Impact Calc Wars Notes
Meta Comparisons
Magnitude (Who’s Bigger?)
Timeframe (Who Gets there first?)
Probability (Who’s More Likely? -- kind of dumb, judge will assess this)
Impact Interaction
How does your impact access another one? Does your impact solve another one? (Democracy
solves oceans bc democracies are better for the environment… etc.)
Or does your impact turn theirs?
(economic collapse would jack our heg because we couldn’t fund our army anymore which would
hurt readiness/power projection)
Do not make contrived stupid reasons why your impact turns another if it just doesn’t exist (ethos
killer)
The best impact calculus explains why your impact is the most important and why it also accesses
the opponent’s impact in some way or another.
Evidence Comparisons
Warrants vs. Claims
Qualifications matter – who wrote your card? Does it cite studies?
***The Impacts***
Accidental Launch
Accidental Launch causes extinction
PR NEWSWIRE 98 [“NEJM STUDY WARNS OF INCREASING RISK OF ACCIDENTAL NUCLEAR ATTACK;
OVER 6.8 MILLION IMMEDIATE U.S. DEATHS POSSIBLE,” APR 29, LN]
Despite the end of the Cold War, American
and Russian nuclear arsenals remain on high-alert. That,
when combined with significant deterioration in Russian control systems, produces a
growing likelihood of an "accidental" nuclear attack, in which more than six million
American[s] men, women, and children could die, according to a study published in the April 30 New England Journal of
Medicine. The authors, physicians, public health professionals, and nuclear experts, will hold press conferences on April 29 in seven
U.S. Cities, including Boston, beseeching the U.S. Government to seek a bilateral agreement with the Russians that would take all
nuclear missiles off high-alert as an "urgent interim measure" toward the only permanent solution: the abolition of nuclear weapons
worldwide. "It is politically and morally indefensible that American children are growing up with the threat of an accidental nuclear
attack," says Lachlan Forrow, MD, principal author of the NEJM article, "'Accidental' Nuclear War: A Post-Cold War Assessment,"
and internist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. His study cites numerous instances of 'broken arrows' -- major nuclear
accidents that could have killed millions and exposed millions of others to potentially lethal radiation from fallout if disaster had not
been averted. "Nuclear weapons do not make us safer, their existence jeopardizes everything we cherish." Forrow adds, "We are
calling upon the mayors and citizens of all U.S. and Russian cities to join us in appealing to Presidents Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin
to end this threat by taking all weapons off high-alert status immediately." A strike on Boston would likely target Logan Airport,
Commonwealth Pier, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University, resulting in 609,000 immediate fatalities,
according to the researchers. Depending on wind patterns, says Dr. Forrow, hundreds of thousands of other Boston-area residents
could be exposed to potentially lethal fallout. Launching nuclear missiles on false warning is the most plausible contemporary
'accident' scenario, according to the authors. More than mere conjecture, this scenario almost played out to horrifying results in 1995
when a U.S. scientific rocket launched from Norway led to activation of the nuclear suitcases carried by the top Russian command -the first time ever in Soviet- Russian history. It took eight minutes for the Russian leadership to determine the rocket launch was not
part of a surprise nuclear strike by Western nuclear submarines -- just four minutes before they might have ordered a nuclear response
based on standard launch-on-warning protocols. An
'accidental' nuclear attack would create a public
health disaster of an unprecedented scale, according to more than 70 articles and speeches
on the subject, cited by the authors and written by leading nuclear war experts, public health
officials, international peace organizations, and legislators. Furthermore, retired General Lee Butler, Commander from 1991-1994 of
all U.S. Strategic Forces under former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin
Powell, has warned that from
such an attack could provoke a nuclear
counterattack that could trigger full-scale nuclear war with billions of casualties worldwide.
his experience in many "war games" it is plausible that
Air Pollution
air pollution kills 70,000 people in the U.S. every year—the impact is linear.
Roberts 2 — Bernie Fischlowitz-Roberts, Analyst at the Earth Policy Institute, 2002 (“Air
Pollution Fatalities Now Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 3 to 1,” Earth Policy Institute, September
17th, Available Online at http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2002/update17, Accessed
06-10-2012)
The World Health Organization reports that 3 million people now die each year from the effects of air
pollution. This is three times the 1 million who die each year in automobile accidents. A study published in The Lancet in 2000
concluded that air pollution in France, Austria, and Switzerland is responsible for more than 40,000 deaths annually in those three
countries. About half of these deaths can be traced to air pollution from vehicle emissions.
In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims 70,000 lives
annually . U.S. air pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer
combined. This scourge of cities in industrial and developing countries alike threatens the health of billions of
people.
Governments go to great lengths to reduce traffic accidents by fining those who drive at dangerous speeds, arresting those who drive
under the influence of alcohol, and even sometimes revoking drivers' licenses. But they pay much less attention to the deaths people
cause by simply driving the cars. While deaths from heart disease and respiratory illness from breathing
polluted air may lack the drama of deaths from an automobile crash, with flashing lights and
sirens, they are no less real.
Air pollutants include carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. These pollutants come
primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels , principally coal-fired power plants and gasoline-powered
automobiles. Nitrogen oxides can lead to the formation of ground-level ozone. Particulates are emitted from a variety of sources,
primarily diesel engines. "Smog"-a hybrid word used to describe the mixture of smoke and fog that blankets some cities-is primarily
composed of ozone and particulates.
Biodiversity
Loss of biodiversity will lead to extinction – global ecosystems are reliant on
each other
Bruce E. Tonn, Urban Planning Prof @ Tennessee, November 2007, Futures v. 39, no. 9,
“Futures Sustainability”, ln
The first principle is the most important because earth-life
is needed to support earth-life. Ecosystems are
composed of countless species that are mutually dependent upon each other for nutrients directly
as food or as by-products of earth-life (e.g., as carbon dioxide and oxygen). If the biodiversity of an
ecosystem is substantially compromised, then the entire system could collapse due to destructive negative
nutrient cycle feedback effects. If enough ecosystems collapse worldwide, then the cascading impact on
global nutrient cycles could lead to catastrophic species extinction. Thus, to ensure the survival of
earth-life into the distant future the earth's biodiversity must be protected.
Bioterror
BIOLOGICAL TERRORISM RISKS EXTINCTION
John D. Steinbrenner, Brookings Senior Fellow, 1997
[Foreign Policy, "Biological weapons: a plague upon all houses," Winter, InfoTrac]
Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and lethal chemicals as potential
weapons of mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally important difference: Pathogens are
alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not
independently engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively simple
observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a singular event. Most of
the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and
distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it
is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout.
Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by
contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For most
potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively
enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect
and therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the
other direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be
capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world
population. The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort
but not necessarily its outer limit. Nobody really knows how serious a possibility this might be, since
there is no way to measure it reliably.
Dehumanization
Dehumanization makes all impacts of nuclear war, genocide, and
environmental destruction inevitable
David Berube, professor of speech communication, June/July 1997, Nanotechnology Magazine,
http://www.cla.sc.edu/ENGL/faculty/berube/prolong.htm
Assuming we are able to predict who or what are optimized humans, this entire resultant worldview smacks of eugenics and Nazi
racial science. This would involve valuing people as means. Moreover, there would always be a superhuman more super than the
current ones, humans would never be able to escape their treatment as means to an always further and distant end. This meansends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn: "its
destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on
record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond
calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the
Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought ; beneath the menticide of
deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's next of America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xixii). While it may never be possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude
the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone . When we calculate
the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently
use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international
genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable,
any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch
has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.
Democracy
Democracy solves extinction.
Diamond -95 (Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, December, PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE
1990S,
1995, p. http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html //)
Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on
Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and
unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of
democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty and openness. The experience
of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion
do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify
their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic
insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to
threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer
better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own
citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they
value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because,
within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only
reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.
Disease
Unchecked disease causes human extinction
South China Morning Post, 1-4-1996 (Dr. Ben Abraham= “called "one of the 100 greatest
minds in history" by super-IQ society Mensa” and owner of “Toronto-based biotechnology
company, Structured Biologicals Inc” according to same article)
Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a
much more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than
HIV. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak
which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union
- they are all, according to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of
virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could
face extinction because of a single virus, deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively,
complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and
can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It is
a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history
has already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the
world. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs
into liquid - could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to
home: an outbreak of that scale in London, New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically,
it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed
happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New
York, at a recent conference. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature
isn't benign. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of
genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system. " He cites
the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. And as new "mega-cities"
are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of
human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time, infect humanity at
a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.
Economy
Economic decline  war.
Royal 10 — Jedidiah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of
Defense, M.Phil. Candidate at the University of New South Wales, 2010 (“Economic Integration,
Economic Signalling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” Economics of War and Peace:
Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Edited by Ben Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer,
Published by Emerald Group Publishing, ISBN 0857240048, p. 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict .
Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and
defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several
notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on
leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a
pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such,
exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin.
1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995).
Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power
may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined
with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the
causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level,
Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in
understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific
benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future
trade decline, particularly for difficult [end page 213] to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for
conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises
could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist
moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a
national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during
periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity
are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which
in turn returns the favour . Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to
which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89)
Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, &
Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions .
Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. “Diversionary theory" suggests that,
when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased
incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang
(1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use
of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency
towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are
generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence
showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity,
are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively
correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship
links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels .5 This implied
connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves
more attention. This observation is
not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic
interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of
this chapter. [end page 214] Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do
not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such, the view presented
here should be considered ancillary to those views.
Endocrine Disruption
Endocrine disruption causes extinction – prevents reproduction
Californians For Alternatives To Toxics, 2004, “Toxic Pesticides”,
http://www.alternatives2toxics.org/toxicpesticides.htm, accessed 9-12
Pesticides, such as oryzalin, metam sodium, simazine or oxyfluorfen, which laboratory studies show affect blood and bloodforming tissues, may be especially dangerous for persons with inherited blood abnormalities or acquired blood diseases.
Even sulfur, which is considered relatively low in toxicity, can be threatening to an asthmatic. * chemical interactions such as
synergism and other effects that are created as a result of mixing chemicals together. Research on chemical blends like those in
pesticide formulations is limited to lethal effects and acute eye and skin effects. * endocrine disruption, or alteration
to the system that regulates hormones. Although there is evidence in nature and even in humans,
damage to the endocrine system by pesticides and other chemicals is only now beginning to be considered by the
EPA for future studies and regulatory action. Endocrine disrupting chemicals often affect reproductive organs
and reproduction and they are especially dangerous to fetuses or young children. This is of particular
concern to scientists because of the threat to future survival of humans and other species. *
immune system depression. Hundreds of scientific studies of humans in agricultural areas in Canada and the former Soviet Union
found adverse alterations to immune systems and higher rates of infectious disease than unexposed populations (WRI 1996).
Studies in experimental animals prove that many pesticides have the ability to disrupt immune system flinctions following acute
and even low-level exposures.
Federalism
Federalism stops global wars
Ornstein ’92 [Norman Ornstein, resident scholar in social and political processes at American
Enterprise Institute, Jan-Feb 1992, The American Enterprise, v3 n1 p20]
No word in political theory more consistently causes eyes to glaze over than “federalism.” Yet no concept is more critical to
solving many major political crises in the world right now. The former Soviet Union,
Yugoslavia, Eastern and Western Europe, South Africa, Turkey, the Middle East, and
Canada are suffering from problems that could be solved, if solutions are possible, by instituting creative
forms of federalism. Federalism is not a sexy concept like “democracy” or “freedom”; it describes a more mundane
mechanism that balances the need for a central and coordinating authority at the level of a nation-state with a
degree of state and local autonomy, while also protecting minority interests, preserving ethnic
and regional identification and sensibilities, and allowing as much self-government as possible. Federalism starts with
governing structures put in place by formal, constitutional arrangements, but beyond that it is a partnership that requires trust. Trust
can’t be forged overnight by formal arrangements, but bad arrangements can exacerbate hostilities and tensions. Good ones can be the
basis for building trust. Why is federalism so important now? There are political reasons: the
breakup of the old world
order has released resentments and tensions that had been suppressed for decades or even centuries.
Ethnic pride and self-identifica tion are surging in many places around the globe. Add to this the easy availability of
weapons, and you have a potent mixture for discontent, instability, and violence. There are also
economic considerations: simply breaking up existing nation-states into separate entities cannot work when economies are interlinked
in complex ways. And there are humane factors, too. No provinces or territories are ethnically pure. Creating an
independent Quebec, Croatia, or Kazakhstan would be uplifting for French Quebecois, Croats, and Kazakhs but terrifying for the large
numbers of minorities who reside in these same territories. The only way to begin to craft solutions, then, is to create structures that
preserve necessary economic links while providing economic independence, to create political autonomy while preserving freedom of
movement and individual rights, and to respect ethnic identity while protecting minority rights. Each country has unique problems that
require different kinds of federal structures, which can range from a federation that is tightly controlled at the center to a confederation
having autonomous units and a loose central authority. The United States pioneered federalism in its Union and its Constitution. Its
invention of a federation that balanced power between a vigorous national government and its numerous states was every bit as
significant an innovation as its instituting a separation of powers was in governance—and defining the federal-state relationship was
far more difficult to work out at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The U.S. federalist structure was, obviously, not sufficient by
itself to eliminate the economic and social disparities between the North and the South. Despite the federal guarantees built into the
Constitution, the divisive questions of states’ rights dominated political conflict from the beginning and resulted ultimately in the Civil
War. But the
federal system did keep conflict from boiling over into disaster for 75 years, and it has enabled the
United States to keep its union together without constitutional crisis or major bloodshed for the 125
years since the conclusion of the War Between the States. It has also enabled us to meliorate
problems of regional and ethnic discontent. The American form of federalism fits the American culture and
historical experience—it is not directly transferable to other societies. But if ever there was a time to apply the lessons that can be
drawn from the U.S. experience or to create new federal approaches, this is it. What
is striking is the present number
of countries and regions where deep-seated problems could respond to a new focus on
federalism.
Food Prices
Food shortages lead to World War III
William Calvin, theoretical neurophysiologist at the University of Washington, Atlantic Monthly,
January, The Great Climate Flip-Flop, Vol 281, No. 1, 1998, p. 47-64
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful
countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid
and lacking food, would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized
countries would attempt to use their armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries
with significant remaining resources, driving out or starving their inhabitants if not using modern
weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the remaining food. This would be a worldwide
problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The
last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more
than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming
from the North Atlantic.
Free Trade
Free trade solves nuclear war and extinction
Copley News Service ’99 (December 1, L/N)
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear
winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle
apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations
join together in groups like the WTO not just to
forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in
the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some
further their own prosperity, but also to
Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past.
But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government.
Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or
philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work
together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting
down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As
long as nations
are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they
have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the
WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese
prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of
hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade,
and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex
benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In
San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential.
In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today
accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing
global
prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are
learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about
world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.
Hegemony
Leadership is essential to prevent global nuclear exchange
Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a
return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision
is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would
have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values
-- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing
cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony
by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of
another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or
hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange . U.S. leadership would
therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
India Pakistan War
India-Pakistan war culminates in extinction.
Fai -01 (Ghulam Nabi, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council, Washington Times, 7-8)
The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant
(with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous
place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and
sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the
estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear
winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary.
Japanese Re-Armament
Japan re-arm causes nuclear war
Morton H. Halperin, Director of Policy Planning at State Department, -2K [“The Nuclear Dimension of the US-Japan
Alliance”, http://www.nautilus.org/archives/library/security/papers/Halperin-US-Japan.pdf]
However, any
realistic appraisal of nuclear dangers would suggest that neither rogue
states/terrorist groups nor a deliberate Russian attack is the right focus if the goal of U.S.
national security policy is to prevent the use of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. The
most immediate danger is that India and Pakistan will stumble into a nuclear war following their nuclear tests and their apparent
determination to deploy nuclear forces. A second danger will continue to be that Russian missiles will be fired on the United States by
accident or as a result of unauthorized action. Over
the longer run, these threats will be eclipsed by the
danger that the non-proliferation regime will collapse and other states will develop nuclear
weapons. A terrorist threat should, in my view, become a matter of serious concern only if
there is much wider dispersal of nuclear weapons among states stemming from an open
collapse of the nonproliferation regime.
Korean War
Korean war causes extinction.
Africa News -99 (AFRICA NEWS, December 25, 1999, p. online)
Lusaka - If there is one
place today where the much-dreaded Third World War could easily erupt and
earth to a huge smouldering cinder it is the Korean Peninsula in Far East Asia. Ever since the
end of the savage three-year Korean war in the early 1950s, military tension between the hard-line communist north and the
American backed South Korea has remained dangerously high. In fact the Koreas are technically still at war. A foreign
probably reduce
visitor to either Pyongyong in the North or Seoul in South Korea will quickly notice that the divided country is always on maximum
alert for any eventuality. North Korea or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has never forgiven the US for coming to
the aid of South Korea during the Korean war. She still regards the US as an occupation force in South Korea and wholly to blame for
the non-reunification of the country. North Korean media constantly churns out a tirade of attacks on "imperialist" America and its
"running dog" South Korea. The DPRK is one of the most secretive countries in the world where a visitor is given the impression that
the people's hatred for the US is absolute while the love for their government is total. Whether this is really so, it is extremely difficult
to conclude. In the DPRK, a visitor is never given a chance to speak to ordinary Koreans about the politics of their country. No visitor
moves around alone without government escort. The American government argues that its presence in South Korea was because of the
constant danger of an invasion from the north. America has vast economic interests in South Korea. She points out that the north has
dug numerous tunnels along the demilitarised zone as part of the invasion plans. She also accuses the north of violating South Korean
territorial waters. Early this year, a small North Korean submarine was caught in South Korean waters after getting entangled in
fishing nets. Both the Americans and South Koreans claim the submarine was on a military spying mission. However, the intension of
the alleged intrusion will probably never be known because the craft's crew were all found with fatal gunshot wounds to their heads in
what has been described as suicide pact to hide the truth of the mission. The US mistrust of the north's intentions is so deep that it is
no secret that today Washington has the largest concentration of soldiers and weaponry of all descriptions in south Korea than
anywhere else in the World, apart from America itself. Some of the armada that was deployed in the recent bombing of Iraq and in
Operation Desert Storm against the same country following its invasion of Kuwait was from the fleet permanently stationed on the
Korean Peninsula. It is true too that at the moment the North/South Korean border is the most fortified in the world. The border line is
littered with anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles and is constantly patrolled by
warplanes from both sides. It is common knowledge that America also keeps an eye on any military movement or buildup in the north
through spy satellites. The DPRK is said to have an estimated one million soldiers and a huge arsenal of various weapons. Although
the DPRK regards herself as a developing country, she can however be classified as a super-power in terms of military might. The
DPRK is capable of producing medium and long-range missiles. Last year, for example, she test-fired a medium range missile over
Japan, an action that greatly shook and alarmed the US, Japan and South Korea. The DPRK says the projectile was a satellite. There
have also been fears that she was planning to test another ballistic missile capable of reaching North America. Naturally, the world is
anxious that military
tension on the Korean Peninsula must be defused to avoid an apocalypse
on earth. It is therefore significant that the American government announced a few days ago that it was moving towards
normalising relations with North Korea.
Liberty
Every invasion of freedom must be rejected.
Petro -74
(Sylvester Petro, professor of law, Wake Forest University, Spring 1974, TOLEDO LAW REVIEW, p. 480.)
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway – “I believe in only one thing: liberty.” And it is always well to bear in
is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Thus, it is
unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there
have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and
the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom
as a supreme value, and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then
every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.
mind David Hume’s observation: “It
Middle East War
Middle East conflict escalates to a global nuclear war
Steinbach -02 (John, Center for Research on Globalization, 3-3, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html)
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms
control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should
war break out
in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear
escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman,
Israel's current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be
conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is
widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and
other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer
needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations
and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the
threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its
weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever reason- the deepening Middle
conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44)
East
Monoculture
Loss of genetic diversity causes extinction
Cary Fowler and Pat Mooney, Rural Advancement Fund International, Shattering: Food,
Politics, and the Loss of Genetic Diversity, 1990, p. ix
While many may ponder the consequences of global warming, perhaps the
biggest single environmental
catastrophe in human history is unfolding in the garden. While all are rightly concerned about the
possibility of nuclear war, an equally devastating time bomb is ticking away in the fields of farmers
all over the world. Loss of genetic diversity in agriculture—silent, rapid, inexorable—is leading us to a
rendezvous with extinction—to the doorstep of hunger on a scale we refuse to imagine. To
simplify the environment as we have done with agriculture is to destroy the complex interrelationships
that hold the natural world together. Reducing the diversity of life, we narrow our options for the
future and render our own survival more precarious. It is life at the end of the limb. That is the subject of this
book. Agronomists in the Philippines warned of what became known as southern corn leaf blight in 1061.' The disease was
reported in Mexico not long after. In the summer of 1968, the first faint hint that the blight was in the United States came from
seed growers in the Midwest. The danger was ignored. By the spring of 19701 the disease had taken hold in the Florida corn crop.
But it was not until corn prices leapt thirty cents a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade that the world took notice; by then it was
August—and too late. By the close of the year, Americans had lost fifteen percent of their most important crop—more than a
billion bushels. Some southern states lost half their harvest and many of their farmers. While consumers suffered in the grocery
stores, producers were out a billion dollars in lost yield. And the disaster was not solely domestic. U.S. seed exports may have spread
the blight to Africa, Latin America and Asia.
North Korean War
WAR ON THE PENINSULA GOES NUCLEAR.
Africa News -99 (AFRICA NEWS, December 25, 1999, p. online)
Lusaka - If there is one
place today where the much-dreaded Third World War could easily erupt and
earth to a huge smouldering cinder it is the Korean Peninsula in Far East Asia. Ever since the
end of the savage three-year Korean war in the early 1950s, military tension between the hard-line communist north and the
American backed South Korea has remained dangerously high. In fact the Koreas are technically still at war. A foreign
probably reduce
visitor to either Pyongyong in the North or Seoul in South Korea will quickly notice that the divided country is always on maximum
alert for any eventuality. North Korea or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has never forgiven the US for coming to
the aid of South Korea during the Korean war. She still regards the US as an occupation force in South Korea and wholly to blame for
the non-reunification of the country. North Korean media constantly churns out a tirade of attacks on "imperialist" America and its
"running dog" South Korea. The DPRK is one of the most secretive countries in the world where a visitor is given the impression that
the people's hatred for the US is absolute while the love for their government is total. Whether this is really so, it is extremely difficult
to conclude. In the DPRK, a visitor is never given a chance to speak to ordinary Koreans about the politics of their country. No visitor
moves around alone without government escort. The American government argues that its presence in South Korea was because of the
constant danger of an invasion from the north. America has vast economic interests in South Korea. She points out that the north has
dug numerous tunnels along the demilitarised zone as part of the invasion plans. She also accuses the north of violating South Korean
territorial waters. Early this year, a small North Korean submarine was caught in South Korean waters after getting entangled in
fishing nets. Both the Americans and South Koreans claim the submarine was on a military spying mission. However, the intension of
the alleged intrusion will probably never be known because the craft's crew were all found with fatal gunshot wounds to their heads in
what has been described as suicide pact to hide the truth of the mission. The US mistrust of the north's intentions is so deep that it is
no secret that today Washington has the largest concentration of soldiers and weaponry of all descriptions in south Korea than
anywhere else in the World, apart from America itself. Some of the armada that was deployed in the recent bombing of Iraq and in
Operation Desert Storm against the same country following its invasion of Kuwait was from the fleet permanently stationed on the
Korean Peninsula. It is true too that at the moment the North/South Korean border is the most fortified in the world. The border line is
littered with anti-tank and anti-personnel landmines, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles and is constantly patrolled by
warplanes from both sides. It is common knowledge that America also keeps an eye on any military movement or buildup in the north
through spy satellites. The DPRK is said to have an estimated one million soldiers and a huge arsenal of various weapons. Although
the DPRK regards herself as a developing country, she can however be classified as a super-power in terms of military might. The
DPRK is capable of producing medium and long-range missiles. Last year, for example, she test-fired a medium range missile over
Japan, an action that greatly shook and alarmed the US, Japan and South Korea. The DPRK says the projectile was a satellite. There
have also been fears that she was planning to test another ballistic missile capable of reaching North America. Naturally, the world is
anxious that military
tension on the Korean Peninsula must be defused to avoid an apocalypse
on earth. It is therefore significant that the American government announced a few days ago that it was moving towards
normalising relations with North Korea.
Oceans
Ocean health is key to prevent extinction
Robin Kundis Craig, Law Prof @ Indiana, Winter 2003, “Taking Steps,” 34 McGeorge L. Rev.
155, ln
The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. "Occupy[ing] more than
[seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere," n17 oceans provide food; marketable
goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including carbon
sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic,
for millions of people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to
humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of
existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological
cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate ." n19 Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have
been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. n20 In addition, many people assign heritage and
existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to
future generations. n21
Ozone
OZONE DESTRUCTION EMPIRICALLY CAUSED MASS
EXTINCTIONS ON EARTH
Paleontological Research Institute, Permian Extinction,
http://www.priweb.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOLrp/82rp.htm
Lastly, a new theory has been proposed- the Supernova explosion. A supernova occurring 30
light years away from earth would release enough gamma radiation to destroy the ozone layer for
several years. Subsequent exposure to direct ultra-violet radiation would weaken or kill nearly all
existing species. Only those living deep in the ocean will be secured. Sediments contain records
or short-term ozone destruction- large amounts of NOx gasses and C14 plus “global and
atmospheric cooling.” With sufficient destruction of the ozone layer, these problems could cause
widespread destruction of life.This was the biggest extinction event in the last 500 million years,
and researchers want a theory that is scientifically rigorous. Therefore, all these theories are
possible but also have many faults and create much controversy in determining if it is the one
exact theory which will explain this historic mass extinction.
Protectionism
Protectionism causes nuclear wars.
Spicer -96 (Michael Spicer, economist; member of the British Parliament, The Challenge from the East and the Rebirth of the
West, 1996, p. 121)
The choice facing the West today is much the same as that which faced the Soviet bloc after World War II: between meeting head-on
the challenge of world trade with the adjustments and the benefits that it will bring, or of attempting to shut out markets that are
growing and where a dynamic new pace is being set for innovative production. The problem about the second approach is not simply
that it won't hold: satellite technology alone will ensure that he consumers will begin to demand those goods that the East is able to
provide most cheaply. More fundamentally, it will guarantee the emergence of a fragmented world in which natural fears will be
fanned and inflamed. A
world divided into rigid trade blocs will be a deeply troubled and unstable
place in which suspicion and ultimately envy will possibly erupt into a major war. I do not say
that the converse will necessarily be true, that in a free trading world there will be an absence of all strife. Such a proposition would
manifestly be absurd. But to
trade is to become interdependent, and that is a good step in the
direction of world stability. With nuclear weapons at two a penny, stability will be at a
premium in the years ahead.
Proliferation
Proliferation causes extinction.
Taylor -02 [Stuart Taylor, Senior Writer with the National Journal and editor at Newsweek, Legal Times, 9-16-2002]
The truth is, no matter what we do about Iraq, if
we don't stop proliferation, another five or 10 potentially
unstable nations may go nuclear before long, making it ever more likely that one or more
bombs will be set off anonymously on our soil by terrorists or a terrorist government. Even an airtight
missile defense would be useless against a nuke hidden in a truck, a shipping container, or a boat. [Continues…] Unless we get serious
about stopping proliferation, we
are headed for "a world filled with nuclear-weapons states, where
every crisis threatens to go nuclear," where "the survival of civilization truly is in question
from day to day," and where "it would be impossible to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists, religious cults, and
criminal organizations." So writes Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., a moderate Republican who served as a career arms-controller
under six presidents and led the successful Clinton administration effort to extend the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The only way
to avoid such a grim future, he suggests in his memoir, Disarmament Sketches, is for the United States to lead an international
coalition against proliferation by showing an unprecedented willingness to give up the vast majority of our own nuclear weapons,
excepting only those necessary to deter nuclear attack by others.
Russia
Russian civil war leads to nuclear war and nuclear terrorism against the US
Steven R. David, Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, Foreign Affairs Jan
1999
Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences for the United States and Europe will be
severe. A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled
Russian Federation might provoke opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of
refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed struggles in Russia could easily spill into
its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the
environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer
brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet communism, a second civil war might produce
another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to
loss of control over its nuclear arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear
precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and the raw material
for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the
loss of any weapons or much material. If war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will
slacken, making weapons and supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states.
Such dispersal of nuclear weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of
anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil
war.
Terrorism
Unchecked terrorism will result in extinction
Yonah
Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies in Israel and the United States. “Terrorism myths and
2003
realities,” The Washington Times, August 28,
Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of
violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact . The
internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have
entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with
its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be
debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening
international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the
root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be
justified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters"
anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of
"sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in
violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements
[e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve
national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly,
Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq,
but its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth
is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational
command and control] will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation
inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic
societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience
provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective
tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron
commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the
Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted
potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor
of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston
Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and
hard the road may be: For without victory, there is no survival."
Tyranny
Tyranny outweighs full scale nuclear war
R.J Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science @ U of Hawaii, 1994 Death by
Government http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Power kills, absolute Power kills absolutely. This new Power Principle is the message emerging from my previous work
on the causes of war1 and this book on genocide and government mass murder--what I call democide--in this century. The
more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires
of the elite, the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects.
The more constrained the power of governments, the more it is diffused, checked and balanced,
the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. At the extremes of Power2, totalitarian
communist governments slaughter their people by the tens of millions, while many democracies
can barely bring themselves to execute even serial murderers. [HE CONTINUES] Consider also that
library stacks have been written on the possible nature and consequences of nuclear war and how
it might be avoided. Yet, in the life of some still living we have experienced in the toll from
democide (and related destruction and misery among the survivors) the equivalent of a nuclear war, especially at the
high near 360,000,000 end of the estimates. It is as though one had already occurred! Yet to my knowledge, there is only one
book dealing with the overall human cost of this "nuclear war"--Gil Elliot's Twentieth Century Book of the Dead.
US-China War
US/China war over Taiwan causes extinction.
Straits Times -2K (Straits Times, June, 25, 2000, No one gains in war over Taiwan]
(PDNSS2115)
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO -THE
high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating
into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that
splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes
unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and horror of horrors -raise the possibilityof a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately
that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its
retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate,
east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the
existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the
Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own
nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase: Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General
Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time
thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account
of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was
confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to
resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war
against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that
can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed
recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan
Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International
Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the
military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as
a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilization. There
would be no victors in such a war. While the
prospect of a nuclear Annaggedon over Taiwan might seem
inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else .
US-Russian War
US Russia war causes extinction --- outweighs other wars
Bostrom 2 Nick Bostrom,. Professor of Philosophy and Global Studies at Yale. "Existential
Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards,"
38, www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US
and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial
probabilityand with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify
as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the
time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our
species orpermanently destroy human civilization. Russia and the US retain large
nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or
deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a
smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential
risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently.
Warming
THE IMPACT IS EXTINCTION.
Tickell 08 [Oliver, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction]
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Gurdian last week.
At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra . But the idea that we could
adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a
catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living
and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the
polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres.
All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and
industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's
geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to
create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather
would become extreme and
unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's
carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.
Water Wars
Water Wars cause nuclear conflict
Weiner, Prof. At Princeton 1990 (Jonathan, The Next 100 Years p. 270)
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb, then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb, the Change Bomb.
And in a world as interlinked as ours, one explosion may lead to the other. Already in the Middle
East, from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates, tensions over dwindling water
supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. A climate shift
in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the
60,000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.
Federalism