increase of legal labour migrants will enhance
the competitiveness of the EU economy and complement the set of measures that the EU is putting in place to achieve the
goals of the Lisbon Strategy. By facilitating and harmonising the admission of highly skilled migrants at EU level, the
Commission believes that the proposal will respond effectively to the fluctuating demands for highly skilled immigrant
labour and that it will be more successful in counterbalancing present and future skill shortages. 97
B. Link—US action brain drains EU immigrants
CNET News, 07 (Anne Broach, “US firms fear Europe will snatch up foreign tech workers”, 10/25/07,
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9804359-7.html#ixzz0y9dPfBCn)
The European Union's new proposal aimed at fast-tracking the immigration process for workers in "highly skilled" is
making some U.S. technology heavyweights nervous. It's no secret that American tech firms prize vast quantities of H-1B
temporary visas and permanent residency permits, otherwise known as green cards. The companies argue that these tools
are necessary to bring in foreigners for positions they claim suffer from shortages of qualified Americans, particularly the
foreign nationals who represent the majority of masters and Ph.D. graduates from U.S. universities in relevant technical
fields. Flag of the EU Now they're concerned that unless Congress acts fast to increase the cap on those rapidly grabbed
prizes, they'll soon lose out on foreign talent to EU countries. The EU's proposal would provide a "fast-track" immigration
program known as the "blue card"--a sort of green card competitor, offering card holders all EU social benefits--which will
bring 20 million additional workers from Asia, Africa and Latin America over the next 20 years, according to various news
reports. The plan's drafters hope to award workers the cards within one month to three months--a far cry from U.S. green
cards, whose processing time averages 5 to 10 years. "Europe has laid down a challenge to the United States Congress,"
Ralph Hellman, a lobbyist for the Information Technology Industry Council, said in a statement. "The EU will attract the
best and brightest workers in the world if the United States continues to create new burdens to hiring these valuable
workers." ITI's members include Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Cisco Systems, IBM and Intel. American tech companies may not
have anything to get worked up yet, though. The EU has been considering such a move since 1999, and even now, the plan
still must be ratified by all 27 member states, which would then set "quotas" based on their worker needs. It reportedly
faces resistance from some major members, including the United Kingdom and Germany. Meanwhile, proponents of
increased U.S. visa quotas are also fuming this week over the U.S. Senate's approval of an amendment that increases by
$3,500 the filing fees for employers seeking H-1B visas, which allow foreigners with at least a bachelor's degree in their
area of specialty to work in the United States for up to six years. That bill must still be reconciled with a House of
Representatives version, however, so that section may not survive in the end. "Europe has sent a message. They are
aggressively pursuing the professional talent they need to compete on the global stage," said Robert Hoffman, Oracle's vice
president for governmental affairs and co-chairman of Compete America, a coalition of technology companies and probusiness groups. "The Senate has unfortunately also sent a message, and it doesn't bode well for the U.S. economy."
C. Impact—absent growth and competitiveness European unity will collapse
NYT, May 3rd, 10 (Timothy Heritage, “Crisis exposes fragility of European unity”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/global/04inside.html)
Mr. Heath’s reasoning for joining the bloc was that the only way Europe could have clout in a world of superpowers was to
unite politically. The Union’s founders set their sights on ever-closer political, economic and monetary union, but the E.U.
has often failed to speak with one voice, a flaw highlighted by recent crises. Germany has increasingly been made the
scapegoat for holding out against emergency loans for Greece because its voters oppose bailing out a nation they regard as
profligate and less hard-working. Germany’s image as a force for European solidarity has been tarnished. But current
European leaders do not have the same emotional commitment to political union as predecessors like the former German
and French leaders Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand. They survived World War II, when their countries were
enemies, and were united in the desire to prevent another war. “I remember Kohl saying to John Major, my former boss,
that he and Mitterrand represented the last generation of leaders who would really see the case for European union,” Sir
Stephen Wall, a former British foreign policy adviser, said during a visit last month to Brussels. “He said there will be one
more generation after us who will just about get it, and after that, unless we take real steps now, we will have lost that
impetus forever,” Mr. Wall said. The fear of Moscow that united West Europeans during the Cold War ended with the
collapse the Soviet Union, even if some concerns have now been revived. Reunification firmly established Germany as
Europe’s most powerful state. Granting membership to countries in Eastern and Central Europe made it even harder to
make rapid decisions and widened the gap between the rich and the relatively poor. Global economic crisis forced leaders
to think about domestic problems more than ever, and pan-European interests became secondary for voters. Even the
success of the euro was put in doubt when Greece acknowledged its deficit was twice as high as previously reported and
markets lost confidence in its ability to avoid a debt default. On a more strategic level, the European Union is accused of
lacking visionary leaders and a “big idea” — a project all its member countries can rally behind. That ought to come from
the European Commission’s Europe 2020 plan for stimulating growth and creating jobs, but the plan has generated little
enthusiasm. Critics see it as a rehash of a failed initiative to make Europe the world’s “most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy” by this year. At the heart of the Union, something is rotten. President Nicolas Sarkozy of
France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany have failed to click, and a lack of a common vision means the E.U.
engine is at best stuttering. Gloomy predictions suggest that the Union is in perpetual decline, that one or two of the
weaker member states will drop out of the 16-country euro zone and that economic growth will remain slow and
unemployment high for years. In this scenario, the Union would be increasingly marginalized, seen by emerging powers
like China and India as little more than a trading bloc and by the United States as having ever less relevance. But the
predictions are not all gloomy. The Union has often used crises to its advantage, forced by necessity to carry out tough
reforms it would otherwise have avoided. Under this view, the euro zone would hold together and reforms would force
member states to show more fiscal discipline and comply with targets set by the E.U. Stability and Growth Pact. Countries
would implement labor market reforms, end the economic imbalances between member states and become more
competitive. E.U. experts are erring on the gloomy side but say not to write off the Union just yet. “I don’t have a crystal
ball. We’re at a tipping point. We still have leverage and potential if we get our act together, though I don’t see much of
that,” said Ulrike Guérot of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
A Unified EU is key to China cooperation
EU Committee, 10 (House of Lords 7th Report of 2009-2010 Session, “Stars and Dragons”, March 23rd, 2010,
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldeucom/76/76i.pdf)
There is a widely held and rather fatalistic view that a putative US-China “G2” will dominate world
affairs in the coming decades. While it is unlikely that a cooperative G2 model will emerge because of
major differences of interest and values between the two nations, it is conceivable that China and the
United States will concert more closely on world affairs. In terms of cooperative fora the G20 is the
more likely formal model for the future. The EU must play a stronger role in driving forward
multilateral solutions to global problems. It should encourage the strengthening of the G20 model of
multi-national cooperation. It is clear that if the EU and its Member States are to remain influential at
global level they must successfully manage their relationship with a strong and growing China,
including through multilateral institutions. The arms embargo U-turn The relationship between the
EU and China deteriorated strongly in 2003 following the arms embargo debacle1 . The Chinese
perceived the EU decision as driven by the US. The perception that the EU is the weak partner to the
US rather than a strong partner to China still affects EU-China relations. The EU must avoid public
division and policy reversals in future, which only serve to undermine its credibility. The EU should
never again advance along an important strategic dialogue with China only to fall into disunity or be
effectively vetoed by other powers prior to implementation. The EU must fully consult, and ideally
agree a common position with, the United States where a US strategic interest is also involved. Then
the EU should define a clear process and transparent criteria for lifting the embargo. A divided EU
The credibility of the EU as a strategic and important partner of China is regularly undermined by the
tactical actions of individual large EU Member States. This is true from Tibet and meetings with the
Dalai Lama through to bilateral commercial agreements. We were informed by a number of witnesses
that the EU had considerable diplomatic leverage and influence. The EU is China’s largest trading
partner and overseas market. We see little evidence of this leverage being used effectively, and
certainly not outside the trade area. The EU has to make hard decisions about which areas of its
relations with China are best dealt with through a united EU approach. It is clear that disunity and
lack of mutual support over issues such as the Dalai Lama weaken the position of both the EU and the
Member States involved. The Lisbon Treaty will not be sufficient to enhance EU solidarity. Whilst
respecting the division of competences, the EU and its Member States need to decide the key issues on
which, in practice, the EU should stand firm on a united approach and then fully implement this. The
EU should use its leverage effectively in areas where it wants change— whether on climate change,
international development or human rights. The EU must be determined, unified and consistent in its
areas of vital interest.
That prevents global conflict over Taiwan
EU Committee, 10 (House of Lords 7th Report of 2009-2010 Session, “Stars and Dragons”, March 23rd, 2010,
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldeucom/76/76i.pdf)
Isabel Hilton told us in March 2009 that China’s relations with Taiwan were in “rather a good phase”. The recent
Taiwanese elections had brought to power Ma Ying-Jeou of the Kuomintang (KMT) who saw the Taiwan issue in the same
way as Beijing on the “one China” issue. The Chinese had “given themselves the right to invade Taiwan” if they wished but,
provided Taiwan did not do anything to change the international legal order, the Chinese did not see it as in their interests
to go to war (Q 134). Dr Gill thought that the US and China had reached an understanding over the heads of the leaders
and people of Taiwan to do everything possible to avoid Taiwan taking steps which would lead to conflict (Q 612). 5.
Stephen Lillie told us that the Commission had a non-diplomatic trade office in Taiwan to maintain its interests. He
thought that the EU could play a role in supporting reconciliation and dialogue across the Taiwan Strait. The EUAsia
Policy Guidelines set out a basic approach for the EU, to support positive moves between the two sides and express
concern at moves which would increase tension. He agreed that, since May 2008, the China-Taiwan dialogue had
increased substantially including direct flights and shipping links which the EU had welcomed publicly (Q 31). Lord Patten
of Barnes commented that, following the conclusion of discussions on Chinese and Taiwanese accession to the WTO,
China had reluctantly accepted the establishment of an EU office in Taiwan, as well as in Beijing, as a necessary part of the
trade relationship. He had explained to the Chinese that this did not constitute recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty (Q
556). 6. Dr Gill thought that in recent years the EU had spoken more forcefully in stating its interest in a peaceful solution
on the Taiwan Strait: “diplomatic language for letting China know that it should not use force to resolve those differences”.
Neither side should take unilateral actions that would disrupt the status quo. The EU had quietly supported efforts to
grant Taiwan greater international space, e.g. allowing Taiwan to participate in various international organisations such as
the World Health Assembly as an observer. The EU should join the US in encouraging China to be more flexible (Q 612).
Robert Cooper thought that the EU had a serious interest in cross-Strait relations as the disruption of a conflict would be
enormous and one could never exclude being dragged in. The best insurance was to develop political and commercial
people-to-people exchanges, which were currently going well (Q 415). 7. The Taipei Representative Office in the UK
commented that Taiwan was strategically important for the EU. Taiwan could serve as a “role model and catalyst” for
China’s democratisation. EU-Taiwan trade amounted to €40 billion, making it the EU’s 13th largest trading partner.
Taiwan was a major contributor to China’s economic modernisation, with 5 million jobs in China created due to
investments totalling $76 billion. Taiwan was a unique partner for EU investors in China. China still had 1,500 missiles
targeted at Taiwan. However, Taiwan’s government sought improved ties with Beijing, and was willing to learn from the
EU’s experience of gradual economic and then political integration. 8. Taiwan would like the EU to: x maintain its arms
embargo against China until “relevant conditions” were met, including ratification of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights; x maintain a “balanced policy” on cross-Strait relations; make no reference to the issue of Taiwanese
sovereignty in the PCA currently being negotiated between the EU and China; and consult Taiwan before the EU conducts
talks with China about Taiwan; x continue to support Taiwan’s “meaningful participation” in UN Specialised Agencies,
building on the recent invitation to the World Health Assembly as an observer; x recognise Taiwan as an “international
legal person” (but not a sovereign state), reflecting an arrangement in the WTO in which Taiwan participates as a
“separated customs territory” but with full membership; and x agree to negotiate an EU-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement (p
316). 9. China’s perception of the threat of a unilateral declaration of independence by Taiwan has risen since the 1990s
due to democratisation on the island and rising nationalism on the mainland. This has resulted in intense military
preparation to deter or confront a possible Taiwanese de jure independence. Despite China’s repeated claims that Taiwan
is an internal issue, it is a potential flash-point for the whole region, which could bring the US and China into open
conflict. Despite the EU’s lack of a defence capacity in East Asia, it would face serious consequences from a conflict across
the Taiwan Strait and its regional repercussions. Close consultation with the US and Japan is needed on the subject. 0.
Current policies in Taiwan and China mean that the situation remains stable. However, the latest US arms sales to Taipei
have rekindled tension between Beijing and Washington. The EU should state its support for the one China policy but its
rejection of reunification by anything other than peaceful means. It should discourage China and Taiwan from taking any
unilateral actions that would infringe these principles. 1. The EU should continue to support Taiwan in areas which China
would regard as non-threatening and should encourage the Chinese to be more flexible, seeking to persuade them that
Taiwan’s participation in some international organisations, such as observer status at the World Health Assembly, will not
damage the Chinese case on reunification.
Global nuclear war
Hunkovic, American Military University, 9 (Lee, “The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict: Possible Futures of a Confrontation
between China, Taiwan, and the United States,” American Military University Course Paper, http://www.lampmethod.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf)
World News Connection (2006) also states that the scenario of Taiwan attacking is equally difficult to respond to as the one involving a
low-intensity conflict. They state that this would be so because once a war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, unless it ends with a
one-side victory, nobody will surrender. They also state that while the deploying of responding forces in a massive scale by the U.S.
might guarantee winning for Taiwan, it would take the tremendous cost of a long-time dispatch of its forces and a very unstable postwar situation. While this article once again addressed strategic and tactical issues, which are not the focus of this study, they are very
valuable for the establishment of indicators of a conflict between China and Taiwan. The first scenario involving the deployment of
Chinese special forces into Taiwan to carry out covert operations to eliminate key members of the Taiwanese government, military and
attack early warning stations could be an excellent indicator that a surprise attack is in order, as well as the third, where the Taiwanese
attack a Chinese joint forces exercise, which may or may not be a stealth attack. The indicators that will be addressed later that these
situations would present could give warning of an imminent war, especially if it is not the massive conventional invasion that the
United States expects from China and is the most prepared for. A crucially important part of the analysis to examine the chances for
transposition, as well as the establishment of indicators, is a knowledge of the Chinese perspective on the situation, particularly, what
actions they will not tolerate from the Taiwanese. Studying the AntiSecession Law, as well as other rhetoric from Chinese leaders,
particularly Hu Jintao, as to which actions on behalf of Taiwan would lead to their going to war is enlightening, as well as
paramount, because the tone of these proverbial lines in the sand can also potentially give insight as to whether China’s
primary objective for Taiwan is really forcing reintegration or merely preventing secession. While political rhetoric,
particularly from the Chinese, who have a rich history of strategic deception, can never be taken at absolute face value, it is nonetheless
invaluable, to establish the intentions of governments, which can be used to weigh the pairwise comparisons, as well as establish
indicators of whether war in on the horizon or diplomacy will prevail. Xu (2007) wrote his article shortly before the 2008 Taiwanese
Presidential elections and begins his article by stating that while neither the Kuomintang or Democratic Progressive Party being a sure
win in the election, from the mainland’s perspective, peace and stability are at stake across the Strait no matter which party wins. He
then states that upholding peace and stability is the motivating force behind the mainland’s policy response. Xu (2007) then states that
as far as China is concerned, Cross-Strait peace and stability hinge on the one-China principle. Xu (2007) then states that in
order to make this concept applicable to reality, the mainland has set the “1992 consensus” as the political requirement and that the
“magic” of the “1992 consensus” is that it is the only formula involving the one-China principle that both sides have accepted and
cannot make any further provisions on and that it leaves a “creative ambiguity” about the political meaning of one China. He explains
this ambiguity, as being that Taiwan insists that one China is the “Republic of China”, whereas the mainland, as a concession, holds that
in Cross-Strait talks and negotiations, it does not need to touch on the political meaning of one China. Xu (2007) reveals that this
inconclusiveness of the consensus is what made it possible to hold the Wang-Koo meeting in Singapore in 1993. Xu (2007) then delves
into some of the Taiwanese political candidates vying for the presidency in 2008, mentioning that if the KMT wins the election, it will be
possible to reactivate the “1992 consensus” and that Cross-Strait dialogue and negotiations can resume, which will lessen tensions
between the two sides, although not tangible results will probably be achieved in the short term. He also mentions that if the DPP wins
the election, it will not accept the “1992 consensus”, but will pursue the “consensus” that now exists in the DPP, the “Resolution on
Taiwan’s Future” that was adopted on May 8, 1999, which says that Taiwan is “an independent sovereign country” that is called the
“Republic of China”. Xu (2007) also mentions the position of the DPP is that any change in the present state of “independence” must be
decided through a referendum conducted among all of the residents of Taiwan. Xu (2007) later in the article mentions Ma Ying-jeou,
stating that if he won, the two sides across the Strait should be able to implement the five “common aspirations and prospects for CrossStrait peace and development”, as announced in the press communiqué signed by Lien Chan and Hu Jintao in April 2005. He lists them
as reopening talks on the basis of the 1992 consensus, reaching a peace accord, promoting the “three direct links” fourth discussing the
issue of Taiwan’s participation in international activities and establishing a platform for regular exchanges between the two parties,
which has already been put into practice. Xu (2007) notes that the KMT has included the five “prospects” into its working agenda. Xu
(2007) then get to the most revealing part of the article, stating that if Ma Ying-jeou were the winner, his basic position on the CrossStrait relationship would be the maintenance of the status quo—“the status quo of the Republic of China”. He states that the status quo
should not be changed unilaterally or by nonpeaceful means. Xu (2007) goes on to claim that neither independence nor reunification is
the immediate priority. Xu (2007) then states that no matter which party wins the 2008 elections in Taiwan, the mainland’s Taiwan
policy would remain “peaceful reunification, one country two systems.” He further states that the most recent and authoritative
exposition of the policy is President Hu’s “Four Nevers” of March 2005, which are to “Never swerve from the one-China
principle; never give up efforts for a peaceful solution of the Taiwan issue; never change the policy of pinning hope on
Taiwan compatriots; and never compromise on the struggle against secessionist forces in Taiwan” and that the code of
conduct is the Antisecession Law. He ends his article by stating that maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait by containing
secessionist activities in Taiwan would remain the mainland’s policy priority after the 2008 election. While the author of this article is
clearly biased, as he is a reporter in the People’s Republic of China, where people are not allowed to speak against government policies
and much of his article is nothing more than pro-Beijing political propaganda, some of his points were very revealing, particularly about
the issues that Beijing would not be willing to compromise on regarding Taiwan and their claim that their objective is the maintenance
of the status quo, rather than coercing Taiwan into being annexed. Despite much of the self-serving rhetoric justifying Chinese
aggression and intimidation towards Taiwan that this article contained, it is very useful to establish indicators of action on behalf
of Taiwan that could cause China to use military force, particularly the violation of the Antisecession Law or President
Hu’s “Four Nevers”. For the meantime, this article makes it abundantly clear that Beijing considers Taiwanese President Ma to be a
facilitator and ally, which dramatically lessens the prospects for Chinese military action against Taiwan before 2012 and alters the
weighing of alternate scenarios during the pairwise comparison process. Actors and Perceptions: A war between China, Taiwan
and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a third world war, therefore, many countries
other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India
and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all other countries in the world that participate in the global
economy, in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan,
the possibility exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia,
as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military forces to
contain the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the
world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the
primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered
in this study.
1NC CP #1
Text: The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services should permit the filing of
adjustment of status applications before the priority date becomes current, allow applicants
with approved I-130 or I-140 petitions to receive Employment Authorization Documents and
advanced parole benefits for all employment-based visa applicants that graduate from
institutions of higher education in the United States.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services should exclude derivative family
members from the caps on employment-based visas.
CP solves case
Gary Endelman, immigration law at BP America Inc, Editorial Advisory Board of Immigration Daily and
Cyrus D. Mehta, founder and managing attorney of Cyrus D. Mehta & Associates, PLLC, a New York law firm
which concentrates in the area of US immigration law, 4-25-10, comprehensive immigration reform through
executive fiat, insightful immigration blog, http://cyrusmehta.blogspot.com/2010/04/comprehensiveimmigration-reform.html
For instance, there is nothing that would bar the USCIS from allowing the beneficiary of an approved
employment based I-140 or family based I-130 petition, and derivative family members, to obtain an
employment authorization document (EAD) and parole. The Executive, under INA § 212(d)(5), has the
authority to grant parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits. The crisis in the
priority dates where beneficiaries of petitions may need to wait for green cards in excess of 30 years may
qualify for invoking § 212(d)(5) under “urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefits.” Similarly,
the authors credit David Isaacson who pointed out that the Executive has the authority to grant EAD under
INA §274A(h)(3), which defines the term “unauthorized alien” as one who is not “(A) an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence, or (B) authorized to be so employed by this Act or by the Attorney General”
(emphasis added). Under sub paragraph (B), the USCIS may grant an EAD to people who are adversely
impacted by the tyranny of priority dates. Likewise, the beneficiary of an I-130 or I-140 petition who is outside
the U.S. can also be paroled into the U.S. before the priority date becomes current. The principal and the
applicable derivatives would enjoy permission to work and travel regardless of whether they remained in
nonimmigrant visa status. Even those who are undocumented or out of status, but are beneficiaries of
approved I-130 and I-140 petitions, can be granted employment authorization and parole. The retroactive
grant of parole may also alleviate those who are subject to the three or ten year bars since INA §
212(a)(9)(B)(ii) defines “unlawful presence” as someone who is here “without being admitted or paroled.”
Parole, therefore, eliminates the accrual of unlawful presence. While parole does not constitute an admission,
one conceptual difficulty is whether parole can be granted to an individual who is already admitted on a
nonimmigrant visa but has overstayed. Since parole is not considered admission, it can be granted more readily
to one who entered without inspection. On the other hand, it is possible for the Executive to rescind the grant
of admission under INA §212(d)(5), and instead, replace it with the grant parole. As an example, an individual
who was admitted in B-2 status and is the beneficiary of an I-130 petition but whose B-2 status has expired can
be required to report to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). who can retroactively rescind the grant
of admission in B-2 status and instead be granted parole retroactively. Historic Role Of Executive In Granting
Immigration Benefits While the authors have proposed the use of parole and EAD benefits to those who are
beneficiaries of approved immigrant petitions and are on the path to permanent residency, but for the crushing
backlogs in the employment and family quotas, parole and EAD can also be potentially granted to other noncitizens such as DREAM children or those who have paid taxes and are otherwise admissible. The Executive’s
use of parole, sua sponte, in such an expansive and aggressive fashion is hardly unique in post-World War II
American history. The rescue of Hungarian refugees after the abortive 1956 uprising or the Vietnamese
refugees at various points of that conflict comes readily to mind. While these were dramatic examples of
international crises, the immigration situation in America today, though more mundane, is no less of a
humanitarian emergency with human costs that are every bit as high and damage to the national interest no
less long lasting. Even those who are in removal proceedings or have already been ordered removed, and are
beneficiaries of approved petitions, will need not wait an eternity for Congress to come to the rescue
And, CP sends key signal but voids midterms
Lawrence ‘10 (Stewart J, is a Washington, DC-based public policy analyst and writes frequently on immigration
and Latino affairs, He is also founder and managing director of Puentes & Associates, Inc., a
bilingual survey research and communications firm, September 2, Immigration: the case for
executive orders, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/02/usimmigration-obama-executive)
Executive action is risky. But it's far less risky, politically, than convening a "lame-duck" session of congress, as
some Democrats like senate majority leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) now propose, to try to ram through the
Dream Act or other broader immigration measures, much as they did with healthcare reform. Most outgoing
Democrats aren't going to play ball, especially if they have to vote to expand enforcement. And even those
who survive the mid-terms still have to face the voters in 2012. Supporting legalisation in a GOP-controlled congress could
well cost them their seats. As president, Obama is uniquely placed to step in and exercise Solomon-like leadership
on behalf of Democrats and Republicans alike. Recent polls show that a majority of voters – including a
majority of GOP voters – support expanded enforcement coupled with some kind of legalisation. At a time
when the public discourse on immigration is degenerating into near-hysteria, and congress remains paralysed,
even-handed executive action can point the country forward. It sends a powerful signal to voters that the
president still has the courage to stick his neck out, even when a nervous and recalcitrant congress,
including members of his own party, won't. The entire country – Democrats, Republicans and
independents alike – would stand up and cheer.
1NC Other CP
Text:
The United States federal government should provide economic incentives for graduate
students in science, technology, engineering, and math subject fields using work experience
based training grants or stipends
The United States federal government should establish a policy stimulating regional economic
cluster growth and integration including, but not limited to, creating an information center to
track cluster activity and support effective cluster efforts and establish a grants fund to support
cluster initiative programs nationwide.
The counterplan effectively transitions from a centralized economic structure to cluster-based.
Karen Mills et al., Elisabeth Reynolds, and Andrew Reamer, Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, “CLUSTERS AND
COMPETITIVENESS: A NEW FEDERAL ROLE FOR STIMULATING REGIONAL ECONOMIES,” April 2008,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/04_competitiveness_reamer/Clusters%20Report.pdf
In light of the central importance of clusters to regional and national economic competitiveness, the value of cluster initiatives, and the flaws in current
federal approaches to economic development, the need for a new, innovative, effective federal effort is clear. Moreover, there
are no limits on the possible economic benefits that might emerge from a well-designed federal effort to
stimulate collaborative activities of private and public actors at every level of geography.
And so, to facilitate cluster development and to spawn a nationwide system of effective cluster initiatives, the
federal government should structure a nationwide clusters program around two sets of tools. Needed in this respect will be:
• Information regarding the geography of clusters and markets and the nature of cluster initiatives and cluster initiative programs, as well as knowledge
regarding cluster dynamics and effective practices in cluster development
• Grants for the development, operation, and activities of regional and state cluster initiative programs. Smaller grants would be available for program
feasibility studies and startup. Through a competitive process, larger grants would be available to fund project-specific collaborative activities of state or
regional cluster initiative programs
Along these lines, the federal government should:
1. Create an information center to track cluster activity and support effective cluster efforts
Modeled on the European Cluster Observatory, the
Cluster Information Center (CLIC) would promote the development and
dissemination of cluster-related information and knowledge in several ways. First, it would provide a constantly
updated, data-rich picture of the geography of cluster activity across the U.S. and the world. Such a picture would
inform:
• cluster initiative vision and strategy
• cluster initiative program choices for investment and focus
• economic and workforce development agency determination of strategically appropriate investments
• federal program agency understanding of how best to direct scarce financial resources
• federal economic policymaker understanding of the geography of U.S. competitiveness
• business decision-making regarding site location, R&D investment, and workforce development
This information effort would aim to provide:
• breadth—a geographically-specific picture of the array of clusters in each key industry, with data on size, specialization, and competitiveness
• depth—for each cluster, detailed data such as regional domestic product contribution, total jobs and earnings by key occupations, establishment size,
nature of specialization, patents, federal R&D spending, citation patterns, and trade
• flow—estimates of supply-chain product and service flows within and between clusters
CLIC data and indicators would be available as time series to the extent that data sources allow. Initially, the database would be constructed from
existing federal data sets available from the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the International Trade
Administration, the Statistics of Income program of the Internal Revenue Service, the Office of Patent Resource Administration in the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, the National Science Foundation, and the proposed NIF. As appropriate, it also would utilize private databases, such as those on
scientific citations. In the development of the database, identified gaps would inform Congressional and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
direction concerning federal statistical policy, so that the gaps could be filled.
Second, CLIC would maintain a publicly available registry of cluster initiatives and programs. Cluster initiatives
would provide essential details of their efforts, such as mission, organizational structure, membership,
activities, funding, and perceived impacts.
Cluster initiative programs would provide information regarding scope, approach, and initiatives supported. To register, initiatives and programs would
need to meet certain criteria.
Cluster initiatives and programs would be given incentive to register in order to gain priority for certain federal programs and funding. (Incentive would
be provided through cooperative arrangements with other programs and/or through legislation.) The registry would be openly accessible and so would
allow economic development organizations, industry associations, and cluster initiatives themselves to identify and explore promising approaches and
models. It also would allow policymakers, for the first time, to see the breadth and nature of cluster initiative activity across the U.S.
Third, CLIC would support research and knowledge dissemination on cluster dynamics and cluster initiative and
initiative program impacts and best practices in the U.S. and abroad. It would seek to understand cluster types, trajectories,
and success factors in various circumstances. It would develop technical assistance guides for regional cluster analysis and
cluster initiative and initiative program development and operations. It would host in-person conferences, teleconferences, and
webcasts bringing together initiative and program managers, experts, and scholars. It could catalyze the creation of a national association of cluster
initiatives. Through newsletters, a web site, and other means, it would communicate new developments in cluster analysis, initiatives, and programs.
The host agency would have the option of contracting out the operation of the information center with an external organization such as a university,
other nonprofit research entity, other federal agency, or private firm. Annual operating expenses for the information center are estimated to be about $10
million.
2. Establish a grants fund to support cluster initiative programs nationwide
The CLUSTER (Competitive Leadership for the United States Through its Economic Regions) fund would provide several types of grants to support the
development of an effective network of cluster initiative programs. Eligible grantees would include public purpose organizations representing economic
regions, states, and multiple states. Awardees would agree to support cluster initiatives operated in a manner consistent with key experience-based
success factors. Specifically, the initiatives should:
• be industry-led
• be inclusive—seeking any and all organizations that might find benefit from
participation, including startups, firms not locally-owned, and firms rival to
existing members
• encourage broad participation by and collaboration among all types of
participants
• involve key state and local government actors
First, the CLUSTER fund would provide grants for state and regional cluster initiative program feasibility studies,
planning, and operations. Program feasibility study and planning grants would be up to $250,000, one-time
only, no matching funds required.
Annual grants of up to $1 million would be made to new and early-stage cluster initiative programs to support
cluster initiative planning studies, technical assistance, and start-up and operating activities. For new programs,
matching funds on a 1:1 basis would be required; grants would be available to existing programs with demonstrated effectiveness at a higher level of
match. Initiatives supported by each program must participate in the CLIC registry and research activities. All applicants that meet minimum
requirements would be funded. To expedite matters, the application process would be on a rolling basis.
The second, more substantial, grant effort would provide state and regional cluster initiative programs with
funds to support well-defined collaborative activities of individual cluster initiatives. Matching grants of between $1
million and $15 million would be awarded on a competitive basis to support cluster-specific collaborative efforts in, for example, training, R&D,
technology adoption, marketing, business and workforce attraction, and other realms. To encourage linkage and leverage with, and improved alignment
of, existing federal, state, and local resources, a 1:1 match would be required.
Grants would be awarded on the basis of a number of criteria, including:
• the probable impact of the proposed effort on the competitiveness of the area’s traded sector
• fit within a broader achievable economic development strategy
• sponsoring organization capacity and commitment
• the degree of support and involvement from relevant state and regional economic and workforce development organizations, other public purpose
institutions (such as universities, community colleges, workforce boards), and the private sector, including industry associations
• expected ability to access additional funds from local, state, and federal sources
• capacity to sustain activities once CLUSTER funds are expended
Regional diversity across the U.S. would be sought. Grantees could seek additional funds to support new collaborative activities of individual cluster
initiatives. Funding for the CLUSTER program would be $350 million annually. At the same time, the CLUSTER effort is designed to draw in other
existing federal resources. One role of CLUSTER staff would be to facilitate grantee access to other relevant sources of federal funding.
With total annual funding of $360 million, the proposed two-pronged federal clusters agenda would enable a thicker, more
robust network of effective cluster initiatives around the nation and, as a result, stronger regional clusters and
improved U.S. capacity to be competitive and provide well-paying jobs.
Solves growth and innovation.
Mark Muro and Bruce Katz, Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, “THE NEW ‘CLUSTER MOMENT’: HOW REGIONAL
INNOVATION CLUSTERS CAN FOSTER THE NEXT ECONOMY,” September 2010,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/0921_clusters_muro_katz/0921_clusters_muro_katz.pdf
At a time of tepid growth, cluster strategies possess documented power to help power regional economic
growth by boosting innovation, entrepreneurship, wages, employment, and business
specialization.
At a time of shaken confidence in past growth models, cluster frameworks point to the centrality to national wellbeing of
practical economic systems in regions, and so offer a fresh paradigm for new thought about national
economic management.
And finally, as a policy framework clusters provide a practical tool for policy coordination and possibly increased
return on public investments. Just as clusters deliver significant productivity advantages to groups of firms,
suppliers, and related actors and institutions that draw mutual advantage from locating near each other, so too do
cluster-oriented initiatives allow for coordinated efforts, maximized impact through realized synergies, and the
tuning of interventions to the needs of the real economy in real places.
STEM grants solve shortages
Inside Higher Education, independent higher educational news source, 08 (“challenging conventional wisdom
on STEM supply”, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/17/pcast)
Michael S. Teitelbaum, a demographer at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, looked at what he called five “mysteries” of the
STEM work force issue. For example, why do employers claim a shortage of qualified STEM graduates while prospects for
Ph.D.s remain “poor"? Why do retention and completion rates for STEM fields remain low compared with students’
aspirations? Why is there a “serious” funding crisis at the National Institutes of Health after its budget doubled from 1998
to 2003? Looking at whether there is a shortage of qualified STEM workers, Teitelbaum argued that such claims reappear
roughly every 10 years. In the late 1980s, he said, speculations of looming shortfalls were “wildly wrong,” while successful
lobbying in the late 1990s to triple the number of H-1B visas to fulfill a supposed shortage coincided with the IT bust —
and a resulting collapse in demand for workers — in 2001. More recently, he said, similar claims are arising with
testimony from heavy hitters in the technology sector such as Bill Gates — but still, he argued, the evidence doesn’t
support the view that there is a shortage of scientists or engineers. A shortage of workers would imply an increase in
wages, but remuneration remains flat; in general, he said, there is significant variation over time and by field, with a mix
of “hot” fields and “slack” markets. Teitelbaum also questioned why federal spending supports Ph.D. completion despite
the lack of demand for such degrees by non-academic employers, who mainly look for bachelor’s or master’s degrees. In
effect, he said, the “self-defeating” practice of funding science education via research grants creates a “mismatch” between
graduates and employers. Another mismatch — between the amount of available funding and the sheer size of research
facilities and their staffs — came to pass, he said, after NIH funding reached its goal of a 100-percent increase in 2003.
During that period, the success rate for research grants first increased, then decreased to below the pre-doubling level as
the number of applications went up. That trend is especially pronounced for younger and first-time investigators.
Institutions also ramped up their research facilities in anticipation of expected increases, leading to a “hard landing” when
funding started to flatten again. “I think the problems here are structural. We have positive feedbacks in this system,” he
said. “[T]hey magnify the booms and the busts, and it’s because I think Ph.D’.s and postdocs in biomedical sciences are
funded primarily by research grant funding, not training grant funding.” As a potential solution Teitelbaum recommends
an increase in basic research funding, but structured to address those distorted incentives. Funding should focus on
increasing the number of graduate postdoctoral fellowships and training grants, and finance fewer research assistants
through research grants, for example, and the NIH should boost its support of staff researchers. To address the
unpredictable changes in funding levels from year to year — and to avoid possible overreactions by research institutions
anticipating drastic increases or decreases — Teitelbaum suggested stabilization mechanisms and buffer funding to avoid
sharp accelerations or decelerations in federal dollars. And rather than pushing students toward Ph.D.’s — which are
geared toward those pursuing academic research careers — Teitelbaum touted the effectiveness of professional science
master’s (PSM) degrees for science professionals with business and innovation skills, which more closely match what
many employers are looking for from graduates in STEM fields. So far, he said there were 117 such programs in the United
States at over 60 universities in 25 states. “I would say the progress is real, but these are still new and fragile degrees, and
the Sloan Foundation’s goal is to make this degree a normal part of U.S. higher education,” he said.
Solvency 1NC
1. Turn- The plan causes backlash against F1 visas and labor certification guts solvency
Tiger, 08 (Joseph Tiger, The Author Is A J.D. Candidate At The Georgetown University Law Center. He
Graduated From Georgetown University In 2006 With A Degree In Economics. While In High School, He
Earned An Associate Degree In Mathematics From The Santa Rosa Junior College, California, In 2003, ReBending The Paperclip: An Examination Of America's Policy Regarding Skilled Workers And Student Visas,
Spring 2008, 22 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 507)
Offering all students green cards but not H-1B visas would be even more problematic. If all students were made
automatically eligible for EB status upon graduation, acceptance at an American university would, in essence,
constitute a near guarantee of future citizenship. Thus, to maintain its power to control citizenship, the
government would have to exercise even stricter control over the granting of student visas. These procedural
hurdles could act as a disincentive if not an actual barrier to foreign students interested in studying at
American universities. n197 Additionally, working under a green card has procedural hurdles of its own, not
associated with the H-1B visa program (notably, labor certification). As such, foreign students who do not wish
to stay in the United States beyond a temporary period of work would face the choice of accepting the green
card and becoming a permanent resident, or leaving immediately upon the termination of F-1 status.
2. Green cards are not key to retention- they’ll return anyways and remittance takes out
their impact
Matloff, 06 (Norm Matloff for The Center For Immigration Studies, Best? Brightest? A Green Card
Giveaway For Foreign Grads Would Be Unwarranted, http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0531-matloff.shtm)
One Argument Involving Entrepreneurship. One common argument made by industry lobbyists is that
unless we have a liberal green card program, the foreign students in U.S. universities will take the training we
give them back home, where they will start businesses to compete with us. This argument has never made
sense, for two reasons.
First, if this is a realistic fear, why do those who make this argument advocate bringing in so many foreign
students in the first place? It would seem counter to the national interest to train so many foreign students.
Thus it is clear that the industry’s argument is just a pretext for bringing in cheap labor, which the NSF
advocated explicitly.
Second, Professor Annalee Saxenian of UC Berkeley has shown that many foreign graduates who get green
cards eventually go back home and start businesses there to compete with us anyway. In fact, Saxenian found
that even those who do not return home actively help the development of industry in their native countries.35
After surveying members of Silicon Valley networking groups such as the Asian American Manufacturers
Association and the Indus Entrepreneurs, Saxenian found that half of those who run startup companies here
have set up subsidiaries, joint ventures, or other business operations in their home countries. Most
respondents are from India, China, and Taiwan.
Whether they run their own business or not, half of foreign-born professionals travel to their homelands on
business every year, the study found. More than 80 percent said they share information about technology with
people back home.
"The most interesting findings are the extent of the ties that these immigrants are building between Silicon
Valley and their home countries, not only transferring information but advising companies, arranging
contracts, investing in startups, working with governments, and even starting companies in their home
countries," Saxenian said.
So again, if the lobbyists were truly concerned with foreign business competition in the tech industry, they
would be advocating a large reduction in the number of foreign students, not incentives to increase that
number.
The industry lobbyists also are fond of pointing to prominent businesses founded by immigrants, with Intel
and Google being two commonly cited examples. The lobbyists claim that this shows the importance of having
so many foreign students. Let’s look more closely at that claim.
First, neither Intel nor Google’s founders came here as foreign students. Google cofounder Sergey Brin
immigrated to the U.S. with his family when he was five years old. Andy Grove, frequently described as a
cofounder of Intel,36also immigrated with his parents, as a refugee.
Much more importantly, no firm in the computer industry has been pivotal to the development of the field.
Intel and Google have certainly not been indispensable. Back in 1981 when IBM needed to select a CPU chip for
its new PCs, IBM had many alternatives to its choice of Intel as a CPU supplier. Actually, the IBM engineers
who designed the original PC favored a competing chip by Motorola.37 And though Google arguably is more fun
to use than other search engines, they are all about equally effective in their search capabilities.38
3. No delays- EB1 EB2 solves, wage deflation turns the aff, and immigrants share tech
anyways
Matloff, 08 (Norman, Computer Science Professor at UC Davis, “badly misinformed George Will column”
June 26, 2008, http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/GeorgeWill.txt)
To be fair, it must be mentioned that spouses and minor children are included in the cap. On the other hand,
Will doesn't explain why we need all these PhDs anyway. His main example, the late American inventor Jack
Kilby, didn't have a doctorate, nor do Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs or the vast majority of others who've
made big impacts on the tech industry. Andone has to wonder why Will thinks we need to bestow green cards
on, for instance, all those doctorates with dissertations on color change in chamaeleons.
It gets worse. Though Will may be correct in his statement that "1 million educated professionals are waiting
[for green cards] -- often five or more years," had he done his due diligence he would have found that these
people don't have PhDs, nor do they even have Master's degrees. These are Bachelor's-level people, in the EB-3
category, the lowest of the three employment-based green card categories. Those PhDs Will wants so much are
in the EB-1 and EB-2 categories, and the wait in those categories is quite short. Indeed, as of Sept. 2007, the
wait was ZERO for EB-1, and it has been zero or short for a long time. See the details at
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/WadhwaIII.txt.
Will speaks of these foreign workers in the same breadth as Jack Kilby, inventor of the computer chip. Yet he
offers no evidence for this implicit comparison of brilliance or creativity. On the contrary, the vast majority of
the foreign tech workers being sponsored for green cards are ordinary people, doing ordinary work, for
ordinary wages. (See http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/back508.html)
Will offers the argument that at worst, it doesn't hurt to have these people around. Well, it DOES hurt. If Kilby
were to come of age and enter the field today, he likely would never get a chance to innovate. Upon graduation,
he would probably be shunted into one of the "talking" jobs, such as customer support or production control,
while the foreign workers are hired to do the real engineering work. If he did manage to get engineering work
at first, he would find it more and more difficult to get such work once he reached age 35 or so, as young
foreign workers are paid much less than older Americans. Even the pro-industry NRC report, commissioned by
Congress, documented extensively that engineers have trouble getting work in the field 10 or 15 years after
graduation. All this is even more interesting in light of the fact that Kilby filed his patent for the computer chip
when he was 36.
In fact, Will's point that large numbers of the PhDs that U.S. universities produce are foreign students itself
shows why it DOES hurt to have these people around. Back in 1989, our National Science Foundation called for
an increase in the number of foreign students in order to keep PhD salaries down--yes, this was their explicit
rationale--and moreover, the NSF pointed out that the resulting low salaries would drive domestic students
away from pursuing doctorates, which of course is exactly what happened. (See
http://nber.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html)
The proposals now in Congress to give automatic green cards to new foreign graduates in science and
engineering would make things even worse than what the NSF wanted. As mentioned above, young workers
have lower wages than older ones, and almost all the new grads are young. So the proposals would swell the
labor pool at the young end, making it even harder for our Jack Kilbys to make a viable career out of
engineering. No wonder our brightest young people with top math talent are finding it far more lucrative to
pursue careers in finance than in engineering.
Does that matter? You bet it does. America's only advantage over the rest of the world is its innovativeness.
Most of the foreign workers come from cultures which do not foster innovativeness and in fact tend to suppress
it. In other words, the muddled thinking Will exhibits here is ruining the only good thing we have going for us.
So YES, it matters.
Lastly, Will brings up that constant industry lobbyist refrain that "We'll lose these people to our competitors" if
we don't give them green cards. Again, the putative good ones, the ones in EB-1 (for "foreign nationals of
"extraordinary ability" and for "outstanding professors") and EB-2 (for those who are either of "exceptional
ability" or possess an "advanced degree"), are getting their green cards quickly, so we're NOT "losing" them.
However: Even with green cards, the fact is that they often don't keep their technology in the U.S. anyway. The
study by UCB Prof. Annalee Saxenian found that many eventually return to their home countries even after
attaining U.S. citizenship, that many who do stay here start businesses back home, and that more than 80%
share technology with people in the home country. This may not be all bad, but it certainly shows that the shrill
"We've got to give them green cards to prevent them from helping our competitors" argument is nonsense.
4. Plan kills education and global diplomacy
Miano 09 [John Miano has been with the Center for Immigration Studies since 2008 and his area of expertise is in guest worker programs,
particularly in how they affect the technology work force. Mr. Miano has a BA in Mathematics from The College of Wooster and a JD from Seton Hall
University. Mr. Miano is also the founder of the Programmers’ Guild, an organization committed to advancing the interests of technical and professional
workers; “No Green Cards for Grads”, July 20, http://www.cis.org/miano/grads]
What Mr. Frank advocates is tantamount to granting universities the ability to sell U.S. immigration benefits.
How much is a green card worth on the open market? If Mr. Frank had his way, we would soon find out.
The U.S. would have quickie graduate programs spring up all over. Fourth tier and for-profit universities would
set up programs tailored to foreign students. The ability of universities to sell immigration benefits could
justify high tuition prices for such programs.
Consider the simplest case. U.S. universities could market graduate programs to people who already have a PhD or MS from foreign institutions. Take one or two
courses at the U.S. school and get an MS degree in the exact same field. The university could even include it as
part of the package employment.
What Mr. Frank has completely lost in his call for foreign student to remain in the U.S. is the benefit gained
from such students returning home. Foreign students create a pool of people who have learned about American and
Americans in general. When they return home they serve as American ambassadors to the world. If foreign
students remain in the U.S., our national investment in them (financial investment that could have been used
to fund education for Americans) is squandered.
That turns the case
Hanushek and Wößmann 07 [Eric, policy researcher at the Hoover institution and Stanford University; Ludger, professor at
University of Munich and Ifo Institute for Economic Research and CESifo, “Education Quality and Economic Growth,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079934475/Edu_Quality_Economic_Growth.pdf]
For an economy, education can increase the human capital in the labor force, which increases labor productivity and thus leads to a
higher equilibrium level of output.10 It can also increase the innovative capacity of the economy—knowledge of new technologies,
products, and processes promotes growth.11 And it can facilitate the diffusion and transmission of knowledge needed to understand and process
new information and to implement new technologies devised by others, again promoting growth.12 Just as in the literature on microeconomic returns to education, the majority of the
macroeconomic literature on economic returns to education employs the quantitative measure of years of schooling, now averaged across the labor force. Using average years of schooling as
an education measure implicitly assumes that a year of schooling delivers the same increase in knowledge and skills regardless of the education system. This measure also assumes that formal
schooling is the primary source of education and that variations in the quality of nonschool factors affecting learning have a negligible effect on education outcomes. This neglect of crosscountry differences in the quality of education is the major drawback of such a quantitative measure. The standard method of estimating the effect of education on economic growth is to
estimate cross-country growth regressions where average annual growth in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita over several decades is expressed as a function of measures of schooling
and a set of other variables deemed important for economic growth. A vast early literature of cross-country growth regressions tended to fi nd a signifi cant positive association between
quantitative measures of schooling and economic growth.13 The
research reported here suggests that each year of schooling boosts long-run growth by
0.58 percentage points (fi gure 2). There is a clear association between growth rates and school attainment.
5. Plans not key to innovation
Matloff, 06 (Norm Matloff for The Center For Immigration Studies, Best? Brightest? A Green Card
Giveaway For Foreign Grads Would Be Unwarranted, http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0531-matloff.shtm)
Most F-4s Would Not Be "the Best and the Brightest." Industry lobbyists have often made the argument that the H-1B
program is working well for those who have graduate degrees, as they are the top talents from around the world. The lobbyists’ claim is that these H1Bs are being hired for their superior abilities, not for cheap labor. We saw above that the H-1B program in fact is used as a
source of cheap labor even at the graduate level, so the lobbyists’ argument already fails. But let’s set that aside for a moment and address the quality
issue itself.
Some foreign PhD students are indeed the world’s "best and brightest." I fully support the immigration of such individuals, and have played an active
role in the hiring of outstanding foreign nationals from China, India, and other countries to my department’s faculty at the University of California,
Davis. However, only a small percentage of all foreign PhDs are of this caliber, as will be seen below.
Remarkably, even some analysts who have been critical of industry’s usage of imported engineers for cheap labor are nevertheless susceptible to the
industry lobbyists’ "best and brightest" argument. They extrapolate from a few success stories to a romantic, starry-eyed view that all the foreign students
are Einsteins.
Harvard economics professor Richard Freeman is a prime example. [27] On the one hand, he agrees that
...the huge influx of foreign students and workers keeps wages and employment opportunities below what they would otherwise be. This discourages
U.S. citizens from investing in science and engineering careers...
Yet he then says
[the U.S.] has attracted large numbers of the best and brightest students, researchers, and science and engineering workers from foreign countries.
According to the 2000 Census of Population, 38 percent of Ph.D.s working in science and engineering
occupations were foreign-born—a massive rise over the 24 percent foreign-born figure for 1990.
Apparently Freeman considers all or most of those 38 percent to be "the best and the brightest." But the reality
is quite the opposite.
Posssesion of a graduate degree does not imply that one has outstanding talent—far from it. The fact is that
virtually anyone with a Bachelor’s degree can be accepted into some graduate program. Thus one should not
assume that workers with graduate degrees are "smarter."
In fact, foreign PhD students are disproportionately enrolled in the academically weaker universities:[28]
Competitiveness FL
No IT shortages, there’s an oversupply of talent
Gardner, Staff Writer at the Atlanta Journal Constitution, 09 (Walt, Tech firms invent shortage panic, http://www.ajc.com/opinion/techfirms-invent-shortage-190632.html)
It’s become the mantra of critics that public schools are not turning out enough qualified math and science graduates
to meet the needs of companies in this country. We’ve all read the stories and seen the news reports that China and India are graduating
four times as many engineers as the United States and that shortage is growing dire. But repeating something often enough does not
make it true. This year, nearly six months after the government began accepting applications for what has always been the coveted H-1B visa for
qualified high-tech workers, only 46,700 petitions have been filed. This compares with the 65,000 visas that were snapped up in just one day last year
when the window opened. The H-1B is a visa that enables employers to employ foreign workers for stipulated periods of time in speciality occupations,
such as math and science. The shrinkage is partly the result of the recession, but it’s also due to the stimulus package that requires all
companies receiving bailout funds to show they are not displacing an American worker for a foreigner with an H-1B visa. But what’s
overlooked is
that regardless of economic conditions, companies continue to insist they need to recruit abroad because of the shortage
of science, technology, engineering and math graduates produced by schools here. Their claim doesn’t stand up to
scrutiny. The latest evidence comes from a study released last month titled “Steady as She Goes? Three Generations of Students
Through the Science and Engineering Pipeline.” Investigators B. Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown University and Harold Salzman of Rutgers University
found that the flow of math and science students is strong — except among high achievers, who are defecting to other majors and fields.
In 2007, the
same researchers reported in “Into the Eye of the Storm” that about three STEM graduates exist for every
new STEM position, not counting openings caused by retirements. They also found that two years after graduation, 20 percent of
STEM bachelor degree holders were still in school — but not in STEM fields. Moreover, 45 percent of STEM graduates who were in the workplace were
not in STEM jobs. They concluded that the educational system is producing a supply of qualified STEM graduates far in
excess of demand. Two years ago this month, several experts testified before the House Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation to support this view. Michael Teitelbaum, vice president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which has long
devoted substantial funding to improving science, engineering and economic performance, presented data that refuted the bleak outlook. He
cited several RAND Corp. studies that found an overall surplus — not shortage. “These findings of no general
shortage are entirely consistent with isolated shortages of skilled people in narrow fields or in specific technologies
that are quite new or growing explosively,” he said. In his testimony, Teitelbaum charged that the conventional portrait of
STEM shortages was “simply the expressions of interests by interest groups and their lobbyists.” If this data were not
enough to contradict the assertions made by high tech companies, the Wall Street Journal published a series of letters last year
from experienced STEM professionals in New York, Colorado and Florida who were unable to find work in their field at
wages commensurate with their backgrounds. All called into question the need for H-1B visas in light of the reality of the market for
their services. Their plight was echoed by their counterparts in Philadelphia, Seattle, Boston and San Jose’s Silicon Valley. Against this backdrop, it’s
hard to believe the alarmist claims made by high-tech companies about STEM workers. What is more likely is that their
complaints reveal their desire to pay H-1B workers below-market wages, which in turn drags down wages for their
American counterparts. That’s why companies clamor for the issuance of more H-1B visas under the guise of not being able to find sufficient qualified
STEM employees. Government data show that Indian outsourcing companies, for example, account for nearly 80 percent of the visa petitions approved
last year for the top 10 participants in the program. These companies allow low-level tech workers from other countries to train in
the United States for salaries far below what Americans with similar backgrounds can live on, and then return home. It’s
time to acknowledge that careers in STEM have acquired a cachet in the minds of the American public that
doesn’t jibe with reality. When compensation in these fields is declining, along with benefits and security, bright
students understandably look elsewhere for their future. Companies then use the predictable data to create a
doomsday scenario to justify expanding the number of H-1B visas. It’s a vicious circle. Portraying the issue anyway else is a
red herring.
US is still the dominant innovative force in the world.
Tom Price, Miller-McCune Magazine, “U.S. Challenged for High-Tech Global Leadership,” 3/13/2010, http://www.miller-mccune.com/scienceenvironment/u-s-challenged-for-high-tech-global-leadership-10818/
Despite negative trends, U.S. R&D continues to lead the world by a large margin. In 2007, America’s $369 billion
R&D spending exceeded all of Asia’s $338 billion and all of the European Union’s $263 billion. The United States
spent more than the next four countries — Japan, China, Germany and France — combined.
America’s share of all high-tech manufacturing has risen — and it continues to lead the world — even though
the U.S. share of exports has declined. That’s because the United States consumes so much of its product
domestically. The United States makes nearly a third of the world’s high-tech goods, compared with the European Union’s
25 percent and China’s 14 percent. It’s the world leader in communications, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and
aerospace. It trails only the EU in scientific instruments and China in computers.
U.S. inventors obtained 81,000 U.S. patents in 2008, more than double Japan’s 35,000 and all of Europe’s 23,000. America’s 49 percent share of those
patents dropped from 55 percent in 1995.
U.S. inventors also led in what the report calls “high-value” patents — those that were given protection by the EU and Japan as
well as by the United States. The U.S. share of 30 percent was down from 34 percent in 1997.
China obtained just about 1 percent of both kinds of patents. But its scientists have become the second-most-prolific
contributors to scholarly journals, another area in which the United States continues to lead the world.
The globalization of science is illustrated by the worldwide growth in many measures of scientific prowess, no matter which countries dominate, the
board said. For example, high-tech exports more than tripled to $2.3 trillion worldwide between 1995 and 2008. The estimated number of researchers
increased to 5.7 million in 2007 from 4 million in 1995. Global R&D expenditures totaled $1.1 trillion in 2007, up from $525 billion in 1996. Crossboarder co-authorship also increased from 8 percent of scientific articles published in 1988 to 22 percent in 2007.
Foreign corporations actually invested more in U.S.-based research ($34 billion) in 2006 than U.S.
firms invested overseas $28.5 billion. Both more than doubled since 1995.
Espionage
a. Foreign workers brought in by the plan will give key defense intel to China.
Ron Scherer, Christian Science Monitor, “Why did it take so long to catch spy for China?” 7/18/2009,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/0718/p05s01-usju.html
According to the US Justice Department, Mr. Chung
sent 24 manuals relating to the B-1 Bomber. In fact, name a Rockwell/Boeing
the PRC.
On Thursday, Chung, a naturalized US citizen, was found guilty of economic espionage and spying.
program – from the F-15 to the B-52 to the Chinook helicopter – and information about it was sent to
US officials say Chung's actions not only hurt Boeing but also US national security more than can be fully known.
The case also raises questions about why it took so long for federal officials to finally snare Chung and his trove of secret information. And, experts on
Chinese espionage say the case is not unique.
"There are over 3,500 operatives in the US masquerading as students or on H1B visas [special work visas] for the
sole purpose of getting jobs in American manufacturing or defense industries for the sole
purpose of stealing secrets for the Chinese government," says Brett Kingstone, who lectures nationally on behalf of the
FBI and defense contractors.
b. That’s key to Chinese modernization.
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, “2007 REPORT TO CONGRESS,” November 2007,
http://www.uscc.gov/annual_report/2007/report_to_congress.pdf
The pace and success of China’s military modernization continue to exceed U.S. government estimates. Indeed, on
occasion the U.S. defense and intelligence communities have been taken by surprise, as in the case of the launching of the Jin class submarine by the
navy of the People’s Liberation Army. China’s defense industry is producing new generations of weapon platforms with
impressive speed and quality, and these advancements are due in part to the highly effective manner in which
Chinese defense companies are integrating commercial technologies into military systems. Additionally, industrial
espionage provides Chinese companies an added source of new technology without the necessity of investing
time or money to perform research. Chinese espionage in the United States, which now comprises
the single greatest threat to U.S. technology, is straining the U.S. counterintelligence
establishment. This illicit activity significantly contributes to China’s military modernization
and acquisition of new capabilities.
c. Collapses heg
2006 (Meghan, UPI, “China Threatens to Rival American Power Status”, June 22,
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_Threatens_To_Rival_American_Power_Status.html)
Meghan O’Connell,
China's rapid military expansion over recent years has sparked concern amongst American officials that its battlefield
capabilities may eventually pose a threat to U.S. dominance. Experts recently met at the Heritage Foundation to discuss
the Pentagon's 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and its implications for the U.S. strategy with China. The Pentagon report states, "Of the major and
emerging powers, China
has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive
military technologies that could over time offset traditional U.S. military advantages... The pace and scope of
China's military build-up already puts regional military balances at risk." Chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security
Review Commission Larry Wortzel said, "The United States and Western countries in general face a concerted effort on the part of the Chinese military
to build this new defense infrastructure, and they're pretty good at it." Military modernization in China has accelerated since the 1990s. China has
increased its defense spending by more than 10 percent in real terms every year except 2003 since 1996, the defense review says. China's stated defense
budget for 2006 increased by 15 percent from last year to $35 billion. However, the Pentagon report says that the actual budget is between $70 billion
and $135 billion dollars. But China lagged far behind the United States in the CIA's estimates of each country's military expenditures in 2005. The CIA
estimates the United States spent over $518 billion last year, while China's estimated total hovered around $81 billion. China cannot realistically catch
up with the U.S. military budget, said Wang Yuan-kang, a professor at the National Chengchi University in Taiwan and visiting fellow at the Brookings
Institute. And America remains a larger economic force. "China does not like American troops at its footsteps," Wang said, "and it wants to have a multipower world but it cannot do it now because the United States is simply too powerful." 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
"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
Review Commission.
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."
d. Causes US-Chinese miscalc and war.
Christopher P. Twomey, 2009 co-directs the Center for Contemporary Conflict and is an assistant professor in the Department of National
Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, January 2009 - February 2009, (Arms Control Today, HEADLINE: Chinese-U.S. Strategic Affairs:
Dangerous Dynamism, p. Lexis)
China and the United States are not in a strategic weapons arms race. Nonetheless, their modernization and
sizing decisions increasingly are framed with the other in mind. Nuclear weapons are at the core of this
interlocking pattern of development. In particular, China is the only permanent member of the UN Security Council expanding
its arsenal; it is also enhancing its arsenal. The basic facts of Chinese strategic modernization are well known, if the details remain
frustratingly opaque. China is deploying road-mobile, solid-fueled missiles, giving it a heighted degree of security in its
second-strike capability. It is beginning to deploy ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). It is researching a wide range of
warhead and delivery systems technologies that will lead to increased accuracy and, more pointedly, increased penetration against ballistic missile defenses. The size of
China's deliverable arsenal against the United States will undoubtedly increase beyond the few dozen that it
possessed recently.1 The pace of growth thus far has been moderate, although China has only recently
developed reliable, survivable delivery systems. The final endpoint remains mired in opacity and uncertainty, although several score of deliverable
warheads seems likely for the near term. These developments on the strategic side are coupled with elements of conventional modernization that impinge on the strategic
balance. The relevant issue, however, is not simply an evaluation of the Chinese modernization program, but rather an evaluation of the interaction of that modernization with
U.S. capabilities are also changing. Under the provisions of START and SORT, the United
States has continued to engage in quantitative reductions of its operational nuclear arsenal. At the same, there
is ongoing updating of warhead guidance and fusing systems. Ballistic missile defense systems of a variety of
footprints are being deployed. The U.S. SSBN force now leans more toward the Pacific than the Atlantic,
reversing the Cold War deployment. Guam's capacity to support heavy bombers and attack submarines has been enhanced. Furthermore, advances in
U.S. conventional weaponry have been so substantial that they too promise strategic effects: prompt global strike holds out the promise of a U.S.
weapon on target anywhere in the world in less than an hour and B-2s with highly accurate weapons can sustain strategic effects over a
campaign. What are the concerns posed by these two programs of dynamic strategic arsenals? Most centrally, the
development of the strategic forces detailed above has Increasingly assumed an interlocked form. The U.S.
revolution in precision guided munitions was followed by an emphasis on mobility in the Chinese missile force.
U.S. missile defense systems have clearly spurred an emphasis on countermeasures in China's ICBM force and
quantitative buildups in its regional missile arsenals.3 Beijing's new submarine-based forces further enhance
the security of China's second-strike capability in the face of a potential U.S. strike but are likely to lead to
increased attention to anti-submarine warfare in the United States. China's recent anti-satellite test provoked a U.S. demonstration of
similar capabilities. Such reciprocal responses have the potential to move toward a tightly coupled arms race
and certainly have already worsened threat perceptions on each side. The potential for conflict is not
simply that of inadvertent escalation; there are conflicts of interests between the two. Heightening threat
perceptions in that context greatly complicates diplomacy. Further, the dangers of inadvertent escalation have
been exacerbated by some of these moves. Chinese SSBN deployment will stress an untested command-andcontrol system. Similar dangers in the Cold War were mitigated, although not entirely overcome, over a period
of decades of development of personnel and technical solutions. China appears to have few such controls in
place today. U.S. deployment of highly accurate nuclear warheads is consistent with a first-strike doctrine and
seems sized for threats larger than "rogue" nations. These too would undermine stability in an intense
crisis.
U.S. capabilities and interests.
Universities Frontline
1. US universities are still the best – including scientific research.
John Gill, Times Higher Education, “US universities still the best, Chinese league table suggests,” 8/13/2010,
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=412993
The US has retained its dominance in the annual world university ranking compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
The list published today is topped by Harvard University for the eighth year in a row, with the University of California, Berkeley
second and Stanford University third.
The UK’s highest-ranked institution is the University of Cambridge in fifth place, followed by the University of Oxford (10th), University College London
(21st) and Imperial College London (26th).
Unlike the forthcoming Times Higher Education World University Rankings, the Shanghai Jiao Tong list is based almost entirely on
scientific research strength.
THE has radically overhauled its rankings methodology for 2010 in response to concerns that the old approach relied too heavily on subjective opinion.
The new methodology is being developed in conjunction with data partner Thomson Reuters and promises to be more
sophisticated, transparent and rigorous. Among the changes is the introduction of a 30 per cent weighting for a new “teaching and
learning environment” measure, including the first teaching reputation score in the global rankings field.
2. Foreign enrollment is increasing despite visa restrictions.
Lee Lawrence, Christian Science Monitor, “US college degrees: Still the best among world's top universities?” 6/2/2010,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0602/US-college-degrees-Still-the-best-among-world-s-top-universities
"The quality of the US's higher education system has historically been a powerful magnet ," says Irwin Feller, who
headed the Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation at Pennsylvania State University for 24 years and has served on a number of national
committees on education policy. "We have been that sucking sound that has attracted the best and the brightest from
around the world."
Growing foreign enrollment would seem to indicate that the US remains the destination of
choice. The country has a rich infrastructure of 4,500 public and private postsecondary institutions with a
high regard for academic freedom. They range from research universities offering postgraduate degrees to a network of two-year community
colleges. Add to this technical and vocational colleges, four-year teaching schools committed to liberal arts, as well as new for-profit institutions, and
the US offers the world's most variegated tapestry of higher education.
This variety is a chief attraction for foreign students. Even when their numbers fell in the four years
following 9/11 – due to visa restrictions and global uncertainty – the largest year-to-year dip was only
2.4 percent. And foreign enrollment since has risen steadily to more than 670,000 in 2008-09 – more than 20
percent higher than 2000-01.
Even though the economic downturn is expected to affect foreign enrollment in September, international
applications to graduate programs are up by 7 percent, says Peggy Blumenthal, vice president for educational services at the Institute
of International Education (IIE) in New York.
3. We have effective attribution now.
Caitlin Talmadge, doctoral candidate and member of the Security Studies Program in the Department of Political Science at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, “Deterring a Nuclear 9/11,” 2007, The Washington Quarterly 30.2, Project Muse
The United States developed considerable attribution capabilities during the early Cold War period in an effort
to determine the size, type, and location of Soviet nuclear tests.29 This research largely stagnated after aboveground nuclear tests
went out of style in the 1960s, and today few scientists are trained in nuclear forensic techniques.30 The United States retains a lone aerial
collection aircraft from that era, the WC-135W Constant Phoenix, recently deployed to "sniff out" radiation in the
aftermath of the North Korean nuclear test.31 In the future, the United States may want to acquire additional specialized aircraft,
equipped with air-sampling devices that operate like vacuums to suck in particles as the aircraft crosses paths with a nuclear plume. Sandia
National Laboratories has begun development of improved sensors to place on board this sort of aircraft.
Robots or other unmanned vehicles may be able to do some of this work as well. In 2002 the Pentagon
established a team of forensic analysts to improve the country's nuclear attribution capabilities. This team, in
combination with the ongoing research at the national labs, is promising. It claims to have forged an "initial integrated operational
capability for rapid and accurate attribution."32 The current National Security Strategy obliquely refers to
these efforts, stating, "We will ensure that our capacity to determine the source of any attack is well-known,
and that our determination to respond overwhelmingly to any attack is never in doubt."
4. No risk of nuclear terrorism.
Steven Chapman, columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, 2/8/2008, Who’s Still Afraid of Osama?, p.
http://reason.com/news/show/124874.html
Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have had to live with the knowledge that the next time the terrorists strike, it could be not with airplanes capable of killing
thousands but atomic bombs capable of killing hundreds of thousands. The prospect has created a sense of profound vulnerability. It has shaped our view of government
policies aimed at combating terrorism (filtered through Jack Bauer). It helped mobilize support for the Iraq war. Why are we worried? Bomb designs can be found on
the Internet. Fissile material may be smuggled out of Russia. Iran, a longtime sponsor of terrorist groups, is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. A layperson may figure
it's only a matter of time before the unimaginable comes to pass. Harvard's Graham Allison, in his book Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe,
concludes, "On the current course, nuclear terrorism is inevitable." But remember: After Sept. 11, 2001, we all thought more attacks were a certainty. Yet Al Qaeda and
its ideological kin have proved unable to mount a second strike. Given their inability to do something simple—say, shoot up a shopping mall or set off a truck bomb—
it's reasonable to ask if they have a chance at something much more ambitious. Far from being plausible, argued Ohio State University professor John Mueller in a
recent presentation at the University of Chicago, "the likelihood that a terrorist group will come up with an atomic bomb seems
to be vanishingly small." (http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/ APSACHGO.PDF) The events required to make that happen include a
multitude of herculean tasks . First, a terrorist group has to get a bomb or fissile material, perhaps from Russia's
inventory of decommissioned warheads. If that were easy, one would have already gone missing. Besides, those devices are
probably no longer a danger, since weapons that are not scrupulously maintained (as those have not been) quickly become
what one expert calls "radioactive scrap metal." If terrorists were able to steal a Pakistani bomb, they would still
have to defeat the arming codes and other safeguards designed to prevent unauthorized use. As for Iran, no nuclear state has ever
given a bomb to an ally—for reasons even the Iranians can grasp. Stealing some 100 pounds of bomb fuel would require help from
rogue individuals inside some government who are prepared to jeopardize their own lives. The terrorists, notes Mueller,
would then have to spirit it "hundreds of miles out of the country over unfamiliar terrain, and probably while being
pursued by security forces." Then comes the task of building a bomb. It's not something you can gin up with spare parts and power
tools in your garage. It requires millions of dollars, a safe haven and advanced equipment—plus people with
specialized skills, lots of time and a willingness to die for the cause. And if Al Qaeda could make a prototype,
another obstacle would emerge: There is no guarantee it would work, and there is no way to test it. Assuming the
jihadists vault over those Himalayas, they would have to deliver the weapon onto American soil. Sure, drug smugglers bring in
contraband all the time—but seeking their help would confront the plotters with possible exposure or extortion.
This, like every other step in the entire process, means expanding the circle of people who know what's going on, multiplying
the chance someone will blab, back out or screw up . Mueller recalls that after the Irish Republican Army failed in an attempt to blow up
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, it said, "We only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always." Al Qaeda, he says, faces a very different
challenge: For it to carry out a nuclear attack, everything has to go right. For us to escape, only one thing has to
go wrong. That has heartening implications. If Osama bin Laden embarks on the project, he has only a minuscule chance of seeing it bear fruit. Given the
formidable odds, he probably won't bother. None of this means we should stop trying to minimize the risk by securing nuclear stockpiles, monitoring terrorist
communications and improving port screening. But it offers good reason to think that in this war, it appears, the worst eventuality is one that will never happen.
Risk of accidents is low-safety and experience check
Quinlan ‘9 [Thinking about nuclear weapons: principles, problems, prospects. Michael Quinlan was one of
the Directors of Defence Policy in the British Ministry of Defence and from 1970 to 1973 Defence Counsellor in
the UK Delegation to NATO in Brussels; Ministry of Defence Deputy Under-Secretary of State from 1977 to
1981; Permanent Under-Secretary of State from 1988 to 1992. From 1992 to 1999 he was Director of the
Ditchley Foundation, which runs a wide-ranging and high-level programme of international conferences. p.
67-68]
There have certainly been, across the decades since 1945, many known accidents involving nuclear
weapons, from transporters skid- ding off roads to bomber aircraft crashing with or accidentally drop- ping
the weapons they carried (in past days when such carriage was a frequent feature of readiness arrangementsit no longer is). A few of these accidents may have released into the nearby environment highly toxic
material. None however has entailed a nuclear detonation. Some commentators suggest that this reflects
bizarrely good fortune amid such massive activity and deployment over so many years. A more rational
deduction from the facts of this long experi- ence would however be that the probability of any accident
triggering a nuclear explosion is extremely low. It might be further noted that the mechanisms needed to set
off such an explosion are technically demanding, and that in a large number of ways the past sixty years
have seen extensive improvements in safety arrangements for both the design and the handling of
weapons. It is undoubtedly possible to see respects in which, after the cold war, some of the factors
bearing upon risk may be new or more adverse; but some are now plainly less so. The years which the
world has come through entirely without accidental or unauthorized detonation have included early decades
in which knowledge was sketchier, precautions were less developed, and weapon designs were less
ultra-safe than they later became, as well as substantial periods in which weapon numbers were larger,
deployments more widespread and diverse, movements more frequent, and several aspects of doctrine and
readiness arrangements more tense.
Nanotech Frontline
1. US still dominates nanotech research and Russia and China can’t catch up.
Business Wire, “US nanotech leadership faces global challengers, says Lux,” 8/19/2010, http://www.electroiq.com/index/display/nanotecharticle-display/7111000255/articles/small-times/nanotechmems/research-and_development/2010/august/us-nanotech_leadership.html
In terms of sheer volume, The U.S. dominated the rest of the world in nanotech funding and new patents last
year, as U.S. government funding, corporate spending, and VC investment in nanotech collectively reached
$6.4 billion in 2009. However, according to a new report from Lux Research, countries such as China and Russia launched
new challenges to U.S. dominance in 2009, while smaller players such as Japan, Germany and South Korea
surpassed the United States in terms of commercializing nanotechnology and products.
Nanotech rankings by nation
The report, titled “Ranking the Nations on Nanotech: Hidden Havens and False Threats,” compares nanotech innovation and technology development in
19 countries to provide government policymakers, corporate leaders and investors a detailed map of the nanotech’s international development
landscape. Overall, the report found global investment in nanotech held steady through the recent financial crisis, drawing $17.6 billion from
governments, corporations and investors in 2009, a 1% increase over 2008’s $17.5 billion. Only venture capitalists dialed back their support, cutting
investments by 43% relative to 2008.
“Part of what motivated our research was the emerging possibility that ambitious new government funding in
Russia and China represented a threat to U.S. dominance in nanotech innovation,” said David Hwang, an Analyst at Lux
Research, and the report’s lead author. “But while the field certainly gained momentum in both countries as a result of the
increased funding, both countries have economic and intellectual property protection issues that prevent them
from being real threats just yet.”
2. Current investment is being directed at workforce development which solves nanotech
development.
Jeff Morse, PhD, Managing Director of the National Nanomanufacturing Network, “Challenges for Sustaining Leadership in Nanotechnology in the
U.S.,” 8/25/2010, http://www.internano.org/content/view/441/251/
In the midst of this less than rosy outlook there remains optimism in the ability of the U.S. to correct the course
from which nanomanufacturing will be well positioned to lead the way for future economic growth . In this context,
the NNI is considering ways in which to provide the necessary infrastructure both to parlay its investment in nanotechnology
into sustainable economic growth and to augment existing technology manufacturing capabilities. These were some of the key recommendations made in
the PCAST report which cited increased emphasis on nanomanufacturing and commercialization of nano-enabled products, increased commitment to
workforce training and education in nanofabrication, and strengthening and consolidating efforts and knowledge in environmental, health, and safety
research. That said, the U.S. and NNI face significant challenges in achieving these objectives while maintaining global leadership in nanotechnology
overall. While the U.S. still leads the world in nanotech innovation by virtue of its size, Japan, Germany, and South Korea are doing a better job of
bringing technology to market, according to Lux Research. In terms of sheer volume, the U.S. dominated the rest of the world
in nanotech funding and new patents last year, as U.S. government funding, corporate spending, and VC
investment in nanotech collectively reached $6.4 billion in 2009. But according to a new report from Lux Research, countries such as China and
Russia launched new challenges to U.S. dominance in 2009, while smaller players such as Japan, Germany, and South Korea surpassed the United States
in terms of commercializing nanotechnology and products. The report further pointed to the U.S. capacity to commercialize these
technologies and leverage them for sustainable economic growth. U.S. competitiveness in long-term innovation
is also at risk, as the relative number of science and engineering graduates in its population is significantly
lower than it is in other countries.
This last point hits home in a critical way as it becomes necessary to retain an educated workforce in nanotechnology within the U.S., and many
graduates from other countries take employment elsewhere, essentially bringing that training, education, and competitiveness back to those countries.
To address this issue, effective programs must be established to retain graduates within the U.S. having strategic backgrounds and expertise through
various means including visa extensions and other incentives. Additionally, expansion of education and workforce training programs is essential to
facilitate a broader, more sustainable infrastructure providing a workforce trained in nanotechnology at levels ranging from high school to post-doctoral
levels. To facilitate the necessary workforce education and training, NSF has funded new education initiatives
and the PCAST report has recommended improved coordination around education and workforce issues. In
order to provide multidisciplinary education and training, many universities and two year colleges are
anticipating the next generation needs of industry and have established nanotechnology-focused curriculum
including hands on training in order to address these needs.
Examples of this include, but are not limited to, Pennsylvania State University, which has been part of a state initiative to train workers in
nanofabrication, the University of Minnesota which has followed suit with a similar program called NanoLink, and the College of Nanoscale Science and
Technology (CNST) at the University of Albany, which has both undergraduate and graduate programs focused in nanotechnology, as well as business
degree concentrations in nanotechnology. These are prime examples of strategies to educate our future workforce on
sustaining emerging nanomanufacturing industries and to foster the creative, entrepreneurial mindset
necessary to incubate new companies and industries that will exploit the next generation of nano-enabled
products. Increased investment by the NNI with emphasis on workforce development and commercialization are two key steps towards sustainable
economics. This commitment will further attract corporate spending and venture capital investment which will
continue to build the necessary infrastructure in nanomanufacturing. The challenge then becomes sustainability, both from an
economic growth standpoint and from the standpoint of retaining jobs within the U.S. This will require additional strategies in establishing high
technology jobs and manufacturing infrastructure that is impervious to outsourcing, a further goal of the NNI.
3. If their arg about a nanotech race is right, then China and other competitors would never
let their nanotech workers come here to begin with.
4. The US will inevitably fall behind due to lack of commercialization, but collapse will
inevitably result in cooperation with China.
Larry Greenemeier, Scientific American, “Heady days of nanotech funding behind it, the U.S. faces big challenges,” 8/18/2010,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=heady-days-of-nanotech-funding-behi-2010-08-18
Nearly a decade after the U.S. launched its National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the program's $12 billion in funding
has helped place the country at the head of the pack regarding the development of science and technology measured in billionths of
meters. Yet, despite the U.S.'s unrivaled adeptness at patenting nanotech inventions, the country's lackluster track
record of bringing nano-scale technology products to market leaves the door open for China, Russia and other
tech-savvy countries to challenge U.S. nanotech supremacy, according to a new report by Boston's Lux Research.
The report, released Wednesday, contains much of the same data as the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology's (PCAST) March 12
report (pdf) assessing the NNI. Not surprising, given that Lux research director Michael Holman participated in PCAST's NNI evaluation. Lux's report
takes the matter a bit further, however, with lead author and research associate David Hwang analyzing 19 countries competing in the emerging
nanotech field and breaking down their ability to innovate as well as commercialize those inventions.
Hwang notes that global investment in nanotech held about steady last year despite tough economic times, drawing $17.6 billion from governments,
corporations and investors in 2009, a 1 percent increase over 2008. Nanotech companies should take care to spend this money wisely because this deeppocketed spending is not likely to last much longer. Venture capitalists—the investors whose money is often required to take technology from the lab and
put it in consumers' hands—have already dialed back their support, cutting investments by 43 percent relative to 2008, and NNI funding is expected to
drop by 20 percent this year. New money for nanotech projects will have to come from funding set aside to improve specific technologies, such as
hydrogen storage systems, military armor and batteries.
The U.S. led in terms of government funding, corporate spending and venture capital investment ($6.4 billion in all) as well as patent issuances, with
2,378. China fared poorly in terms of obtaining patents for its inventions but produced 13,049 nanotech-related publications, compared to 11,818 from
U.S.-based researchers. One reason for this, according to Lux, is that the U.S. is not producing as many science and engineering graduates relative to its
overall population as other countries, including China.
China and Russia launched new initiatives last year expected to challenge U.S. nanotech, whereas Japan, Germany and South Korea
surpassed the U.S. in terms of commercializing nanotechnology and products, according to Lux. China's efforts, not unlike
those of the U.S., came mostly in the form of an economic stimulus package. Russia meanwhile doled out $757 million in 2009 to fund research, support
commercialization and international collaboration, and build research and manufacturing infrastructure for companies like New Toolware Solutions,
which develops nanostructured coatings for metalworking tools.
Lux makes a number of predictions regarding the future of international nanotech development, the most intriguing being that the U.S. and
China will address their respective weaknesses in the field by teaming up. For evidence this is
already happening, look no further than Cambrios Technologies, CNano Technology and Nanosys, three
California-based startups partnering with Asian firms to manufacture and integrate carbon nanotubes and
other microscopic materials into final products.
5. US isn’t key – competitors are cooperating over nanotech safety now.
Nanowerk News, “Nanotechnology cooperation agreed by Russia and China,” 11/9/2008,
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8091.php
As a special demonstration of co-operation from the Chinese side, a state park has been designated for
nanotechnologies in the city of Suzhou, which will see developments in joint Russian-Chinese scientific research and
experimental design works, production and commercialization of nanotechnology products. The Russian Corporation
of Nanotechnologies (RUSNANO) will determine which organizations within Russia will participate in the collaboration.
According to the agreement, each side will implement collaboration in the following areas:
# the
mutual exchange of information on scientific research, production and the potential market for
nanotechnologies, the creation of mechanisms to evaluate the prospects for application and the risks of using
nanotechnologies, the development and introduction of mechanisms for the commercialization, creation and activity in conducting scientific and
technical studies of nanotechnologies and nanoindustry;
# the development of international collaboration in the sphere of nanotechnologies, conducting joint seminars and conferences with scientists and
experts engaged in the transfer of scientific developments;
# the implementation of applied research in the field of nanotechnologies, aimed at production and commercialization of products manufactured with
the application of nanotechnologies;
# the implementation of collaboration in protecting intellectual property and patenting new developments;
# the design, building and operation of laboratories and sites intended for creating nanomaterials;
# the joint realization of complex projects, which assumes comprehensive expert estimation of scientific ideas, the study of technical capabilities and
economic expediency of their realization;
# the production of components and materials using nanotechnologies;
# the study and development of a package of measures to provide the safe use of nanotechnologies, their affects
on the environment and the human organism;
# joint work on the commercialization of scientific developments in the field of nanotechnologies, the creation of joint venture funds and business
structures, aimed at attracting private capital to work in this region;
# the implementation of collaboration in other areas, to be determined by both sides.
6. No solvency – the only reason US development is safe is because we have stringent
regulations, but those regulations are why nanotech companies grow and innovate faster
overseas to begin with; can’t have both.